If you don't like the articles, don't read them. No one's forcing you to read them, or get all worked up by responses you don't like. As the saying goes: "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
There is no way that I know of to confirm or deny God's existence. Therefore saying "God doesn't exist" presupposes un-known facts. Sounds like a dogma to me.
Note that the same applies for saying "God exists".
I share your sentiments completely. *Any* human expansion into space should be welcomed by all as an advancement for all humanity. As for US angst (or some would call it imperialism), the US public should wake up, get off their asses, and start voting more space-activity-friendly lawmakers into office! Space travel should be looked at as the gateway to a new frontier instead of an eccentric, expensive enterprise as most of the US Congress seems to view it right now.
It was just released a month ago. I am using it here where I work. Has a plug-in system, an acl system, etc. I'm hoping to add a bunch of features and plugins eventually; hey someone want to pay me to work on it full-time?:-)
IMHO *any* coding project can be fun; it certainly was a blast for me to create this system.
I say forget about tearing/shredding/whatever. Use your home incinerator. What, you say, you don't have one? I beg to differ. That grill sitting on your porch can "file" all those evil preapproved credit card loans just as easily as it can char tonight's slab of dead cow.
No legs, weird "see-through" face, "hands" proportionally too small. If you look at monster movies, you'll notice that the freakiest-looking monsters have a basically human shape, with some very oddly distorted features. I'm not saying the designers should put cosmetics before function, just make some minor changes to get the proportions approximately correct.
Why is this important? Astronauts on a space walk probably have many other things to think about without having their subconscious mind drawn to the fact that the humanoid robot they're working with doesn't look "quite right".
Why? There may have been perfectly valid reasons for running some server software on Win95 at that time. Perhaps the software was not available for any other OS, management was most comfortable using it, etc.
Of course, there might also be very good reasons to upgrade to Linux or something else right now (security, easier to administratrate, etc).
BTW, the company I work at still has quite a few Win95 desktops in use for customer check-in. There are many problems with our existing setup. One of the big looming ones is that MS no longer supports Win95; I suppose it is expensive for them to do so, and would be a disincentive for people to keep upgrading their OS. Contrast this to the situation on Linux, where the old kernel verions will be supported as long as there is demand.
The point of this article is that 2.0 is *not* dead, and someone is wondering why it hasn't died yet.
Dead in my book means "no more support". However, some people are still using 2.0 and will continue to do so for many years to come. Thus, there is still demand for bug fixes on 2.0. This being free software, noone could enforce a halt to development even if they wanted to.
I must disagree with the assumption that "robot fighters will save human lives because humans will no longer have to fight". Robots fighters should simply be considered to be one of the many technological advantages US forces will be able to wield over the military forces in the rest of the world. This situation will of course not last forever.
Eventually, a non-US country will also muster the technology to field their own combatant robots. Or perhaps the US fragments, with all the territories possessing equal technology. What then?
Well, side A sends in their robots to blow away side B's robots. If A's robots overwhelm the enemy robots, then A wins due to technological superiority (and perhaps many civilian casualties on side B at the hands of "inhuman killing machines" ). However, perhaps B is roughly matched agains A's robot combatant capabilities, and neither side can gain the upper hand using only robots.
Does that mean it's the end of the war? Of course not! Fighting will continue, only the combatants will be reduced to fighting "the old way": man to man.
What does all this mean? Don't put all your money on slick technology to win your battles. Eventually, the battle *will* devolve to men killing one other. This is how it has been for all history and will continue to be as long as men fight wars.
What about transgaming? SimCity 3000 is apparently working well using this. "Monopoly Tycoon" is also on the list, though apparently won't work until DirectX 8 is working with wine.
Remember the difference between the BSD-style and GPL-style freedoms are very important to MS. MS says BSD-licensed open code is good. Since MS can use it without contributing back, this is the kind of "free" that MS likes.
MS also says GPL-licensed open code is bad. Since MS can't use it without contributing back, it can only be used by MS's free-software competitors, thus MS strongly dislikes this kind of "free".
