Majordomo did just what the patent says. It parsed a message, determined whether it could be automatically responded to (as in subscribe, unsubscribe, list members, help, list charter, etc) or needed to be forwarded to the list owner. Majordomo did much of the list management entirely automatically, hence it's name. They describe something entirely comprised of Majordomo's functionality. Our company was using Majordomo to manage email lists in 1995, well before this patent was filed.
Clearly their intent is an "Ask Jeeves" type service that is email based. You send a support query to an email address and the server tries to guess at what canned FAQ is most appropriate and sends it.
I read the site the other day when it appeared on Hack-A-Day. At that time it was a 400w turbine at 48 volts. I hate when submittors overglamorize the title of the article to get it posted.
You're wrong. Ford bought Kia when Ford and GM were drooling over the deaths of Kia and Daewoo, both Korean car manufacturers. Ford got Kia, but Daewoo had too much debt, so they didn't buy them. GM eventually purchased portions of Daewoo, skating around the massive debt. Incidentally, look under the hood of Daewoo cars and you'll see an awful lot of stuff made by Delphi, a subsidiary of GM.
The Kia Sedona mini-van is nothing more than a Ford Windstar, even the grill is identical, they only bothered to install a different emblem.
Those big companies were tripping over themselves to buy up Kia/Daewoo because it offered them ready manufacturing facilities in the Asia-Pacific region, cutting down on costs to serve those markets.
Umm, if you want a reasonably "spec" class, AI and AIX are it. They use simple benchmarks, such as 9.5lb/HP and 2700lb minimum weight. If you don't care for that, AIX is unlimited HP.
Speedvision World Challenge used to be a "budget" series. 5 years ago a competitive car would cost you $20,000 to build. Today you aren't even having fun for less than $50,000. The cars that got too high-tech went on to Grand Am and ALMS GTS and GTO classes. Saleen's exotic Mustangs are one example, the Corvette C5R is another. Saleen fielded an SLA FR 351 (427) powered mustang with all the tricks as their main car in 2000. The "backup" car was Tim Allen's SLA front, 9" rear 351 powered car.
Given the same set of rules, companies will always figure out how to spend more money. 2 years ago the competitive cars all had in effect a tube frame chassis. Basically a beefy rollcage that supported the car, with the sheetmetal tied to it via the stock frame members. The normally necessary floorpans were cut out to save weight.
The AI series has some really simple limitations that DO keep cost down. When you can only put down 9.5lb/HP, you get limited real quick. Your min weight is fixed and you must run a solid rear axle. That pretty much cuts down a lot of the trickery that you can spend money on. A carbon fiber hood on a 2700lb car amounts to the same as a steel hood on a 2700lb car.
Your advantages are limited to suspension geometry, some wheelbase fudging, and weight distribution.
IIRC, Williams debuted a fully active F1 suspension 10 years or more ago, but the FIA got paranoid and told them to shelve it.
1 or 2 races ago, BAR showed up with a front diff in their car to prevent inside front wheel lockup. The FIA told them to ditch it and fined them. Mind you it wasn't a powered diff, and it added weight to the car. The FIA's reasoning was presumably that it was a significant competitive advantage.
So, for all of the advancement F1 symbolizes, they are stuck in their own NASCAR dark ages.
Only Trans-Am has seen any significant technology improvement. About 4 years ago they allowed teams to use EFI. At the time only 1 system was approved and it was on a non-competitive motor anyway.
This year Gentilozzi got the same power out of a 4.6l Jaguar EFI motor as he's done from 351 pushrod carbed motors (650HP). The 4.6l is looking to have a bigger upside that the 351 from a power perspective.
I personally look forward to racing series' where you can use any technical advantages you want. When everyone is "cheating" they are all competitive.
EG: Active suspension, Active aerodynamics, DOHC EFI engines, any brakes you want, AWD with computer diff control. WRC has some of these, but they are still constrained to some cookie-cutter rules. Active Aero isn't allowed in ANY motorsport series, but it has promise to prevent fatal collisions and to make cars more stable.
