This video shows an Airbus pilot switching off the flight computers then barrel rolling an A320: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2KygSyVE58
Give me a break. This whole thing was taken in a simulator, which are *programmed* to behave how they think the airplanes will behave, using recorded data from test flights to help. Because they do not test the airframes in extreme attitudes (especially barrel rolls), they have little to no data with which to program the simulator, making demonstrations like this complete nonsense.
At 3:02 into the video you just posted, the pilot admits, "Not a maneuver you'd normally see in an airliner, and in fact you probably couldn't do it in a real airplane."
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. This video doesn't prove anything.
Any belief that Airbus pilots are somehow under the communist thumb and that square-jawed Boeing pilots would heave manfully at the controls and save the say is, um, 100% laughable.
LOL, this is the absolute definition of the straw man argument. The great-grandparent never made such a claim; just an apolitical observation that he was scared that computers fly the planes and not skilled pilots.
Stop trying to turn this engineering discussion into a US vs. Europe, Boeing vs. Airbus religious war. Your post is a troll, I'm afraid.
I'm sorry, can you tell me what goals I should set in my life? Thanks. Then you can let me know if I'm trying to achieve them correctly or not too? Or whether I've achieved enough already?
Oh, and one other thing: make sure you don't let me fail, or else you'll have to bail me out.
You are trolling and off topic. This thread is for the discussion of Intel's fine and you are trying to open a discussion of whether or not Microsoft's fine was just. That's off topic.
The grandparent is the one who brought up the Microsoft fine, using the argument that Microsoft is still non-compliant, and therefore the fine against against BOTH companies (yes, on-topic) was "not enough".
I was attempting to point out, using something called sarcasm, that this comparison of cases is specious. Intel was apparently paying companies to use their products exclusively. The EU has never claimed anything like this against Microsoft.
The other point is that anti-competition laws are written such that the burden of proof falls on the government to show that the consumer has been injured somehow. That's MISSING from this argument so far, or at least no one has reported how the Commission came to that conclusion. In that respect, this is similar to the recent EU case against Microsoft Internet Explorer.
On a side note, I'm sick and tired of "Microsoft mods" on Slashdot. Apparently conjuring Microsoft in an argument is fine as long as it's in a negative connotation. Otherwise it's a troll. Gotta love Slashdot, where apparently you're either with us, or against us!
The action against Microsoft does not seem to have hindered Microsoft's behavior in the slightest and so even though tremendously more aggressive than the action against Microsoft in the U.S., it was clearly not enough.
What behavior are you referring to this time? Including a web browser with their OS?
How dare they do that! Need to teach them a lesson again. Perhaps more record fines will ensure that they learn: they need to cripple their products. See, that will be good for consumers. Because it's certainly impossible to install a different web browser on Windows...
As for methane, who gives a shit? It's got a short shelf-life. Methane drops out of the atmosphere in a mere decade, as opposed to C02, which can hang around forever.
Apparently the IPCC and Kyoto disagree completely with you, possibly because methane gas is approximately 21 times more effective as a warming agent per unit than Co2, when measured over a 100-year period. If measured over a shorter period, its effects are even more pronounced.
So it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the methane byproducts of these goats are causing more harm than good, especially when considering that they are being marketed as a "green" solution to replace lawnmowers.
I have also heard arguments that debunk the "fact" that ruminants are so-called "carbon-neutral" animals. In many cases the plant matter consumed and converted to methane by ruminants would instead have decayed naturally (stored mostly in topsoil) or would not have been harvested in the first place (stored mostly in living plants). In the decay scenario, a portion is released as Co2 and methane by soil bacteria, but not nearly as much as is released by ruminants and ruminant manure. And when the amount is multiplied by the methane-Co2 adjustment factor of 21, it becomes clear that ruminants are clearly NOT carbon-neutral at all, and are in fact significant contributors to greenhouse gases over a 100-year period, when compared to NO domesticated ruminants.
As for Co2 byproducts of the goats, I concur that they are irrelevant to this debate.
What happened here is just that Google wasn't expecting such a huge surge in usage and had no other choice to disable for 3rd party clients for now.
It's a bit ironic that you start your post by blasting someone for reading between the lines, and then you proceed to do the same thing yourself. Unless you work at Google, you have no way to know why this decision was made.
But it's funny that you make it sound like Google is a helpless victim. How much traffic exactly pushed their feeble servers over the capacity limit only 11 days after this software became "popular"? How many iPhone users broke the camel's back?
The reality here is that Google made a policy decision, not a capacity decision. Especially since Google is one of the best in the business at scaling. This message should silence any doubt: "SMS_ERROR_10: Sorry we don't support free SMS messaging through this client. Visit http://gmail.com/sms for more info."
... Microsoft is bound by backward compatibility requirements to keep shipping OS's that are fundamentally broken and that do not allow for 32-bit apps and drivers to run out of one 64-bit OS.
Here's a run-down on Windows and Apple's 64-bit support on the desktop:
- 2001, June - Windows XP 64-bit edition for Itanium1. Microsoft's first 64-bit OS. Full OS support for 64-bit IA64 applications, minus DirectX libraries. Runs 32-bit x86 applications via "Windows on Windows" emulator.
- 2003, March - Windows XP 64-bit edition, Version 2003. Added support for Itanium2. Discontinued in July 2005 when last Itanium workstation (not server) went off the market.
- 2005, March - Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Based on Server 2003 kernel, adds support for AMD64 CPU. Both 32-bit and 64-bit applications run natively, side-by-side. Included full support for all Windows APIs, including DirectX. Dropped support for 16-bit applications.
- 2005, April - Apple OSX 10.4 "Tiger". First Apple OS to support 64-bit user apps, but only in console mode (no graphical library support). Supports G5 64-bit addressing.
- 2006, November - Windows Vista 64 (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate). First 64-bit versions of Windows to ship pre-installed on mainstream PCs.
- 2007, October - Apple OSX 10.5 "Leopard". First edition of Apple's OS to support 64-bit graphical applications.
As you can see, Microsoft has been clearly in front of Apple regarding 64-bit application support. The fact that Apple did not support graphical 64-bit applications until October 2007 is frankly embarrassing, considering that 64-bit Windows has had this support since the first 64-bit OS in 2001.
It should also be noted that Microsoft was really important in bringing AMD64 (x64) to market. Intel was dragging its feet with Itanium, issuing press releases downplaying Itanium on the desktop, stating that 64-bit computing only made sense for servers. Microsoft's David Cutler reportedly went to Intel, asking them to introduce a set of 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set. Intel refused. So Dave started working with AMD, and in 2004 the AMD64 Hammer CPU was born. Intel was basically forced to come out with an AMD64 clone they dubbed "EMT64", about 6 months later. It is unlikely that Intel would have supported x64 unless Microsoft had agreed to support the new AMD CPU. Dave Cutler reportedly had Server 2003 running on the Hammer prototype a few hours after receiving it.
You can still see a remnant of the close AMD relationship on 64-bit Windows by opening a shell and typing "echo %processor_architecture%". Hint: it doesn't say X64.