Which one is the Republican, again? While I realize that Herb Kohl might as well be a Republican (based on his voting patterns and policy initiatives), Russ Feingold is more Democrat than most Democrats.
The A380 is designed to allow boarding and deboarding at the same time, via multiple entrances and exits (there are six doors on each side of an A380). All classes board/deboard at the same time. A complete, full load passenger turnover has averaged about 1.5 hours during testing - the ideal time is one hour.
There's also the point that most airports in the world can't handle an aircraft that large which limits the possible routes the aircraft can fly.
The A380 can be reasonably accomodated at any airport that can support a 777 - this was one of its first design features. Current flight plans for A380 deployment do not include planned stops in the US anywhere but on coastal cities (Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York being the first three that spring to mind), since US companies have little to no interest in purchasing an expensive, high-capacity plane for their markets.
The air travel markets in Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East are the ones which will determine the success of the plane, since that is where the majority of the planes have been purchased.
But not in USA - This is not entirely true, since there are already two US companies with firm orders (FedEx and UPS, for 10 A380's each in cargo freighter configuration). The vast majority of A380 purchases are not made by European companies, they are made by Middle Eastern, Asian, and Oceanic companies. The first A380 delivery will be to Singapore Air, and the largest order (of 43 A380's) is being made to Emirates.
Being homosexual is not an unchangeable physical characteristic. It is a desire and a way of thinking which may or may not be linked to genetics. We do not know conclusively yet.
So in the abscence of conclusive evidence, which may never be available, you have chosen to treat homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. What happens if your decision is wrong? What is your stance if incontrovertible evidence is provided that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic of a person's psyche?
Also, unlike race and color, you have to get to know someone to realize they are gay.
There are many people who can "pass" for white. This does not mean they do not identify as black, hispanic, asian, or another race based on their ancestry. People do not walk around with a copy of their family tree on their foreheads.
Perhaps second in importance (behind this offensive cheaping of the Civil Rights Movement) is that your sexuality, hetero or homo has zero place at work. Zero. None. If you walk in the office and show, "Strait Pride," or "Gays Represent," you are harassing others around you and can be charged with intimidation and threatening and, depending on how good your lawer is, sexual harassment.
In a perfect world, that would absolutely be the case - because people should not be having conversations about these matters at work. If there was an employee who was constantly flaunting their sexuality at work (straight or gay, because either is distasteful), that would be grounds for termination. There should be nothing wrong with a simple right to tastefully express your sexuality at work - many straight employees have pictures of their husbands/wives/families at work, and there should be no reason for a homosexual employee to have a picture of their significant other. This is similar to the reasoning why Christians should be allowed to have a Bible at work, as Muslims should be allowed to have a copy of the Qu'ran. Religion, race, gender, disability, and national origin have nothing to do with your work either, but we have chosen to legally protect people based on these characteristics because they can be used to unjustly discriminate between employees based on the way they live their lives. They have no place in a work environment, but I have yet to observe a perfect work environment where everybody is treated and interacted with based solely on the content of their work performance. Some people who believe that a coworker is gay (with or without evidence, with or without a conversation) will treat that coworker differently. You are still allowed to discriminate against hiring or promoting somebody because they are always late, have substandard workplace performance, or do not adhere to the ethical standards of your company - that is your right. When you make decisions because you "know" gay people are your moral inferiors and a health insurance risk, it is no different in not promoting an hispanic worker because "you know" they are lazy.
This was the same logic used to forbid interracial marriage ("black people have the same rights as white people - to marry a member of their own race"). Laws for the "separate but equal" treatment of individual gruops has not withstood scrutiny by SCOTUS.
For the purpose of all ethical discussions at a pragmatic level, free will (or the functional illusion thereof) must be be assumed as an axiom. Otherwise you will spend the whole time debating whether or not somebody has free will, sidelining the conversation.
Finally, every store owner reserves the right to refuse the sale to anyone for any reason (read the fine print somewhere in the corner.)