I personally think NASCAR is a bunch of asshats for not mandating softwalls at every track and for heavily scrutinizing rear downforce. When another car can "take the air off your spoiler", you've got some pretty stupid rules. No cars at Lemans suffer from this problem, nor F1 or any semi-literate motorsport. They should eliminate the minimum bumper height rule, which PURPOSELY kills the stability of the car, and they should allow WINGS, not spoilers. Give the damn cars some underbody downforce and you'll get stability as well as drag. Those cars run close to the same speeds as F1, but the aero is crappy.
So the major PC makers wouldn't want to make products that never fail and never require spare parts, except due to catastrophe?
Producing spares isn't their primary focus, and every RMA for stupid broken stuff is costly. A laptop that exceeds the 3 year warranty without breaking would be music to their ears, and consumers.
Your logic is flawed. It isn't "wearing out" that makes people buy new computers, it's the fact that it's too slow or old. Most computers end up surplused, just check the HUGE secondary market that feeds many multi-million dollar surplus businesses. There are a handful of long time surplus shops in Silicon valley that have derived a long history from the computing industry around here.
I worked with a guy who worked at Red Brick Systems. They made data mining databases, I'm not sure if it had RLBLOB (Really Large BLOB) support.
What you're asking for is similar to what filesystems do. The ReiserFS does much of what you want (meta data and file). Apple did much the same thing with their "fork" concept. MS with the NTFS attempted to do similar things, storing the metadata in a BTree, based off the OS2 FS.
What you have to accept is that multi-TB of data is difficult to manage. The systems which currently manage that much data are all home brewed (the effects houses being prime examples). You can even point to Google as such a system, and they have more than 40,000 computers handling this data.
The major music players don't have databases, they use harddrives. All modern (meaning that it uses a computer, perhaps with a board for human interface) music mixing systems uses disks on removable caddies. For small shops the artist just brings an HDD to the studio to store their data on. For big shops I'm sure that the disks are stored in a safe place, but removable HDDs are the way it's done.
I said "trolling" because the tone of your messages is "give it to me" instead of "what solutions do I have". You seem very set on an RDBMS, even when it's not proper for storing 2GB data streams. That's why I said syncronous sectors. If you DO make a change to the data, and RDBMS will require a read-update-replace to update a single 2GB BLOB. In a system DESIGNED for large data streams, the updates would only happen to a sector or 2. Basically a logging filesystem with metadata, and an RDBMS for keeping track of things. In essence, an SQL DB with a RAIDed ReiserFS.
You are being a serious troll with all of these comments. Please take the time to actually consider what another poster has written, rather than pointing them to some rant you wrote elsewhere.
Firstly, storing multi-GB chunks of data in an RDBMS is a fool's errand. All of the major RDBMS people frown on using BLOBs or similar constructs for storing a) a lot of small (32k or less) rows, or b) storing a lot of BIG objects. It really screws with the underlying table structures and seriously impacts query performance. I have quite a bit of experience with high volume BLOB/text retrieval and storage, and the databases aren't up to it.
The point of being an "engineer" is to develop solutions for where none exist. That's what real engineers do. Rather than hopelessly complaining about standards, go about developing a solution which doesn't depend on a feature that one RDBMS manufacturer may implement. Even if what you ask were added to the standards, the RDBMS manufacturers wouldn't all have it available in the next release. Thus, you'd latch onto the one that first had it, then lock yourself into their product. The other thing you aren't considering is that to store very large BLOBs efficiently requires a complete architectural rewrite of the RDBMS. Many companies based their designs around PHYSICAL memory pages to take advantage of the virtual memory swapping system of the hardware. We're talking about very small chunks of data in relation to a BLOB.
BLOB data is better treated like a harddisk, in sectors with syncronous blocking. That is why the poster above mentioned 40TB and 100TB arrays. It doesn't make any sense in any other context.
Using an RDBMS to keep track of sector data is the proper way to use such a search and retrieval system.
