The first law of internet domain generation claims that in less than a week this will probably be a registered site - I mean, how many hours did this site take?
Of course, the second law of internet domain generation claims that it has a 95% chance of being pr0n.
French nuclear testing in the pacific + easily mutated reptiles = Jean Reno as bad-ass French counter-Godzilla force leader + Hank Azaria's "You'd better step on it, Mr. French".
and a 95 Db screech will make him lose control
As somebody who works in DO178B land (I've always been curious about how the standards for automotive embedded systems differed from avionics), I will just reinforce that there is a reason every sound produced by every device on a plane must meet strict regulations for what volume, pitch, and decibel range it is capable of producing. Like you said - it's an enormous safety hazard, because in the event of an emergency, everyone gets a lot dumber than they were before the emergency started.
This reminds me a lot of Clinton's testimony about Monica Lewinsky, where his questions become more and more surreal as the questioning got deeper and deeper:
1. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the phrase "sexual intercourse"?
2. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the word "alone"?
3. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the word "is"?
My professors were of the same mind - which meant the students who weren't so hard-core in CS had problems selling books back. They had a hard time explaining to the people at the used book store that the Red/Dragon/Aluminum/Stevens books are still useful after more than a decade- some of them seem to think that if it has the word "Computer" in it, it has to be full of transient information. I still have my CLR, my AoP, my K&R, my Stevens's, and my Dragon book - and they haven't failed me yet. If only more authors wrote like them . . .
I have a friend who had to play it as a strategy game - his computer was too slow to allow him to play it tactically. His framerate was so low when he tried to interact in battles that he inevitably lost, so he just sat on the edge of the combat and gave orders.
Turns out that strategy just doesn't work after the first two chapters - you can only win certain battles with specific interactions (or if you get extremely lucky). Hence, WC3 is a tactical sim.
I think his point was that regardless of how biased or one-sided it was, print media goes farther in examining an issue because of the nature of the medium. It's easier to understand more about a single event (and key supporting events) in ten pages than in 10 minutes of TV coverage.
What Dowd fails to mention, in all of this, is that Level A certification requires a detailed specification of requirements that the system must implement. These requirements must be covered by test cases that give full requirement coverage (or appropriate analysis) and structural coverage (for Level A, it is MC/DC statement coverage). The Open Source methodology is a long way from being a DO-178B compliant process, and rightly so - the rules for change control of a Level A-certified product are the exact opposite of the "release early, release often" method embraced by a typical open source program, because the development objectives are entirely different. This does not mean that an open source program can not be certified to Level A - it means that it requires a great deal of work on behalf of the organization submitting it for Level A compliance, first.
DO-178B is the most rigorous safety evaluation standard in the aerospace, automotive, or defense industries. There is no difference in the DO-178B certification guidelines for verifying a closed-source vs. open-source application. The problem that both of them have to come up with is documentation of the process used to produce the product, along with design and architectural requirements for the application that can be independently verified for full MC/DC statement coverage by an independent third party. Each application must be shown to accomodate space (memory access) and time (real-time scheduling) partitioning requirements on any device it is run on.
Most Level A OS's are a RTOS with (if you're lucky) ANSI and POSIX libraries for I/O and math. There are companies that have modified Linux for use in real-time embedded applications, but the standard Linux scheduler is not real-time, and does not perform space partitioning of application memory (which means it can be Level E, but nothing above that). If it does not affect safety-critical parameters, it doesn't have to be Level A - Levels D or E are acceptable.
If you wanted to do a DO-178B for the entire Linux source tree, it would be pointless. Linux does not implement the time or space partitioning necessary to meet safety standards. This is mostly because the standard Linux scheduler is not a real-time scheduler, though there are a number of companies that have changed that.
Most foreign aid is done because it is in the best domestic interest of the US. Example: We'll pay for a school in the Middle East so that students don't go to a madrasa (so they don't become terrorists).
Chances are more than likely that during this time, planes will be grounded until the weather is clear for the duration of the flight. New magnetic variation maps are drawn once the field stabilizes, and aviation goes on. Planes in communication with a control tower can manually enter a makeshift heading - this happens during some heavy electrical storms, or when the magnets fail. The problem is flight over unpopulated areas (like the ocean).
Magnetic headings are usually the first fallback during severe weather conditions, and avionics companies want the maps of the variations to be as accurate as possible. For verification purposes, most companies won't rely on predictions (regardless of how accurate they most certainly are) - they want to see hard measurements based on the most current data. This is largely because these decision are made by businesses, and not science firms - but it doesn't make your point any less valid.
it would be nice to see a system with the ability to update a magnetic variation map of the world faster than NOAA (which happens about every 5 years). Most avionics navigation systems are dependent on these maps for accurate magnetic heading information, and few companies have the resources to make updates between NOAA passes. Depending on its accuracy, it could pay for itself very quickly, if it could make such maps.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - people who live in houses made of poorly-constructed metaphors shouldn't throw allegories.
Sometimes that works when you're fighting an army so ineffectual they never managed to kill a single enemy on purpose.
The first law of internet domain generation claims that in less than a week this will probably be a registered site - I mean, how many hours did this site take?
Of course, the second law of internet domain generation claims that it has a 95% chance of being pr0n.
I was with you right up to the last sentence, where your non-sequitur lost me completely.
