ETOPS doesn't apply to 3 or 4 engine planes (yet). The T in ETOPS stands for "twin".
If this plane is a 4-engine plane like Concorde was, then it doesn't have to worry about ETOPS.
There is a movement to apply ETOPS-like rules to 4-engine planes. Right now, a 4-engine plane can continue flight on 3-engines indefinitely and 2-engines as long as it can remain airborne. These rules would change that, presumably to increase safety. Although well-meaning, there is no evidence these rules, or even rules requiring more safety equipment are needed at this time. This may change as low cost carriers enter the trans-Atlantic (and presumably some day trans-Pacific) routes and increase competition and the temptation to cut corners there.
Apple has never used Hitachi 1.8" drives in iPods. Rio did, in the Karma.
And there were no other drives available because Apple was buying them as fast as they could be made. That's the only reason. The drives were available before the iPod came out (in 2.5 and 5 gig configurations), so anyone could have got them. And anyone perhaps could have gone for an exclusive. But they didn't, Apple did. Toshiba could have made an mp3 player of their before Apple made the iPod (they made one later instead).
You're off your rocker. Even if Apple is the only one who could get these drives, that's not even Apple's fault. Any company would like an exclusive. It's Toshiba's fault for granting them one.
Apple innovated a lot with the iPod. A company that was there before Apple like Creative or Archos could have made a device with the 1.8" drive before the iPod even came out. They didn't. That's the Apple difference.
Anyway, I thought this horse got beat to death when Apple killed Mac clones. Is there really anything left to be said about Apple's willingness to compete as a commodity after that?
Is he having problems with his cell phone or his x-ray vision?
Subways work in Japan (and the US) because they put additional antennas inside the subway tunnels. They do this because there is a lot of money ot be made that way.
Do you think there's a lot of money to be made putting extra antennas inside this genteleman's house, regardless of which country it is in?
The money you are making does seem pretty good. Only one problem, it will never go up. Why? Because your hiring process works like this:
Target Company: I need to rent a pair of hands. Contract Company: I've got these hands, they can do the job for $100/hour. Then I've got this other pair of hands, they want $120/hour. Target Company: Um, I'll take the cheap hands, thanks.
It's not that you aren't worth it, it's that your contracting company's job is to offer a stable of people who do an "efficient" job for the target companies. And that means they'll always be stocking people at at entry price, and some will do as well in interviews as you.
So, your career development is somewhat limited. That's a downside next to your full-time coworkers.
All the people I know who have made a lot of money contracting have gone it alone at some point. Then your contract house isn't working against your career advancement.
I'd really recommend specializing/making a name for yourself, and then going it alone at some point. Then you can more easily raise your prices, since companies are hiring you, not your contract house.
First of all, the MPAA isn't against movies being given away on the internet. They're for the makers of the movies having the control over whether or not they are given away on the internet.
When the makers give away 9 minutes of this movie, they're advertising. When you steal someone's movie from them, you are not "helping them advertise". Okay?
Second, if the MPAA was going take notice of this, they would have taken notice when it was done before. There have been several movies where they gave away the first 9 minutes on www.apple.com/quicktime (or whatever it is) as a publicity stunt. I believe the first one was Super Troopers. And it worked greet for them, BTW. That movie made more money at the box office than a small-time comedy like that would have otherwise (IMHO).
Check the reviews. Check the tomatometer. It beats out Serenity with the broad spectrum of critics and it beats it out handily if you only go with the pros.
Great movie.
I haven't seen Serenity yet, but I plan to see that too.
Actually, Wallace & Gromit opened today and it's out doing both of them.
On the Tomatometer, Serenity is also outdone by Corpse Bride. That makes Serenity the 4th best movie in theaters right now. Seems like a pretty good time to go to theater actually, especially given how bad this year has been.
I wouldn't count on the Xbox 360 being hacked to do this, and I'm sure Bill Gates isn't going to make one of this features dependent on people learning of a hack.
"BillG: We've released the ability to stream HD-DVD to Xbox 360s. You can't output it (wink, wink), but you can stream it. Welcome to the future."
I don't expect to see that any time soon.
I have zero idea why DVD players can't output upconverted DVDs over analog. They're still just 720x480, no matter how much processing you do. And the DVD-CCA has no restrictions on outputting HD content over analog anyway.
