gvpme.com

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, the San Jose, California-based joint venture of Japanese storage vendor Hitachi and U.S. technology giant IBM, has set a new record for storage density at 230 gigabits per square inch (Gb/in²). The company has developed technology to implement a recording method known as perpendicular recording, which allowed the increase in density above the current ~130 Gb/in² limit.

Techworld claims there is a race between Hitachi and Toshiba for who will get the first drives to market which use the technology. According to Hitachi, they expect, “to ship [their] first perpendicular recording product in 2005 on a 2.5-inch hard drive”. Toshiba is also planning to ship a drive in 2005 that uses perpendicular recording.

According to Techworld, Toshiba will ship an 80 GB, 1.8″ drive in 2005. Toshiba’s 1.8″ drives are used in portable electronic devices such as Apple’s iPod, which is currently available in sizes 60 GB and smaller.

While all commercially available hard drives to date use longitudinal recording, perpendicular recording has roots in research done in academic circles over 100 years ago.

Hitachi Tech has produced a Flash animation that explains the rudiments of perpendicular recording in a music-video style.

Inspired by the 1970s Schoolhouse Rock series of educational animation shorts, the flash movie features whimsical moments with data bits and disk platters that speak and sing (not possible with today’s technology), it also contains realistic details. Of no importance to the viewer, but perhaps of interest to some, the animation shows Texas Instruments’ UC5608DWP chips visible briefly in the background. While TI’s UC5608DWP 18-line SCSI terminator chips have been made obsolete by the new UCC5618, the chips are indeed designed for use in hard drives.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

A joint research team from the University of Calgary, American Museum of Natural History, and Florida State University announced on Monday that the eggs of non-avian dinosaurs such as the duck-billed dinosaur took as long as six months to hatch, far longer than had previously been believed.

Bird eggs incubate for 11 to 85 days, about half the time of most other egg-laying vertebrates. Scientists had thought dinosaur eggs were more like those of modern birds than modern reptiles, but this long hatch time is far more reminiscent of monitor lizard than magpie.

The scientists reached this conclusion by comparing CT scans of the teeth of dinosaur embryos of two different species, the Protoceratops andrewsi, which had eggs weighing under 200 grams, and Hypacrosaurus stebingeri, a type of duck-billed dinosaur that had eggs twenty times that size. They observed the von Ebner lines, patterns that form in vertebrate teeth as they grow, to determine how long the overall developmental process was taking. “They’re kind of like tree rings, but they’re put down daily,” said Florida State University co-author Gregory Erickson. “And so we could literally count them to see how long each dinosaur had been developing.” They found the Protoceratops embryo was about three months old and the Hypacrosaurus about six months.

According to the research team, this may be one reason why dinosaurs did not recover after the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 65 million years ago. Both the eggs and any parents guarding them would have drawn the attention of predators and been unable to flee floods or other problems. Guardians might not have been able to move far to find food. This, researchers say, would have put dinosaurs at a disadvantage over animals with quicker-hatching eggs and their mammalian competitors.

Natural History Museum Curator and study co-author Mark Norell cites advances in imaging technology as the reason why this study is being published today: “We know very little about dinosaur embryology, yet it relates to so many aspects of development, life history, and evolution, [b]ut with the help of advanced tools like CT scanners and high-resolution microscopy, we’re making discoveries that we couldn’t have imagined 20 years ago.”

The research team plans to study more fossilized dinosaur embryo skeletons to confirm their findings. Specifically, the current study did not include the skeleton of a velociraptor or any other dinosaur considered closely related to birds.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Buffalo, New York —The city’s Common Council met in Council Chambers today with a full agenda. Among the items in the agenda was the Elmwood Village Hotel proposal.

The Elmwood Village Hotel is a proposed hotel by Savarino Construction Services Corporation and is designed by architect Karl Frizlen of the Frizlen Group. It is to be placed on the corner of Elmwood and Forest Avenues in Buffalo and will require the demolition of at least five properties (1109-1121 Elmwood).