In the US, that is not true - you may refuse service to anybody provided that your decision is not based on the customer's age, race, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, or physical disability. Some states have included sexual orientation in this list as well.
Politics is neither theater nor football. Politics is about responsible governance, and passing laws and regulations in the interest of the politican's constituency. The game that you are referring to that masquerades as politics is just a dangerous diversion that distracts people from the original role they were supposed to play in the political arena.
Except that the crusades were not motivated by Christian ideology; Christian ideology is just the most convenient smokescreen for the barbarism of the Crusades. "We must convert the heathens and recover the holy land" sounds a lot better than "we want all their stuff, so let's kill them and take it".
You're making a pretty big leap saying that Whole Foods wants to scare you into buying their food, when Whole Goods specifically caters to people with special dietary wants and needs. The price of their food reflects the fact that they make a lot of it themselves, seeing as how if it was generally available, you could buy it anywhere for a more affordable price. Most people aren't glutamate sensitive, but most people aren't allergic to gluten or lactose either.
The question is whether you will be able to get access to source code 5+ years from now. Depending on the embedded application you're designing, the lifecycle of the product can be decades - water/sewer valve control systems are a good example of an embedded system that can work without catastrophic failure for 40-50 years. Code maintenance issues are amplified significantly when all of the developers who originally worked on a project are dead. This is the main reason why most embedded applications (up until about a decade ago) ran off of home-grown OS's designed specifically for that system - many still do (my current project, for example). These concerns about maintainability are amplified even more when a product must be certified for safety-critical, fault-tolerant, or fail-safe capabilities.
There are COTS embedded OS's that can serve in a clinch to save on development time - Green Hills and QNX being the two standard answers I'm familiar with. These companies have a better track record for source access and API work than most, because that's what their core business is - maintaining and certifying OS's for embedded programs work.
A blog is what you make it - some people want to be serious writers, and some don't. When I joined LJ in 2002, it was the best of breed free blogging program. People have been flocking to it as the other free sites went under; these are usually people who can't afford to (or just won't) pay for a program like MT, aren't technically savvy enough to write their own blogging system, or know lots of people on LJ.
the old "my special login has a backdoor, and my gcc detects when I'm compiling login, and puts the exploit it, and my gcc detects when gcc is compiling, and puts the exploit into gcc" trick
Ah, yes - the classic "Reflections on Trusting Trust" trick. Scary how often that never gets mentioned when it should be - so kudos to you for bringing it up.
Of course the collisions exist - the point is that the person doing it sleeps easier at night. Security is not an algorithm or a product, it's a way of life. Until somebody comes up with a more collision-proof algorithm, I think the solution is a pretty good stop-gap.
EAL7 does not seem to require mathematical provability, only a high degree of formal testing and process to support the security policy stated for the product - independent penetration testing is required for areas of high concern.
You can order a copy of the DO-178B guidelines from RTCA (the publisher), although the standards make about as much sense as the standards for NASA or the FDA.
The comparison is not a valid one, as the operating systems are designed for entirely different purposes - stock Linux is not even a hard RTOS, and has no requirements or process documentation, which means it's not even a candidate for certification under DO178-B. The claim of Linux being less secure, safe, or stable rests entirely on which version of Linux you are talking about. There are DO-178B Level A compliant versions of Linux on the market, as there are Level A compliant versions of Windows CE and the fine INTEGRITY operating system that Green Hills makes.
I would disagree with the assertion that Level A compliance is a guarantee of security - it means partitioning integrity is confirmed with full structural coverage to the MC/DC level(and requirements-based coverage), but that is not a measure of security. There are stricter standards for correctness and reliability than MC/DC statement coverage, like the proofs of correctness (or expanded-state model checking verification) used to verify cryptographic algorithms. It's definitely a good start, but it isn't the end.
Ultimately, I agree with most of what you're saying, but the specialized nature of safety-critical design does not broaden well for comparison across the board.