My understanding is both HD formats will not allow you to output HD over analog outputs.
Xbox 360 doesn't have HDMI/DVI outputs, only analog component.
So I believe Xbox 360s (at least initial ones) are boned either way. Even if the streaming were possible to do, the box wouldn't be allowed to output the signals according to the agreements with the HD-DVD consortiums.
But it became largely unnecessary when optimizing compilers became available when RISC came about. A good compiler will unroll a simple loop like this smarter than you can.
Besides, on any modern machine you'll get more speed up by copying a word at a time instead of tightening your byte-at-a-time loop. Because due to the caches, you'll likely end up moving cache lines at a time over the bus anyway (assuming stuff is aligned), and so the key becomes to minimize the number of instructions needed to do it. And going to 32-bit copies cuts that down to 1/4.
All this stuff might be unintuitive to some, but frankly, case statements are just gotos with optional exits (breaks), so once you know that, this doesn't seem all that odd.
In this above post (the one I'm responding to right now). Including that I shouldn't have dumped on the moderation of the article. That was off track, I'm sorry. I should stick to the content.
BTW, it wasn't flamebait when I posted. Is it now?
How does a post that speaks of the UN levying taxes get modded insightful?
I have to say I laughed at the idea of the UN wresting control of the internet from the US in the first place. The UN doesn't have much power, and most that it does have comes from the point of US guns and G7 financial levers. I just don't see the UN succeeding here. Now, the EU has more capability to at least attempt something like this.
If you want to worry about international "government" taking money from you personally, worry more about international treaty organizations, like trade organizations and such. Those organizations have some power, they are written in to the Constutition.
Innocence? Google just pulled a world-class tax evasion scam. Where's their innocence?
When people blab about branding and how Google is a verb, I have to ask, what about TiVo? "Mom! I told you to TiVo Crank Yankers!" TiVo is a verb, and they're boned. Is your Rolodex really a Rolodex?
I don't understand exactly how much it matters that people are enjoying free toys like gmail. As the.com thing showed us, people's allegiance is related to how much it would cost them to switch away. Since gmail is a free service and competes against other free services, it is difficult for them to monetize it.
Yes, they can show ads, it's really one thing Google is best at (other than just throwing away money). But then they have to worry about the allegiance of advertisers. I don't see how pay-per-click allegiance offers any allegiance. If MS can provide any clicks at all, then advertisers will sign up with MS as well as Google. This makes it difficult to kill MS.
You know, really, we must be back in the.com days when people conflate stock performance (as in your last paragraph) with what a company does with it's customers. We're back to marketing companies and stock prices again. What could possible go wrong there?
Finally, to whack this dead horse some more, I think you're mistaken about the perception of stability of Windows by the average person. It's very stable, and I think the average user doesn't have much problem with that nowadays (death to Windows Me!). I do think there's a good chance the average user perceives Windows as virus/worm ridden though. Because, well, it is. But over 10 years, MS fixed the reliability of Windows, there's a decent chance they could improve the virus/worm resistance of it until the only significant subsceptibility left is the nut behind the keyboard.
My belief is that the #1 thing that has led to Google's ability to impact MS is really MS's poor execution lately. If Google were taking on the MS that had recently released Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE they'd be in a tough spot.
I also have to say I, for one, have no interest in running a word processor or spreadsheet in a browser, especially in Java. Oh, and BTW, Google site-licenses MS Office for their own internal use.
Read the canned response, it actually tells you to MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE DRM INSTALLED FIRST. Then they want you to install WMP 9 or 10. In other words, they are encouraging you to install their DRM.
They're not telling you how to circumvent it, they're telling you how to GET IT.
If it said to disable autorun and then use iTunes to rip it, then it'd be telling you how to circumvent it.
It's all a scam to get you into their circle of people already using their DRM system. By then it's too late.
Return the disc as defective. If you pay money for DRMed content, then the music companies will try to sell you more DRMed content. Our only hope here is to return every disc that has protection and hope the retailers stop stocking it due to the hassle. Then the music publishers will be forced to release it without DRM in order to get it on the shelf.
TFA doesn't explain what will be done very well. And what it says is consistent with the first of the two explanations I gave. "Guard pages". Perhaps they are unreadable as well as unwriteable? That refinement doesn't change the problems with either of my two methods.