During the hour-and-a-half meeting, the Common Council approved the hotel proposal. The entire voting process for the proposal took less than two minutes, and the public was not allowed to speak. The Council voted unanimously in support of the proposal; however, the city’s Planning Board must also approve the proposal. The Board will meet on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 8:00 a.m. on the 9th floor of City Hall, room 902.

The approval allows for the rezoning of all five properties, including 605 Forest, to a “special development plan,” or a C-2 zone.

“There is a ‘special development plan’ in front of the council, which changes only one thing about the zoning. It allows one permitted use — for just a hotel. The rest of the zoning remains as it is under the current Elmwood Business District zoning. 605 and 607 Forest are not required for the project. They are not part of the footprint for the project. Let me answer this question again. This is on the record, in council: 605 needs to be rezoned in order to facilitate the project because of the sideyard requirement. Anything in C-2 is excluded besides the hotel. So we’ve taken the C-2 and included the hotel as a permitted use, and excluded everything else, and everything else remains the same,” Eva Hassett, Vice President of Savarino Consrtruction, said to Wikinews during a public meeting on March 16, 2006.

However, during the same meeting, Pano Georgiadis, owner of 605 Forest and owner of Pano’s Restaurant on Elmwood, threatened to “sue” Savarino Construction saying, “If you try to get a variance to change the code, I will sue you. This is my home, number one.”

Savarino Construction hopes to break ground this Summer.

Despite the Council’s approval, organizers have scheduled another protest that will be held this Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. on Forest and Elmwood.

Some citizens are even considering legal action and are considering an “injunction in State Supreme Court,” going “pro se, meaning I am going to present the case myself,” said Clarence Carnahan, a concerned citizen and local business owner who is opposed to the hotel, to Wikinews.

Carnahan wrote a “notice of cease and desist” which was also presented to the Council at today’s meeting.

Patty Morris, co-owner of Don Apparel with Nancy Pollina, said, “We are going to fight the good fight to the bitter end, but we cannot afford it [legal action]. Now it’s a legal matter, and it’s in the hands of the law, and I know there are some people very interested in hiring a lawyer.”

Nancy Pollina says that she is “looking into a defense fund” and is currently talking to lawyers.

==Related Wikinews==

• “Citizens protest Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal” — Wikinews, March 20, 2006
• “Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal threatened by possible lawsuit” — Wikinews, March 16, 2006
• “Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal delayed further” — Wikinews, March 10, 2006
• “No hotel previously on site of proposed Buffalo, N.Y. hotel location” — Wikinews, March 4, 2006
• “City Planning Board postpones decision on Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal” — Wikinews, March 2, 2006
• “Residents and business owners attend “private” meeting on Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal” — Wikinews, February 28, 2006
• “Eva Hassett, VP of Savarino Construction Services Corp. answers questions on Buffalo, N.Y. hotel redesign” — Wikinews, February 27, 2006
• “Alternative to controversial hotel proposed to Buffalo, N.Y. business owners and residents” — Wikinews, February 23, 2006
• “Hotel development proposal could displace Buffalo, NY business owners” — Wikinews, February 17, 2006

Friday, November 20, 2009

On Thursday, ten of those on board British Airways Flight 38 launched a case against Boeing over the accident before a court in Illinois. They are suing over an alleged flawed design that allowed an ice buildup to bring the 777 jet down at London’s Heathrow Airport. Scottish advocate Peter Macdonald spoke to Wikinews, commenting on the case and explaining the surrounding legislation. He has experience of litigating aviation accidents.

Although investigations are ongoing, the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has issued interim reports indicating ice buildup on an engine component. As the jet passed over Siberia on its journey from Beijing, China it encountered significantly reduced temperatures. The AAIB has determined that the fuel was at a temperature below 0°C for an unusually long duration. This is believed to have caused water in the fuel — which met all relevant international standards — to have frozen into crystals.