French nuclear testing in the pacific + easily mutated reptiles = Jean Reno as bad-ass French counter-Godzilla force leader + Hank Azaria's "You'd better step on it, Mr. French".
and a 95 Db screech will make him lose control
As somebody who works in DO178B land (I've always been curious about how the standards for automotive embedded systems differed from avionics), I will just reinforce that there is a reason every sound produced by every device on a plane must meet strict regulations for what volume, pitch, and decibel range it is capable of producing. Like you said - it's an enormous safety hazard, because in the event of an emergency, everyone gets a lot dumber than they were before the emergency started.
This reminds me a lot of Clinton's testimony about Monica Lewinsky, where his questions become more and more surreal as the questioning got deeper and deeper:
1. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the phrase "sexual intercourse"?
2. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the word "alone"?
3. Could you define, for me, what you mean by the word "is"?
My professors were of the same mind - which meant the students who weren't so hard-core in CS had problems selling books back. They had a hard time explaining to the people at the used book store that the Red/Dragon/Aluminum/Stevens books are still useful after more than a decade- some of them seem to think that if it has the word "Computer" in it, it has to be full of transient information. I still have my CLR, my AoP, my K&R, my Stevens's, and my Dragon book - and they haven't failed me yet. If only more authors wrote like them . . .
What makes you think they'll only be two hours long?
Indeed - it would seem that Yellow Tag's Idea Box is veritably brimming with urine.
"Ye pays your money - ye picks yer frame of reference."
I have a friend who had to play it as a strategy game - his computer was too slow to allow him to play it tactically. His framerate was so low when he tried to interact in battles that he inevitably lost, so he just sat on the edge of the combat and gave orders.
Turns out that strategy just doesn't work after the first two chapters - you can only win certain battles with specific interactions (or if you get extremely lucky). Hence, WC3 is a tactical sim.
I think his point was that regardless of how biased or one-sided it was, print media goes farther in examining an issue because of the nature of the medium. It's easier to understand more about a single event (and key supporting events) in ten pages than in 10 minutes of TV coverage.
If you learn how to beat Alma in the time requirement, she will be the hardest boss in the game. Every other boss is a cakewalk by comparison.
What Dowd fails to mention, in all of this, is that Level A certification requires a detailed specification of requirements that the system must implement. These requirements must be covered by test cases that give full requirement coverage (or appropriate analysis) and structural coverage (for Level A, it is MC/DC statement coverage). The Open Source methodology is a long way from being a DO-178B compliant process, and rightly so - the rules for change control of a Level A-certified product are the exact opposite of the "release early, release often" method embraced by a typical open source program, because the development objectives are entirely different. This does not mean that an open source program can not be certified to Level A - it means that it requires a great deal of work on behalf of the organization submitting it for Level A compliance, first.
DO-178B is the most rigorous safety evaluation standard in the aerospace, automotive, or defense industries. There is no difference in the DO-178B certification guidelines for verifying a closed-source vs. open-source application. The problem that both of them have to come up with is documentation of the process used to produce the product, along with design and architectural requirements for the application that can be independently verified for full MC/DC statement coverage by an independent third party. Each application must be shown to accomodate space (memory access) and time (real-time scheduling) partitioning requirements on any device it is run on.
Most Level A OS's are a RTOS with (if you're lucky) ANSI and POSIX libraries for I/O and math. There are companies that have modified Linux for use in real-time embedded applications, but the standard Linux scheduler is not real-time, and does not perform space partitioning of application memory (which means it can be Level E, but nothing above that). If it does not affect safety-critical parameters, it doesn't have to be Level A - Levels D or E are acceptable.
If you wanted to do a DO-178B for the entire Linux source tree, it would be pointless. Linux does not implement the time or space partitioning necessary to meet safety standards. This is mostly because the standard Linux scheduler is not a real-time scheduler, though there are a number of companies that have changed that.
I want Christopher Walken to play everybody.
That's right - everybody! The Council of Elrond would be hilarious.
It's been done.
Most foreign aid is done because it is in the best domestic interest of the US. Example: We'll pay for a school in the Middle East so that students don't go to a madrasa (so they don't become terrorists).
Get four monkeys, four computers, four college-age programmers, one lighter and a fat sack of crack and there will be.
I'll see you down in Arizona Bay.
Chances are more than likely that during this time, planes will be grounded until the weather is clear for the duration of the flight. New magnetic variation maps are drawn once the field stabilizes, and aviation goes on. Planes in communication with a control tower can manually enter a makeshift heading - this happens during some heavy electrical storms, or when the magnets fail. The problem is flight over unpopulated areas (like the ocean).
Magnetic headings are usually the first fallback during severe weather conditions, and avionics companies want the maps of the variations to be as accurate as possible. For verification purposes, most companies won't rely on predictions (regardless of how accurate they most certainly are) - they want to see hard measurements based on the most current data. This is largely because these decision are made by businesses, and not science firms - but it doesn't make your point any less valid.
For civilian applications (which lack military precision), and in the event of GPS failure, magnetic heading will always be there to fall back on.
it would be nice to see a system with the ability to update a magnetic variation map of the world faster than NOAA (which happens about every 5 years). Most avionics navigation systems are dependent on these maps for accurate magnetic heading information, and few companies have the resources to make updates between NOAA passes. Depending on its accuracy, it could pay for itself very quickly, if it could make such maps.