Now back to this study. Can anyone find the basic message surprising? "BSD code is benign, GPL is threatening". Microsoft-funded study, Microsoft-approved results.
As a side note, if MS didn't make this distinction and got everyone upset about using *any* free/open code, everyone would *also* have to stop using MS software. Remember, significant portions of their OS are built upon BSD-licensed code.
Yes, this is a bit far-fetched. At some point it will become necessary to put full-time security people on satellites anyway, since other people might try to hijack the satellites. Heh, I guess that would be "physical security". So anyway, this is most probably not a viable suggestion for you, I'm simply prognosticating. Of course, having people on board *would* make it easier to recover from a hack attack (unless someone had bribed the security people).
Yes, this is true. However, it should cost less in tech. hours to run Linux than Windows because:
Linux is less prone to crashing and general OS corruption, so you don't need to constantly reinstall it, even on WinNT. Ever installed an app that blows away your NT installation? Sorry, I can't address this for newer MS OS offerings.
Linux is more secure (or can be if you set it up right), so you're not spending alot of time patching the exploit of the week.
Linux is easier to install/uninstall/upgrade software for (at least if you use Debian).
Linux is easier to control remotely; you can use easily available secure remote tools such as OpenSSH, scripting is easy with all aspects of the OS (it's mostly just text files and some binary files; easy enought to modify).
So, let's say it takes 5 admins for 500 NT workstations; I'm betting on 2 or 3 admins for an equivalent Linux network. There's your big savings, without even considering the cost of the software.
Actually, Office isn't really too big of an issue. I'm trying to get together a prototype box here at work to convert all of our workstations off of win9x and onto linux (about 250-300 total). Will probably use Mandrake 7.2. What's really taking a long time to figure out is 1. what to use for web browsing and 2. what to use for email. the Office question is easily answered: use StarOffice.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't like the articles, don't read them. No one's forcing you to read them, or get all worked up by responses you don't like. As the saying goes: "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
Just block them at your firewall. Drop all packets heading to *.gator.com. Easier than blocking a phone number even...
There is no way that I know of to confirm or deny God's existence. Therefore saying "God doesn't exist" presupposes un-known facts. Sounds like a dogma to me.
Note that the same applies for saying "God exists".
I share your sentiments completely. *Any* human expansion into space should be welcomed by all as an advancement for all humanity. As for US angst (or some would call it imperialism), the US public should wake up, get off their asses, and start voting more space-activity-friendly lawmakers into office! Space travel should be looked at as the gateway to a new frontier instead of an eccentric, expensive enterprise as most of the US Congress seems to view it right now.
I have authored an asset management system. Go to asset-tracker.sourceforge.net.
It was just released a month ago. I am using it here where I work. Has a plug-in system, an acl system, etc. I'm hoping to add a bunch of features and plugins eventually; hey someone want to pay me to work on it full-time?
IMHO *any* coding project can be fun; it certainly was a blast for me to create this system.
I say forget about tearing/shredding/whatever. Use your home incinerator. What, you say, you don't have one? I beg to differ. That grill sitting on your porch can "file" all those evil preapproved credit card loans just as easily as it can char tonight's slab of dead cow.
No legs, weird "see-through" face, "hands" proportionally too small. If you look at monster movies, you'll notice that the freakiest-looking monsters have a basically human shape, with some very oddly distorted features. I'm not saying the designers should put cosmetics before function, just make some minor changes to get the proportions approximately correct.
Why is this important? Astronauts on a space walk probably have many other things to think about without having their subconscious mind drawn to the fact that the humanoid robot they're working with doesn't look "quite right".
Yep, I'd agree with you on that one. Any sysadmin who proposed a win9x solution as a server today would not be one who I'd want working for me.
Why? There may have been perfectly valid reasons for running some server software on Win95 at that time. Perhaps the software was not available for any other OS, management was most comfortable using it, etc.
Of course, there might also be very good reasons to upgrade to Linux or something else right now (security, easier to administratrate, etc).