A build-up of ice developed on a component called the fuel/oil heat exchanger. This restricted the flow of fuel to the engine, resulting in an “uncommanded engine rollback” — a loss of power — on approach for landing. Investigators initially struggled to produce enough ice under test conditions but later discovered that at high concentration, fuel can form ice at very low temperatures in enough quantity to seriously restrict fuel flow. This does not occur when fuel demand is lower, as the hot oil then becomes sufficient to entirely melt the ice. It was only when extra fuel was pumped in from the tanks for the landing that the crystals became a problem. The fuel/oil heat exchanger is a dual purpose part designed to simultaneously melt fuel ice and cool down engine oil by passing oil pipes through the fuel flow.

The crew of the aircraft were praised for their handling of the emergency, avoiding the airport’s perimeter fence and nearby houses to crash land short of the runway. None of the 136 passengers and 16 crew were killed but some of those suffered serious injuries, including broken bones and facial injuries. Some were left unable to fly and there were cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The crash was triggered by highly unusual circumstances; the first AAIB report noted that cold fuel behaving in this manner was an “apparently hitherto unknown phenomenon.” As part of the investigation, data of 141,000 flights of 777s equipped with the engine model involved — the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 — was reviewed without finding any relevant circumstance similar to the accident flight, although there was later a similar incident in the United States in which the aircraft continued safely after repowering one engine; the second did not lose power.

Given the circumstances surrounding the case, Wikinews asked Peter Macdonald if the plaintiffs intended to prove that Boeing knew or should have known the Rolls-Royce powerplant was dangerously defective by design. “I rather suspect that there may be product liability legislation in place in whichever US jurisdiction is being used,” Macdonald explained. “Such statutes normally do not require proof of fault, nor do they require proof of knowledge. All that you have to show is that there was a defect in the product which caused the losses concerned… If I am correct that it is a product liability suit, then the fact that this is the first such accident matters not.”

Macdonald went on to discuss the international legislation and how it interacts to the plaintiffs and the three companies involved — Boeing, British Airways and Rolls-Royce. Only Boeing is currently named in an action over the case. “There are several reasons why the plaintiffs will wish to sue Boeing in the States,” he said. “Were the plaintiffs to seek redress in a court in the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that the relevant part of Boeing would be subject to jurisdiction here.” He also pointed out that “US damages are generally higher than English damages.”

“As to whether Boeing should settle, that all depends upon the basis of the action. If it is a fault [negligence] based action, they will be able to defend it. If fault is not needed, that is why they would want the action dismissed, forcing litigation in the UK.” In the UK, a product liability suit “would ordinarily be directed against the importers, i.e. British Airways… It would be a simple matter to sue BA here [the UK] for the physical injuries and their financial consequences,” said Macdonald. “That leaves RR [Rolls-Royce]. I assume that the engine was made in the UK. They would be liable for a defect in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Part I.” This piece of UK-wide legislation states that “where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product [the manufacturer] shall be liable for the damage.” Damage includes injuries.

US courts decide international jurisdictional issues under the Jones Act, passed as a result of Bhopal litigation, “which makes it much more difficult for a foreigner to sue in the US if the accident did not happen there… My restricted understanding of that is that it is likely that it would be difficult to remove an action from a US court where the aircraft was made in the US.” He further pointed out that the court would require there to be an alternative court with jurisdiction over the issue. “It may well be that the relevant part of the Boeing group is not subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts… I have seen cases where it was made a condition of the grant of an order under the Jones Act that the defendants would submit to the jurisdiction of a court in Scotland and that they would not take a plea of time bar in the even that an action was raised within three months of the court order.”