Could you explain perhaps how I am wrong here? I'm thirsty for information.
There was a big story on slashdot on how it had been worked around by programs that wanted to still be malicious.
MS' support works by just checksumming the structures between blocks. If the checksum doesn't match, someone has overwritten the structure. This can be worked around if you wish to be nasty.
Sounds like BSD is putting unwriteable pages between blocks in the heap. This is impractical and/or stupid. It means you have to waste the remainder of a page (real memory) and the next page (only address space) for each block you wish to protect. In addition, unless the block is a near multiple of your page size (4K) you have to decide whether to butt it up against a block behind it (to detect overruns) or in front of it (to detect underruns).
You can beat both of these limitations by making portions of pages unwriteable instead of the whole thing. This requires making the page unwriteable in hardware and then on every write to that page, bounds checking the pointer and either doing the write at privileged level (where it will succeed) or failing, depending on the result you want. This is terribly slow, it will destroy throughput.
All in all, I think I like MS' solution the best, in terms of practicality.
Either way, it must come as a huge shock to hardcore slashdotters to hear MS beat them to a security feature. I'm sure they'll manage to block this out of their minds and return to the party line in short order.
Slashdot Mirror
It also charged this way.
It was quite efficient (>85%?), but many complained it wasn't as efficient as conductive charging.
As described by Jules Verne in 1865.
I believe the reason people don't look into it is it cannot be done.
I didn't even search for a link, but there's just too much atmosphere on Earth to do it.
ETOPS doesn't apply to 3 or 4 engine planes (yet). The T in ETOPS stands for "twin".
If this plane is a 4-engine plane like Concorde was, then it doesn't have to worry about ETOPS.
There is a movement to apply ETOPS-like rules to 4-engine planes. Right now, a 4-engine plane can continue flight on 3-engines indefinitely and 2-engines as long as it can remain airborne. These rules would change that, presumably to increase safety. Although well-meaning, there is no evidence these rules, or even rules requiring more safety equipment are needed at this time. This may change as low cost carriers enter the trans-Atlantic (and presumably some day trans-Pacific) routes and increase competition and the temptation to cut corners there.
Not below cost, "below market prices"?
If selling below market prices is illegal, how do market prices ever fall?
It's Toshiba, not Hitachi.
Apple has never used Hitachi 1.8" drives in iPods. Rio did, in the Karma.
And there were no other drives available because Apple was buying them as fast as they could be made. That's the only reason. The drives were available before the iPod came out (in 2.5 and 5 gig configurations), so anyone could have got them. And anyone perhaps could have gone for an exclusive. But they didn't, Apple did. Toshiba could have made an mp3 player of their before Apple made the iPod (they made one later instead).
You're off your rocker. Even if Apple is the only one who could get these drives, that's not even Apple's fault. Any company would like an exclusive. It's Toshiba's fault for granting them one.
Apple innovated a lot with the iPod. A company that was there before Apple like Creative or Archos could have made a device with the 1.8" drive before the iPod even came out. They didn't. That's the Apple difference.
Anyway, I thought this horse got beat to death when Apple killed Mac clones. Is there really anything left to be said about Apple's willingness to compete as a commodity after that?
Is he having problems with his cell phone or his x-ray vision?
Subways work in Japan (and the US) because they put additional antennas inside the subway tunnels. They do this because there is a lot of money ot be made that way.
Do you think there's a lot of money to be made putting extra antennas inside this genteleman's house, regardless of which country it is in?
The money you are making does seem pretty good. Only one problem, it will never go up. Why? Because your hiring process works like this:
Target Company: I need to rent a pair of hands.
Contract Company: I've got these hands, they can do the job for $100/hour. Then I've got this other pair of hands, they want $120/hour.
Target Company: Um, I'll take the cheap hands, thanks.
It's not that you aren't worth it, it's that your contracting company's job is to offer a stable of people who do an "efficient" job for the target companies. And that means they'll always be stocking people at at entry price, and some will do as well in interviews as you.
So, your career development is somewhat limited. That's a downside next to your full-time coworkers.
All the people I know who have made a lot of money contracting have gone it alone at some point. Then your contract house isn't working against your career advancement.