As for your backup argument, that's a strawman. When you have 100TB of data, failures are a given, so you design a system that accounts for failures. With today's 250GB drives, you're talking about 400 disks for 100TB, the solutions that he mentioned are probably based on 36GB or 72GB SCSI disks, which puts the number in the multi-thousands. You could feasibly backup 100TB of data in a 2 week period, but you'd have a difficult time due to the high rate of change. You'd have to write custom backup software to efficiently handle such a system.
I spoke to some Hotmail engineers some 5 years ago, and they said they they only did full backups because the mailboxes change so much. On top of that they spend 17 of 24 hours doing backups.
My main point is to stop screaming about what you don't have, and go make something that fills that gap. And this BS about developing new operating systems and programming languages is just that, BS.
Do some more research, it's 19.2Mbps and higher. The data rate at the camera is 1.5Gbps and then it goes down from there when compressed. The lowest quality and highest compression is broadcast.
Broadcast HDTV is allocated 19.2Mbps for 1080i (1920 x 1080 x 60Hz interlaced) The speeds go up in 40Mbps, 200Mbps, and 1.5Gbps quality steps depending on the edit level (contributor, studio, and raw).
To store broadcast 1080i, you'd need 19.2Mbps. DVD is around 9Mbps. 19.2Mbps * 60s = 1152Gbpm or 140MB/min or around 8.2GB per hour.
WTF is Slashdot posting articles with damn spyware links in them? service.bfast.com is a spyware/tracking service. The submittor could have just as easily submitted the URL to the B&N website.
It *is* up to the Slashdot editors to edit articles. Posting an article with a spyware link in it is slouching on the job!
Yes, you're a troll. Trolltech makes their money by licensing the DEVELOPER, not the end user. Sharp paid Trolltech a license fee for every copy of Qtopia that it shipped on the Zaurus. This where they make their money. The GPL solves 2 problems for them. The first is the acceptance of their products in Open Source distributions. KDE wasn't included in many distros because the licensing was "non-commercial", they re-licensed everything into the GPL/QPL for this reason. The other advantage is that the QPL permits them to roll any modifications back into their codebase. This prevents competitors from stealing their code.
Elegance Amount of work to complete Simplicity Redundancy Extensibility
I find my self working on projects that I have no expectation of future maintenance. Now, for some that would mean that they can do a simple hack and not have to worry about it. For me, it's exactly the opposite. If I'm not going to be maintaining the code in the future, I try to make it follow the 5 criteria above. The lesser amount of questions that someone has to track me down to ask, the better.
With that in mind, here's my explanation of my criteria:
Elegance. This is a subjective criteria. This is a measure of how much the design or code bristles against me. I can look at something and decide if it's elegant, or not. It really has a lot to do with how generic the code is to the application. I prefer designs that are reusable and not highly specialized.
Lazy factor. This has 2 sides, how lazy I am, or how much MORE work it will cause for me in the future. Often these Q&D solutions merely mean more work to make it right in the future. Rather than take the Q&D route, I like to put the effort in up front and be done with it. I am confronted regularly by this.
Simplicity. This really plays towards the work and elegance. The simpler a design, often the more powerful and generic it is. You're not done until there is nothing left to take away before it doesn't work. Simple is easy to understand and maintain. It is also easier to reuse.
Redundancy. How much of the work are you repeating from project to project? Wouldn't it be better if you could design a more generic, simpler system that can be reused for multiple purposes? If you and another developer are duplicating effort, that's a waste. This also plays into code quality quite heavily. If you end up duplicating efforts, you often end up writing the code differently enough that it doesn't easily get fixed, or it introduces a bug. Building generic underpinnings that have cosmetic changes are my preferred method of work.
Extensibility. This is the core of generifying. Code shouldn't be tied to one function or purpose. Look at everything as an opportunity to make it as generic as a library. This way, when management asks for new products, you can reuse the core of another project and simply change the cosmetic features.
All of these points play into Elegance. If you can integrate all of these into a project, you are often rewarded with elegance. Others will recognize it and be more willing to trust your judgement and code. It's important that the sysadmins, who will be maintaining the running of your code, trust you and have confidence in you.