Slashdot Mirror
Which one is the Republican, again? While I realize that Herb Kohl might as well be a Republican (based on his voting patterns and policy initiatives), Russ Feingold is more Democrat than most Democrats.
The A380 is designed to allow boarding and deboarding at the same time, via multiple entrances and exits (there are six doors on each side of an A380). All classes board/deboard at the same time. A complete, full load passenger turnover has averaged about 1.5 hours during testing - the ideal time is one hour.
There's also the point that most airports in the world can't handle an aircraft that large which limits the possible routes the aircraft can fly.
The A380 can be reasonably accomodated at any airport that can support a 777 - this was one of its first design features. Current flight plans for A380 deployment do not include planned stops in the US anywhere but on coastal cities (Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York being the first three that spring to mind), since US companies have little to no interest in purchasing an expensive, high-capacity plane for their markets.
The air travel markets in Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East are the ones which will determine the success of the plane, since that is where the majority of the planes have been purchased.
But not in USA - This is not entirely true, since there are already two US companies with firm orders (FedEx and UPS, for 10 A380's each in cargo freighter configuration). The vast majority of A380 purchases are not made by European companies, they are made by Middle Eastern, Asian, and Oceanic companies. The first A380 delivery will be to Singapore Air, and the largest order (of 43 A380's) is being made to Emirates.
So in the abscence of conclusive evidence, which may never be available, you have chosen to treat homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. What happens if your decision is wrong? What is your stance if incontrovertible evidence is provided that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic of a person's psyche?
There are many people who can "pass" for white. This does not mean they do not identify as black, hispanic, asian, or another race based on their ancestry. People do not walk around with a copy of their family tree on their foreheads.
In a perfect world, that would absolutely be the case - because people should not be having conversations about these matters at work. If there was an employee who was constantly flaunting their sexuality at work (straight or gay, because either is distasteful), that would be grounds for termination. There should be nothing wrong with a simple right to tastefully express your sexuality at work - many straight employees have pictures of their husbands/wives/families at work, and there should be no reason for a homosexual employee to have a picture of their significant other. This is similar to the reasoning why Christians should be allowed to have a Bible at work, as Muslims should be allowed to have a copy of the Qu'ran. Religion, race, gender, disability, and national origin have nothing to do with your work either, but we have chosen to legally protect people based on these characteristics because they can be used to unjustly discriminate between employees based on the way they live their lives. They have no place in a work environment, but I have yet to observe a perfect work environment where everybody is treated and interacted with based solely on the content of their work performance. Some people who believe that a coworker is gay (with or without evidence, with or without a conversation) will treat that coworker differently. You are still allowed to discriminate against hiring or promoting somebody because they are always late, have substandard workplace performance, or do not adhere to the ethical standards of your company - that is your right. When you make decisions because you "know" gay people are your moral inferiors and a health insurance risk, it is no different in not promoting an hispanic worker because "you know" they are lazy.
This was the same logic used to forbid interracial marriage ("black people have the same rights as white people - to marry a member of their own race"). Laws for the "separate but equal" treatment of individual gruops has not withstood scrutiny by SCOTUS.
For the purpose of all ethical discussions at a pragmatic level, free will (or the functional illusion thereof) must be be assumed as an axiom. Otherwise you will spend the whole time debating whether or not somebody has free will, sidelining the conversation.
yes i pulled that number from my ass
I wouldn't worry about flouting numerical integrity - you're well within tolerance for the 78.26% of statistics that are made up on the spot.
Finally, every store owner reserves the right to refuse the sale to anyone for any reason (read the fine print somewhere in the corner.)
In the US, that is not true - you may refuse service to anybody provided that your decision is not based on the customer's age, race, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, or physical disability. Some states have included sexual orientation in this list as well.
Politics is neither theater nor football. Politics is about responsible governance, and passing laws and regulations in the interest of the politican's constituency. The game that you are referring to that masquerades as politics is just a dangerous diversion that distracts people from the original role they were supposed to play in the political arena.