I'd really recommend specializing/making a name for yourself, and then going it alone at some point. Then you can more easily raise your prices, since companies are hiring you, not your contract house.
First of all, the MPAA isn't against movies being given away on the internet. They're for the makers of the movies having the control over whether or not they are given away on the internet.
When the makers give away 9 minutes of this movie, they're advertising.
When you steal someone's movie from them, you are not "helping them advertise". Okay?
Second, if the MPAA was going take notice of this, they would have taken notice when it was done before. There have been several movies where they gave away the first 9 minutes on www.apple.com/quicktime (or whatever it is) as a publicity stunt. I believe the first one was Super Troopers. And it worked greet for them, BTW. That movie made more money at the box office than a small-time comedy like that would have otherwise (IMHO).
History of Violence. (Well, until today)
Check the reviews. Check the tomatometer. It beats out Serenity with the broad spectrum of critics and it beats it out handily if you only go with the pros.
Great movie.
I haven't seen Serenity yet, but I plan to see that too.
Actually, Wallace & Gromit opened today and it's out doing both of them.
On the Tomatometer, Serenity is also outdone by Corpse Bride. That makes Serenity the 4th best movie in theaters right now. Seems like a pretty good time to go to theater actually, especially given how bad this year has been.
You're not allowed to.
As evidenced by the hack in these players.
I wouldn't count on the Xbox 360 being hacked to do this, and I'm sure Bill Gates isn't going to make one of this features dependent on people learning of a hack.
"BillG: We've released the ability to stream HD-DVD to Xbox 360s. You can't output it (wink, wink), but you can stream it. Welcome to the future."
I don't expect to see that any time soon.
I have zero idea why DVD players can't output upconverted DVDs over analog. They're still just 720x480, no matter how much processing you do. And the DVD-CCA has no restrictions on outputting HD content over analog anyway.
My understanding is both HD formats will not allow you to output HD over analog outputs.
Xbox 360 doesn't have HDMI/DVI outputs, only analog component.
So I believe Xbox 360s (at least initial ones) are boned either way. Even if the streaming were possible to do, the box wouldn't be allowed to output the signals according to the agreements with the HD-DVD consortiums.
Way wrong moderation here. Anyone actually listen to the song?
It's funny. It's also fake.
I tried this out yesterday. It offered me the same "if you like, you'd like..." stuff as Amazon does. Not really impressed.
Mapblast produces not only better directions than google maps, but it also draws them better (See their line-drive directions).
Google has a lot of catching up to do.
But it became largely unnecessary when optimizing compilers became available when RISC came about. A good compiler will unroll a simple loop like this smarter than you can.
Besides, on any modern machine you'll get more speed up by copying a word at a time instead of tightening your byte-at-a-time loop. Because due to the caches, you'll likely end up moving cache lines at a time over the bus anyway (assuming stuff is aligned), and so the key becomes to minimize the number of instructions needed to do it. And going to 32-bit copies cuts that down to 1/4.
All this stuff might be unintuitive to some, but frankly, case statements are just gotos with optional exits (breaks), so once you know that, this doesn't seem all that odd.
In this above post (the one I'm responding to right now). Including that I shouldn't have dumped on the moderation of the article. That was off track, I'm sorry. I should stick to the content.
BTW, it wasn't flamebait when I posted. Is it now?
How does a post that speaks of the UN levying taxes get modded insightful?
I have to say I laughed at the idea of the UN wresting control of the internet from the US in the first place. The UN doesn't have much power, and most that it does have comes from the point of US guns and G7 financial levers. I just don't see the UN succeeding here. Now, the EU has more capability to at least attempt something like this.
If you want to worry about international "government" taking money from you personally, worry more about international treaty organizations, like trade organizations and such. Those organizations have some power, they are written in to the Constutition.
Innocence? Google just pulled a world-class tax evasion scam. Where's their innocence?
.com thing showed us, people's allegiance is related to how much it would cost them to switch away. Since gmail is a free service and competes against other free services, it is difficult for them to monetize it.
.com days when people conflate stock performance (as in your last paragraph) with what a company does with it's customers. We're back to marketing companies and stock prices again. What could possible go wrong there?
When people blab about branding and how Google is a verb, I have to ask, what about TiVo? "Mom! I told you to TiVo Crank Yankers!" TiVo is a verb, and they're boned. Is your Rolodex really a Rolodex?