BTW, the company I work at still has quite a few Win95 desktops in use for customer check-in. There are many problems with our existing setup. One of the big looming ones is that MS no longer supports Win95; I suppose it is expensive for them to do so, and would be a disincentive for people to keep upgrading their OS. Contrast this to the situation on Linux, where the old kernel verions will be supported as long as there is demand.
The point of this article is that 2.0 is *not* dead, and someone is wondering why it hasn't died yet.
Dead in my book means "no more support". However, some people are still using 2.0 and will continue to do so for many years to come. Thus, there is still demand for bug fixes on 2.0. This being free software, noone could enforce a halt to development even if they wanted to.
Thus, it's still supported. Thus, it's not dead.
I must disagree with the assumption that "robot fighters will save human lives because humans will no longer have to fight". Robots fighters should simply be considered to be one of the many technological advantages US forces will be able to wield over the military forces in the rest of the world. This situation will of course not last forever.
Eventually, a non-US country will also muster the technology to field their own combatant robots. Or perhaps the US fragments, with all the territories possessing equal technology. What then?
Well, side A sends in their robots to blow away side B's robots. If A's robots overwhelm the enemy robots, then A wins due to technological superiority (and perhaps many civilian casualties on side B at the hands of "inhuman killing machines" ). However, perhaps B is roughly matched agains A's robot combatant capabilities, and neither side can gain the upper hand using only robots.
Does that mean it's the end of the war? Of course not! Fighting will continue, only the combatants will be reduced to fighting "the old way": man to man.
What does all this mean? Don't put all your money on slick technology to win your battles. Eventually, the battle *will* devolve to men killing one other. This is how it has been for all history and will continue to be as long as men fight wars.
What about transgaming? SimCity 3000 is apparently working well using this. "Monopoly Tycoon" is also on the list, though apparently won't work until DirectX 8 is working with wine.
I guess those "urban planers" (look about 3/4 down the article) will be the ones responsible for razing Washington DC?
Talk about witty spelling errors!
Remember the difference between the BSD-style and GPL-style freedoms are very important to MS. MS says BSD-licensed open code is good. Since MS can use it without contributing back, this is the kind of "free" that MS likes.
MS also says GPL-licensed open code is bad. Since MS can't use it without contributing back, it can only be used by MS's free-software competitors, thus MS strongly dislikes this kind of "free".
Now back to this study. Can anyone find the basic message surprising? "BSD code is benign, GPL is threatening". Microsoft-funded study, Microsoft-approved results.
As a side note, if MS didn't make this distinction and got everyone upset about using *any* free/open code, everyone would *also* have to stop using MS software. Remember, significant portions of their OS are built upon BSD-licensed code.
Yes, this is a bit far-fetched. At some point it will become necessary to put full-time security people on satellites anyway, since other people might try to hijack the satellites. Heh, I guess that would be "physical security". So anyway, this is most probably not a viable suggestion for you, I'm simply prognosticating. Of course, having people on board *would* make it easier to recover from a hack attack (unless someone had bribed the security people).
Yes, this is true. However, it should cost less in tech. hours to run Linux than Windows because:
Linux is less prone to crashing and general OS corruption, so you don't need to constantly reinstall it, even on WinNT. Ever installed an app that blows away your NT installation? Sorry, I can't address this for newer MS OS offerings.
Linux is more secure (or can be if you set it up right), so you're not spending alot of time patching the exploit of the week.
Linux is easier to install/uninstall/upgrade software for (at least if you use Debian).
Linux is easier to control remotely; you can use easily available secure remote tools such as OpenSSH, scripting is easy with all aspects of the OS (it's mostly just text files and some binary files; easy enought to modify).
So, let's say it takes 5 admins for 500 NT workstations; I'm betting on 2 or 3 admins for an equivalent Linux network. There's your big savings, without even considering the cost of the software.
Actually, Office isn't really too big of an issue. I'm trying to get together a prototype box here at work to convert all of our workstations off of win9x and onto linux (about 250-300 total). Will probably use Mandrake 7.2. What's really taking a long time to figure out is 1. what to use for web browsing and 2. what to use for email. the Office question is easily answered: use StarOffice.