| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Next » |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-02 07:18
•
by
Rodnas
(unregistered)
|
|
More comments on the previous page ...
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-02 14:33
•
by
My name.
(unregistered)
|
|
And this is a comment.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-02 17:09
•
by
Your Name
(unregistered)
|
|
/* No, THIS is a comment */
|
|
Well, what did you expect, Stephan? Next time don't ask for a 29 dimension hypercube index.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-02 20:56
•
by
Luiz Felipe
(unregistered)
|
Its obvius that windows will not run the plane, only the videos screens and entertainment, you will not die if it crash, only will be bored. I think that neither linux is secure for a plane, only deterministic processors with real time SOs, linux is not real time enough. I think they use custom made real time SO. When you need something good, better to make you own, you can never trusth third parties, even open source. Open source software takes no warranty also, they are not liable, same as windows. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-03 06:55
•
by
Hans
(unregistered)
|
There is a new trending activity. It's the latest thing (yadda, yadda), but you really should try it out. It's called: THINKING. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-03 10:00
•
by
Ralph
(unregistered)
|
which, if anyone did that, we wouldn't have Windows. Q.E.D. |
|
Yeah, we have this a lot "Don't have my Kroger card with me", "Lost my Kroger card", even "Never ever had a Kroger card. Honest!". Yeah sure. From now on its new-gen Kroger cards with RFID.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-03 21:13
•
by
Meep
(unregistered)
|
Trending down, of course. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-04 06:57
•
by
Dave
(unregistered)
|
Sounds like we have an Internet Hard Guy here. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-04 07:02
•
by
Dave
(unregistered)
|
The Real WTF is the underendowed, didn't-quite-make-the-grade-for-the-army guys who need to buy that crap in order to feel less worthless. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-04 11:41
•
by
Ryan
(unregistered)
|
AMEN |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-04 12:33
•
by
sod
(unregistered)
|
False Fact: You are from India. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-04 12:36
•
by
AN AMAZING CODER
(unregistered)
|
Navigation versus navigation display. Your windows machine running software that wraps the output of a navigational instrument to give you some cool interactive maps is not the same thing as windows powering your navigation instruments.
Planes have higher standards than boats, being that if the computer on your boat craps out you'll just float there until your S.O.S. is responded to, versus eventually plummeting to your death in a plane. Boat captains can also use more traditional forms of navigation like the stars, since they don't have to worry about keeping a reference to the horizon while looking up. Maybe pilots can do the same, but again, they have more to worry about.
Your assetion was "if windows crashes then I can't navigate". ECDIS makes it easier for you to navigate, it's not the only way to navigate. By the way, ECDIS entails GPS, which is still probably not powered by Windows itself. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-04 13:31
•
by
Shark8
(unregistered)
|
|
[quote user="Jack"][quote user="Ralph"]
I'm sure the flight systems use an RTOS, and probably a proprietary one.[/quote] And there's a VERY high chance that OS is written in Ada. http://archive.adaic.com/projects/atwork/boeing.html |
|
Samsung sold more than 7 million Galaxy Notes within 6 months, making it nearly as successful as the Galaxy S II. In hindsight, this explains why the Pointy Haired Boss is the boss and Dilbert isn't.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-05 09:51
•
by
Luc
(unregistered)
|
|
You shouldn't see this comment.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-05 15:58
•
by
Strolskon
|
Good, I don't. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-06 11:43
•
by
Morris
(unregistered)
|
|
Dilbert is an illustration of how excessive cynicism can destroy creativity.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-07 23:26
•
by
George Boole
(unregistered)
|
You mean you use conditional statements that AREN'T true/false? Dear God. |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-08 20:34
•
by
rohmell brills
(unregistered)
|
|
You may be frist, butIU am firts.
|
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-09 10:47
•
by
not frits either
(unregistered)
|
One could call Microsoft a terrorist organisation, as they try to convince people Microsoft’s stuff is best by suggesting bad things will happen to people using competitors. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt. This means you cannot trust Microsoft! |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes
2012-06-18 09:42
•
by
Micky
(unregistered)
|
The fallback navigation for pilots tends to be a map and/or compass and/or nav beacons and/or ground help. People flew planes well before GPS was invented. Pilots are all initially taught how to fly planes without the aid of GPS. Even a 747 pilot can descend to a map for navigation if its GPS fails. In low visibility, maps don't work (but neither does navigation by stars...), but then they can use either nav beacons (if they're in an area which still has them), or triangulation by ground equipment can find them (we're all taught how to ask 121.5 for a location fix). Any pilot who would crash if their GPS failed really shouldn't be flying a plane... |
Re: No One Should Need More Than 64 Zettabytes - Galaxy Note
2012-07-11 16:56
•
by
arifsaha
|
|
I don't have a Galaxy Note, but if need to buy a phone today, it very likely be a Galaxy Note. There are nothing wrong with its size, it actually what make it better than other phones.
|
| « Prev | Page 1 | Page 2 | Next » |