He then addressed the international law with regards to what could be claimed for against air carriers such as BA. In a previous case against the same airline, Abnett v British Airways, the House of Lords ruled in 1997 “that the only remedy for an injured passenger on an international flight is to sue under the Warsaw Convention, Article 17, incorporated into our law by the Carriage by Air Act, 1961.” The Warsaw Convention governs liability for international commercial airlines. At the time, the House of Lords was the highest court of appeal in the UK, although it was recently replaced by the Supreme Court. The Abnett case referred to British Airways Flight 149, in which Iraq captured the aircraft and occupants when it landed in Kuwait hours after Iraq invaded in 1990. Peter Macdonald represented Abnett in this case.

The Convention “provides a remedy for “bodily injury”. Interestingly, the term only appeared in the final draft of the Warsaw Convention. There is no mention of the term in the minutes of the many sessions which lead up to the final draft. It was produced overnight and signed later that day.” This term creates difficulties in claiming for mental problems such as the fear of flying or PTSD, although Macdonald points out that “there is a large amount of medical literature which details physical and chemical changes in the brains of people who are suffering from PTSD.”

In King v Bristow Helicopters, heard before the House of Lords in 2002 “held that PTSD was not a “bodily injury”, but expressly left the door open for someone to try to prove that what is known as PTSD is the manifestation of physical changes in the brain which have been brought about by the trauma. Such a litigation is pending in Scotland.” Macdonald is acting in this case.

Actions against Boeing are not bound in this way, as the Warsaw Convention only applies to airlines, making the States an attractive place to sue due to the issues with demonstrating jurisdiction against the relevant part of the Boeing group in the UK. Another reason why the plaintiffs would prefer to sue in America is that in the UK “there would be liability [for BA], and that would be subject to a damages cap. An action in the US [against any defendant] would probably have the same cap, but is likely to award damages more generously in the event that the cap is not reached.”

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Brechin City, a Scottish football team, was today ejected from the Scottish Cup following two separate disputes over two cup-tied players.

Hamilton Academical filed a complaint about the incident to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) and they decided to stage a replay of the match. However upon hearing of the second player, the SFA decided to remove Brechin from the competition and fine them £10,000. Hamilton will go through to play Aberdeen in the now delayed Sixth Round at Pittodrie.

Brechin secretary Angus Fairlie said: “It’s certainly a big blow. It was an oversight but a very expensive mistake. We thought we would have a big pay day against Aberdeen but still have to pay win bonuses.”

The replay match was won by Brechin 2-1 in extra time, after a 0-0 draw in the first encounter.

Monday, June 23, 2008

2008 COMPUTEX Taipei, the largest trade fair since its inception in 1982, featured several seminars and forums, expansions on show spaces to TWTC Nangang, great transformations for theme pavilions, and WiMAX Taipei Expo, mainly promoted by Taipei Computer Association (TCA). Besides of ICT industry, “design” progressively became the critical factor for the future of the other industries. To promote innovative “Made In Taiwan” products, pavilions from “Best Choice of COMPUTEX”, “Taiwan Excellence Awards”, and newly-set “Design and Innovation (d & i) Award of COMPUTEX”, demonstrated the power of Taiwan’s designs in 2008 COMPUTEX Taipei.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

As Queen Elizabeth II approaches her 80th birthday, on April 21, Buckingham Palace has released 80 little known facts about her.

Did you know that: The Queen owns all dolphins, porpoises, and sturgeons in British waters. She has sat for 139 official portraits, opened 15 bridges in the UK, launched 23 ships, and speaks fluent French.

The Queen sent a message of congratulations to Apollo 11 astronauts, for the first moon landing on July 21 1969, and it was put in a metal container and placed on the Moon’s surface.

Or that in 1976 at an Army base she sent her first e-mail. Or she has owned more than 30 corgis, starting with Susan who was her 18th birthday present. And in 2002, at 76 years of age, that The Queen was the oldest monarch to celebrate a Golden Jubilee.

Monday, December 31, 2007

Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) reported a fifth Guantanamo captive, named Abdul Razzak, died in captivity, on December 30, 2007.