I don't know if I want a Turing-complete lavatory, but you've definitely got me thinking . . .
Except that the crusades were not motivated by Christian ideology; Christian ideology is just the most convenient smokescreen for the barbarism of the Crusades. "We must convert the heathens and recover the holy land" sounds a lot better than "we want all their stuff, so let's kill them and take it".
You're making a pretty big leap saying that Whole Foods wants to scare you into buying their food, when Whole Goods specifically caters to people with special dietary wants and needs. The price of their food reflects the fact that they make a lot of it themselves, seeing as how if it was generally available, you could buy it anywhere for a more affordable price. Most people aren't glutamate sensitive, but most people aren't allergic to gluten or lactose either.
Get a hand-powered lawnmower. They're far more efficient than the push mowers of the 1950's and 60's.
Except that they ARE, that would be a valid disagreement.
The question is whether you will be able to get access to source code 5+ years from now. Depending on the embedded application you're designing, the lifecycle of the product can be decades - water/sewer valve control systems are a good example of an embedded system that can work without catastrophic failure for 40-50 years. Code maintenance issues are amplified significantly when all of the developers who originally worked on a project are dead. This is the main reason why most embedded applications (up until about a decade ago) ran off of home-grown OS's designed specifically for that system - many still do (my current project, for example). These concerns about maintainability are amplified even more when a product must be certified for safety-critical, fault-tolerant, or fail-safe capabilities.
There are COTS embedded OS's that can serve in a clinch to save on development time - Green Hills and QNX being the two standard answers I'm familiar with. These companies have a better track record for source access and API work than most, because that's what their core business is - maintaining and certifying OS's for embedded programs work.
A blog is what you make it - some people want to be serious writers, and some don't. When I joined LJ in 2002, it was the best of breed free blogging program. People have been flocking to it as the other free sites went under; these are usually people who can't afford to (or just won't) pay for a program like MT, aren't technically savvy enough to write their own blogging system, or know lots of people on LJ.
Svankmeyer deserves to be better known as a filmmaker - you're absolutely right.
I believe the term they use in Silicon Valley (and Cryptonomicon) is "Fuck You Money". The Economist's current estimate is about $10 million.
Ah, yes - the classic "Reflections on Trusting Trust" trick. Scary how often that never gets mentioned when it should be - so kudos to you for bringing it up.
Of course the collisions exist - the point is that the person doing it sleeps easier at night. Security is not an algorithm or a product, it's a way of life. Until somebody comes up with a more collision-proof algorithm, I think the solution is a pretty good stop-gap.
EAL7 does not seem to require mathematical provability, only a high degree of formal testing and process to support the security policy stated for the product - independent penetration testing is required for areas of high concern.
You can order a copy of the DO-178B guidelines from RTCA (the publisher), although the standards make about as much sense as the standards for NASA or the FDA.
The comparison is not a valid one, as the operating systems are designed for entirely different purposes - stock Linux is not even a hard RTOS, and has no requirements or process documentation, which means it's not even a candidate for certification under DO178-B. The claim of Linux being less secure, safe, or stable rests entirely on which version of Linux you are talking about. There are DO-178B Level A compliant versions of Linux on the market, as there are Level A compliant versions of Windows CE and the fine INTEGRITY operating system that Green Hills makes.
I would disagree with the assertion that Level A compliance is a guarantee of security - it means partitioning integrity is confirmed with full structural coverage to the MC/DC level(and requirements-based coverage), but that is not a measure of security. There are stricter standards for correctness and reliability than MC/DC statement coverage, like the proofs of correctness (or expanded-state model checking verification) used to verify cryptographic algorithms. It's definitely a good start, but it isn't the end.
Ultimately, I agree with most of what you're saying, but the specialized nature of safety-critical design does not broaden well for comparison across the board.
Just one, and there was this Spanish chap looking for him . . .