When you microwave it the first time, it boils off most of the air. The subsequent microwave sessions to not boil off additional air, causing the water to superheat.
That's the practice/theory of it. It is a scentifically complete description, no. Does it warn you and provide a sufficiently technical reason, yes.
The fuses don't matter. The high energy microwaves actually destroy any of the electronics. It's very much like an EM pulse. The microwaves scatter about and will create fissures in the silicon as they tract across it. You can see this effect when you microwave a CD.
That only happens after the water has been microwaved once. During the first session, the air escapes. Once the air has escaped, the water simply becomes a superheated mass. You should refill the cup after each session.
It's simpler than you think. Charities are tax exempt organizations. This means they do not have to pay taxes on donations, furthermore, donations to such charities are tax deductable.
In essence, Bill Gates doesn't pay income taxes, what he does is pay the equivelent amount to his charity, thus garnering him a credit equal to what his income taxes would be.
It's the best of both worlds, he doesn't have to "pay" taxes, and he gets to keep his "play" money anyway. Rather than the money going to "waste", he gets to decide what happens to it directly. It really is very clever.
The COF of a tire is merely the function of the weight applied to the tire converted into tractable force. In other words, a function of weight vs acceleration that the tire will sustain. The highway patrol already has this information for a large number of tires.
You can also test the tire, and this is where the information comes from in the first place. You test what fraction of forward and side loads a tire will sustain before slipping. All of this is covered in automotive texts on racing and design.
As for the crumple factor, they can measure the amount of crumple applied to each car, get the NHTSA data for tests done on the car by the manufacturer, then determine how much force is absorbed by the crumple effect. All manufacturers must submit several cars for destructive testing before they can be sold. This information is retained by the NHTSA for this exact reason. They have data on side impact collisions, frontal offset, and others.
All of the information gathered from measurements at the scene of the accident can be used to reconstruct the exact path and speed of each vehicle, it's something they've been doing for years.
It is true that they will use the simplest methods available to them to ascertain the speed and trajectory of a vehicle. Skid marks are the simplest means in many accidents. In this case, it was a double homicide with obvious impropriety on the part of the driver, thus they can pull out all the stops to reconstruct the accident.
The bottom line is that this guy was a fuckhead. Period. He shouldn't have been going 114MPH in a residential zone.
Now, irregardless if the EDR was used or not, his speed at impact can be easily determined from the physical evidence. The EDR merely shows the level of intent by the driver. They can determine if he attempted to slow down, or hit them at WOT and continued to floor it.
They stated he was going 98MPH at impact. The fact of the matter is that if you take the mass of the struck car, the type of tire and it's coefficient of friction, and the mass of the car which struck it, you can determine speed. When the moving car strikes the one backing out of the driveway, it transfers energy into the slow one. How far the slow car is moved from it's original position and the COF of the tires will tell them how much energy transfer took place. You can determine the velocity of the striking car by dividing the energy by the mass of the vehicle.
Again, this guy got what he deserved, EDR or none. I don't like the concept of EDRs for this purpose; I have no intention of purchasing a car with one.
Actually, the MS does multitask. It uses interrupts to run timers and kick off events when the timers expire. This device uses a Motorola 68HC908, a fairly low end processor. The lowest end processor you could run linux on is the 332, which the EFI-332 uses and many GM ECMs. Really though, an MPC555 is the realistic target for such an OS. The 555 and 565 are being used by the next generation ECUs because they have lots of everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Majordomo did just what the patent says. It parsed a message, determined whether it could be automatically responded to (as in subscribe, unsubscribe, list members, help, list charter, etc) or needed to be forwarded to the list owner. Majordomo did much of the list management entirely automatically, hence it's name. They describe something entirely comprised of Majordomo's functionality. Our company was using Majordomo to manage email lists in 1995, well before this patent was filed.
Clearly their intent is an "Ask Jeeves" type service that is email based. You send a support query to an email address and the server tries to guess at what canned FAQ is most appropriate and sends it.