JTF-GTMO asserted that Razzak had complained of abdominal pains in September 2007, and had begun to receive cancer therapy in late October 2007. JTF-GTMO estimated that he was born in 1939.

According to the JTF-GTMO press release that announced his death:

Abdul Razzak was assessed to be an experienced jihadist with command responsibilities and was assessed to have had multiple links to anti-coalition forces. He was detained in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant, consistent with the international law of Armed Conflict.

Abdul Razzak was one of the few Guantanamo captives who continued to attend his Combatant Status Review Tribunal and his annual Annual Review Board hearings.

Abdul Razzak had disputed all but one of the allegations against him, at each opportunity, and had provided his JTF-GTMO interrogators and the officers who sat on his CSR Tribunal and ARB hearing with easily verifiable corroborated details. At each of his Administrative review the officers were unaware of the exculpatory details he had provided.

The one allegation that Abdul Razzak acknowledged was that he had been subjected to involuntary conscription, and had served the Taliban for three months out of every year for the five years they were in power before he fled Afghanistan. He had, however, not served in the Taliban’s armed forces, but had been a truck driver, delivering non-military supplies.

One of the main allegations against Abdul Razzak was that he had plotted to help free Taliban leaders. Abdul Razzak testified that, on the contrary, two years prior to al Qaeda’s attacks on September 11th, 2001, he and his son had played a key role in a successful plot to free three imprisoned senior Northern Alliance leaders, who he identified as “Ismail Khan, Haji Zahir, son of vice president Haji Qadir and General Qassim.” — Ismail Khan is currently the Minister of Energy.

Abdul Razzak testified that his son, one of the relatively few Afghans who was fluent in English, had been conscripted by the Taliban, so he could provide some computer support. His son had contacted anti-Taliban forces, secured funds to purchase a four-wheel drive vehicle. His son, using the trust the Taliban had placed in him, due to his computer support, had lead the three men out of their imprisonment. Abdul Razzak had driven the four by four. The vehicle was damaged by a land mine. Abdul Razzak’s hand was injured. His son lost a foot. But the Northern Alliance leaders were rescued.

Abdul Razzak testified that when they arrived in Iran the Afghanistan Council paid his living expenses. But, when Hamid Karzai assumed power, following the ouster of the Taliban, he was told that the pension would be discontinued, because Afghanistan now had a democratic government.

Abdul Razzak testified that he then returned to Afghanistan, where he was falsely denounced by a distant cousin named Mohammed Jan. Mohammed Jan’s branch of the family was engaged in a feud with his branch, that had lead to the death of his father, two uncles, and three of his sons.

Abdul Razzak was also accused of being a leader of anti-coalition forces, and of being a member of the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, an older militia, which was first founded to oppose the regime of Mohammed Daoud Khan,the politician who had ousted Mohammed Zahir Shah, the last King of Afghanistan, in 1973.In 1979 this militia split, and has been lead, since then, by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s militia played a major role in the resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This militia acquired a reputation for ruthlessness, and disregard for civilian life.

Abdul Razzak testified that his only contact with the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militia was early in the war against the Soviets. He testified he was imprisoned for four and a half months in an underground pit. They had captured him because he had served as a driver for a member of the communist regime.

American intelligence analysts assert that, when Osama bin Laden was leaving Sudan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar offered him sanctuary in the areas of Afghanistan under his control.

Although not part of the Northern Alliance the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militia fought with the Taliban, prior to their ouster. When the USA allied with the Northern Alliance and other resistance forces to oust the Taliban the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militia fought against the USA. In 2003 the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin formed an alliance with the rump of the Taliban.

Abdul Razzak was also accused of being the Abdul Razak who had been the second in command of the Taliban’s 40-man unit, even though witnesses described Abdul Razak the commander as a much younger man, with a full black beard. Americans held five other men in Guantanamo named Abdul Razak.