I don't understand exactly how much it matters that people are enjoying free toys like gmail. As the
Yes, they can show ads, it's really one thing Google is best at (other than just throwing away money). But then they have to worry about the allegiance of advertisers. I don't see how pay-per-click allegiance offers any allegiance. If MS can provide any clicks at all, then advertisers will sign up with MS as well as Google. This makes it difficult to kill MS.
You know, really, we must be back in the
Finally, to whack this dead horse some more, I think you're mistaken about the perception of stability of Windows by the average person. It's very stable, and I think the average user doesn't have much problem with that nowadays (death to Windows Me!). I do think there's a good chance the average user perceives Windows as virus/worm ridden though. Because, well, it is. But over 10 years, MS fixed the reliability of Windows, there's a decent chance they could improve the virus/worm resistance of it until the only significant subsceptibility left is the nut behind the keyboard.
My belief is that the #1 thing that has led to Google's ability to impact MS is really MS's poor execution lately. If Google were taking on the MS that had recently released Windows 2000 and Windows 98SE they'd be in a tough spot.
I also have to say I, for one, have no interest in running a word processor or spreadsheet in a browser, especially in Java. Oh, and BTW, Google site-licenses MS Office for their own internal use.
Read the canned response, it actually tells you to MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE DRM INSTALLED FIRST. Then they want you to install WMP 9 or 10. In other words, they are encouraging you to install their DRM.
They're not telling you how to circumvent it, they're telling you how to GET IT.
If it said to disable autorun and then use iTunes to rip it, then it'd be telling you how to circumvent it.
It's all a scam to get you into their circle of people already using their DRM system. By then it's too late.
Return the disc as defective. If you pay money for DRMed content, then the music companies will try to sell you more DRMed content. Our only hope here is to return every disc that has protection and hope the retailers stop stocking it due to the hassle. Then the music publishers will be forced to release it without DRM in order to get it on the shelf.
Here's the thing: it's not a DVD. It's probably not even in MPEG-2 format (WMV9 instead).
It's a 12cm piece of plastic, the similarity to a DVD ends there. It might as well be a CD, or a GD-ROM.
The key to this in the article where it says that the DVD will arrive next with along with special DVD players required to play it.
Only took you one sentence.
I'm sure that senators aren't quite as smart as you, but I bet they could do it in two sentences, or perhaps one run-on.
And I'm not trolling or insinuating anything, I'm genuinely asking.
Does TWiki even use taintperl? Not that that provides much more than minimal security help anyway.
TFA doesn't explain what will be done very well. And what it says is consistent with the first of the two explanations I gave. "Guard pages". Perhaps they are unreadable as well as unwriteable? That refinement doesn't change the problems with either of my two methods.
Could you explain perhaps how I am wrong here? I'm thirsty for information.
And updated it in Service Pack 2.
There was a big story on slashdot on how it had been worked around by programs that wanted to still be malicious.
MS' support works by just checksumming the structures between blocks. If the checksum doesn't match, someone has overwritten the structure. This can be worked around if you wish to be nasty.
Sounds like BSD is putting unwriteable pages between blocks in the heap. This is impractical and/or stupid. It means you have to waste the remainder of a page (real memory) and the next page (only address space) for each block you wish to protect. In addition, unless the block is a near multiple of your page size (4K) you have to decide whether to butt it up against a block behind it (to detect overruns) or in front of it (to detect underruns).
You can beat both of these limitations by making portions of pages unwriteable instead of the whole thing. This requires making the page unwriteable in hardware and then on every write to that page, bounds checking the pointer and either doing the write at privileged level (where it will succeed) or failing, depending on the result you want. This is terribly slow, it will destroy throughput.
All in all, I think I like MS' solution the best, in terms of practicality.
Either way, it must come as a huge shock to hardcore slashdotters to hear MS beat them to a security feature. I'm sure they'll manage to block this out of their minds and return to the party line in short order.
Look at the lawsuit to perhaps change your mind on that.
But I had one (GSM) for almost a month, and it failed to work correctly at least twice a week during that time.
I understand the new firmware is better, but I dumped mine before it came out.
The phone has a lot of positive attributes, but the quality is too poor to use day-to-day.