--Perry
I read the site the other day when it appeared on Hack-A-Day. At that time it was a 400w turbine at 48 volts. I hate when submittors overglamorize the title of the article to get it posted.
You're wrong. Ford bought Kia when Ford and GM were drooling over the deaths of Kia and Daewoo, both Korean car manufacturers. Ford got Kia, but Daewoo had too much debt, so they didn't buy them. GM eventually purchased portions of Daewoo, skating around the massive debt. Incidentally, look under the hood of Daewoo cars and you'll see an awful lot of stuff made by Delphi, a subsidiary of GM.
The Kia Sedona mini-van is nothing more than a Ford Windstar, even the grill is identical, they only bothered to install a different emblem.
Those big companies were tripping over themselves to buy up Kia/Daewoo because it offered them ready manufacturing facilities in the Asia-Pacific region, cutting down on costs to serve those markets.
IBM Thinkpad A30p
'Nuff said
Umm, if you want a reasonably "spec" class, AI and AIX are it. They use simple benchmarks, such as 9.5lb/HP and 2700lb minimum weight. If you don't care for that, AIX is unlimited HP.
Speedvision World Challenge used to be a "budget" series. 5 years ago a competitive car would cost you $20,000 to build. Today you aren't even having fun for less than $50,000. The cars that got too high-tech went on to Grand Am and ALMS GTS and GTO classes. Saleen's exotic Mustangs are one example, the Corvette C5R is another. Saleen fielded an SLA FR 351 (427) powered mustang with all the tricks as their main car in 2000. The "backup" car was Tim Allen's SLA front, 9" rear 351 powered car.
Given the same set of rules, companies will always figure out how to spend more money. 2 years ago the competitive cars all had in effect a tube frame chassis. Basically a beefy rollcage that supported the car, with the sheetmetal tied to it via the stock frame members. The normally necessary floorpans were cut out to save weight.
The AI series has some really simple limitations that DO keep cost down. When you can only put down 9.5lb/HP, you get limited real quick. Your min weight is fixed and you must run a solid rear axle. That pretty much cuts down a lot of the trickery that you can spend money on. A carbon fiber hood on a 2700lb car amounts to the same as a steel hood on a 2700lb car.
Your advantages are limited to suspension geometry, some wheelbase fudging, and weight distribution.
IIRC, Williams debuted a fully active F1 suspension 10 years or more ago, but the FIA got paranoid and told them to shelve it.
1 or 2 races ago, BAR showed up with a front diff in their car to prevent inside front wheel lockup. The FIA told them to ditch it and fined them. Mind you it wasn't a powered diff, and it added weight to the car. The FIA's reasoning was presumably that it was a significant competitive advantage.
So, for all of the advancement F1 symbolizes, they are stuck in their own NASCAR dark ages.
Only Trans-Am has seen any significant technology improvement. About 4 years ago they allowed teams to use EFI. At the time only 1 system was approved and it was on a non-competitive motor anyway.
This year Gentilozzi got the same power out of a 4.6l Jaguar EFI motor as he's done from 351 pushrod carbed motors (650HP). The 4.6l is looking to have a bigger upside that the 351 from a power perspective.
I personally look forward to racing series' where you can use any technical advantages you want. When everyone is "cheating" they are all competitive.
EG: Active suspension, Active aerodynamics, DOHC EFI engines, any brakes you want, AWD with computer diff control. WRC has some of these, but they are still constrained to some cookie-cutter rules. Active Aero isn't allowed in ANY motorsport series, but it has promise to prevent fatal collisions and to make cars more stable.
I personally think NASCAR is a bunch of asshats for not mandating softwalls at every track and for heavily scrutinizing rear downforce. When another car can "take the air off your spoiler", you've got some pretty stupid rules. No cars at Lemans suffer from this problem, nor F1 or any semi-literate motorsport. They should eliminate the minimum bumper height rule, which PURPOSELY kills the stability of the car, and they should allow WINGS, not spoilers. Give the damn cars some underbody downforce and you'll get stability as well as drag. Those cars run close to the same speeds as F1, but the aero is crappy.
So the major PC makers wouldn't want to make products that never fail and never require spare parts, except due to catastrophe?
Producing spares isn't their primary focus, and every RMA for stupid broken stuff is costly. A laptop that exceeds the 3 year warranty without breaking would be music to their ears, and consumers.
Your logic is flawed. It isn't "wearing out" that makes people buy new computers, it's the fact that it's too slow or old. Most computers end up surplused, just check the HUGE secondary market that feeds many multi-million dollar surplus businesses. There are a handful of long time surplus shops in Silicon valley that have derived a long history from the computing industry around here.
I worked with a guy who worked at Red Brick Systems. They made data mining databases, I'm not sure if it had RLBLOB (Really Large BLOB) support.
What you're asking for is similar to what filesystems do. The ReiserFS does much of what you want (meta data and file). Apple did much the same thing with their "fork" concept. MS with the NTFS attempted to do similar things, storing the metadata in a BTree, based off the OS2 FS.
What you have to accept is that multi-TB of data is difficult to manage. The systems which currently manage that much data are all home brewed (the effects houses being prime examples). You can even point to Google as such a system, and they have more than 40,000 computers handling this data.
The major music players don't have databases, they use harddrives. All modern (meaning that it uses a computer, perhaps with a board for human interface) music mixing systems uses disks on removable caddies. For small shops the artist just brings an HDD to the studio to store their data on. For big shops I'm sure that the disks are stored in a safe place, but removable HDDs are the way it's done.
I said "trolling" because the tone of your messages is "give it to me" instead of "what solutions do I have". You seem very set on an RDBMS, even when it's not proper for storing 2GB data streams. That's why I said syncronous sectors. If you DO make a change to the data, and RDBMS will require a read-update-replace to update a single 2GB BLOB. In a system DESIGNED for large data streams, the updates would only happen to a sector or 2. Basically a logging filesystem with metadata, and an RDBMS for keeping track of things. In essence, an SQL DB with a RAIDed ReiserFS.
You are being a serious troll with all of these comments. Please take the time to actually consider what another poster has written, rather than pointing them to some rant you wrote elsewhere.
Firstly, storing multi-GB chunks of data in an RDBMS is a fool's errand. All of the major RDBMS people frown on using BLOBs or similar constructs for storing a) a lot of small (32k or less) rows, or b) storing a lot of BIG objects. It really screws with the underlying table structures and seriously impacts query performance. I have quite a bit of experience with high volume BLOB/text retrieval and storage, and the databases aren't up to it.
The point of being an "engineer" is to develop solutions for where none exist. That's what real engineers do. Rather than hopelessly complaining about standards, go about developing a solution which doesn't depend on a feature that one RDBMS manufacturer may implement. Even if what you ask were added to the standards, the RDBMS manufacturers wouldn't all have it available in the next release. Thus, you'd latch onto the one that first had it, then lock yourself into their product. The other thing you aren't considering is that to store very large BLOBs efficiently requires a complete architectural rewrite of the RDBMS. Many companies based their designs around PHYSICAL memory pages to take advantage of the virtual memory swapping system of the hardware. We're talking about very small chunks of data in relation to a BLOB.
BLOB data is better treated like a harddisk, in sectors with syncronous blocking. That is why the poster above mentioned 40TB and 100TB arrays. It doesn't make any sense in any other context.
Using an RDBMS to keep track of sector data is the proper way to use such a search and retrieval system.
As for your backup argument, that's a strawman. When you have 100TB of data, failures are a given, so you design a system that accounts for failures. With today's 250GB drives, you're talking about 400 disks for 100TB, the solutions that he mentioned are probably based on 36GB or 72GB SCSI disks, which puts the number in the multi-thousands. You could feasibly backup 100TB of data in a 2 week period, but you'd have a difficult time due to the high rate of change. You'd have to write custom backup software to efficiently handle such a system.
I spoke to some Hotmail engineers some 5 years ago, and they said they they only did full backups because the mailboxes change so much. On top of that they spend 17 of 24 hours doing backups.
My main point is to stop screaming about what you don't have, and go make something that fills that gap. And this BS about developing new operating systems and programming languages is just that, BS.
Dude, I'd arrest you for reckless driving if I saw you flying down the freeway in a Geo prizm.
That car had a 1 in 3 chance of serious injury, to the driver, and nearly a 50/50
chance of serious injury to the passenger, in frontal crash tests.
Irrespective of the 4 wheel disc and 130HP engine, that car is a cheapo tin can death trap.
Umm, you aren't counting right.
That's the 50th satellite launched. That means $105m * 50 over the entire life of the GPS project.
IIRC, there are only 26 operating satellites, give or take.
Honestly though, do you believe the gov pays $105m for each satellite in orbit? There are plenty of ways for them to get their money back.
Do some more research, it's 19.2Mbps and higher. The data rate at the camera is 1.5Gbps and then it goes down from there when compressed. The lowest quality and highest compression is broadcast.
Broadcast HDTV is allocated 19.2Mbps for 1080i (1920 x 1080 x 60Hz interlaced)
The speeds go up in 40Mbps, 200Mbps, and 1.5Gbps quality steps depending on the
edit level (contributor, studio, and raw).
To store broadcast 1080i, you'd need 19.2Mbps. DVD is around 9Mbps.
19.2Mbps * 60s = 1152Gbpm or 140MB/min or around 8.2GB per hour.
WTF is Slashdot posting articles with damn spyware links in them? service.bfast.com is a spyware/tracking service. The submittor could have just as easily submitted the URL to the B&N website.
It *is* up to the Slashdot editors to edit articles. Posting an article with a spyware link in it is slouching on the job!
Yes, you're a troll. Trolltech makes their money by licensing the DEVELOPER, not the end user. Sharp paid Trolltech a license fee for every copy of Qtopia that it shipped on the Zaurus. This where they make their money. The GPL solves 2 problems for them. The first is the acceptance of their products in Open Source distributions. KDE wasn't included in many distros because the licensing was "non-commercial", they re-licensed everything into the GPL/QPL for this reason. The other advantage is that the QPL permits them to roll any modifications back into their codebase. This prevents competitors from stealing their code.
Here's my criteria regarding development:
Elegance
Amount of work to complete
Simplicity
Redundancy
Extensibility
I find my self working on projects that I have no expectation of future maintenance. Now, for some that would mean that they can do a simple hack and not have to worry about it. For me, it's exactly the opposite. If I'm not going to be maintaining the code in the future, I try to make it follow the 5 criteria above. The lesser amount of questions that someone has to track me down to ask, the better.
With that in mind, here's my explanation of my criteria:
Elegance. This is a subjective criteria. This is a measure of how much the design or code bristles against me. I can look at something and decide if it's elegant, or not. It really has a lot to do with how generic the code is to the application. I prefer designs that are reusable and not highly specialized.
Lazy factor. This has 2 sides, how lazy I am, or how much MORE work it will cause for me in the future. Often these Q&D solutions merely mean more work to make it right in the future. Rather than take the Q&D route, I like to put the effort in up front and be done with it. I am confronted regularly by this.
Simplicity. This really plays towards the work and elegance. The simpler a design, often the more powerful and generic it is. You're not done until there is nothing left to take away before it doesn't work. Simple is easy to understand and maintain. It is also easier to reuse.
Redundancy. How much of the work are you repeating from project to project? Wouldn't it be better if you could design a more generic, simpler system that can be reused for multiple purposes? If you and another developer are duplicating effort, that's a waste. This also plays into code quality quite heavily. If you end up duplicating efforts, you often end up writing the code differently enough that it doesn't easily get fixed, or it introduces a bug. Building generic underpinnings that have cosmetic changes are my preferred method of work.
Extensibility. This is the core of generifying. Code shouldn't be tied to one function or purpose. Look at everything as an opportunity to make it as generic as a library. This way, when management asks for new products, you can reuse the core of another project and simply change the cosmetic features.
All of these points play into Elegance. If you can integrate all of these into a project, you are often rewarded with elegance. Others will recognize it and be more willing to trust your judgement and code. It's important that the sysadmins, who will be maintaining the running of your code, trust you and have confidence in you.
When you microwave it the first time, it boils off most of the air. The subsequent microwave sessions to not boil off additional air, causing the water to superheat.
That's the practice/theory of it. It is a scentifically complete description, no. Does it warn you and provide a sufficiently technical reason, yes.
Superheating water
The fuses don't matter. The high energy microwaves actually destroy any of the electronics. It's very much like an EM pulse. The microwaves scatter about and will create fissures in the silicon as they tract across it. You can see this effect when you microwave a CD.
That only happens after the water has been microwaved once. During the first session, the air escapes. Once the air has escaped, the water simply becomes a superheated mass. You should refill the cup after each session.
That's what my new cloths will be after I microwave them to ensure that no RFID devices remain functional.
Don't forget to put a cup of water in there too, to prevent mucking up the magnatron.
It's simpler than you think. Charities are tax exempt organizations. This means they do not have to pay taxes on donations, furthermore, donations to such charities are tax deductable.
In essence, Bill Gates doesn't pay income taxes, what he does is pay the equivelent amount to his charity, thus garnering him a credit equal to what his income taxes would be.
It's the best of both worlds, he doesn't have to "pay" taxes, and he gets to keep his "play" money anyway. Rather than the money going to "waste", he gets to decide what happens to it directly. It really is very clever.
The COF of a tire is merely the function of the weight applied to the tire converted into tractable force. In other words, a function of weight vs acceleration that the tire will sustain. The highway patrol already has this information for a large number of tires.
You can also test the tire, and this is where the information comes from in the first place. You test what fraction of forward and side loads a tire will sustain before slipping. All of this is covered in automotive texts on racing and design.
As for the crumple factor, they can measure the amount of crumple applied to each car, get the NHTSA data for tests done on the car by the manufacturer, then determine how much force is absorbed by the crumple effect. All manufacturers must submit several cars for destructive testing before they can be sold. This information is retained by the NHTSA for this exact reason. They have data on side impact collisions, frontal offset, and others.
All of the information gathered from measurements at the scene of the accident can be used to reconstruct the exact path and speed of each vehicle, it's something they've been doing for years.
It is true that they will use the simplest methods available to them to ascertain the speed and trajectory of a vehicle. Skid marks are the simplest means in many accidents. In this case, it was a double homicide with obvious impropriety on the part of the driver, thus they can pull out all the stops to reconstruct the accident.
The bottom line is that this guy was a fuckhead. Period. He shouldn't have been going 114MPH in a residential zone.
Now, irregardless if the EDR was used or not, his speed at impact can be easily determined from the physical evidence. The EDR merely shows the level of intent by the driver. They can determine if he attempted to slow down, or hit them at WOT and continued to floor it.
They stated he was going 98MPH at impact. The fact of the matter is that if you take the mass of the struck car, the type of tire and it's coefficient of friction, and the mass of the car which struck it, you can determine speed. When the moving car strikes the one backing out of the driveway, it transfers energy into the slow one. How far the slow car is moved from it's original position and the COF of the tires will tell them how much energy transfer took place. You can determine the velocity of the striking car by dividing the energy by the mass of the vehicle.
Again, this guy got what he deserved, EDR or none. I don't like the concept of EDRs for this purpose; I have no intention of purchasing a car with one.
That's the way I see it.
Actually, the MS does multitask. It uses interrupts to run timers and kick off events when the timers expire. This device uses a Motorola 68HC908, a fairly low end processor. The lowest end processor you could run linux on is the 332, which the EFI-332 uses and many GM ECMs. Really though, an MPC555 is the realistic target for such an OS. The 555 and 565 are being used by the next generation ECUs because they have lots of everything.