I'll ignore the personal attack and deal with just about the only point you made in there.
A house on the moon? Which would be next to useless
Failure to understand that (and it is not only an aside in the US space policy - it is the US space policy) means I can't really go any further. Permanent settlement on the moon is the goal - I *started* my post with the words "If you plan to not only go to the moon, but to setup permanent bases, then the ISS is largely irrelevant". I can't say any more really. If you want to argue about the merits of having a permanent base on the moon then that is an entirely different subject, not one that I was talking about.
If you plan to not only go to the moon, but to setup permanent bases, then the ISS is largely irrelevant (in its current form).
The ISS is complex, hard to maintain, and relatively difficult to live on. The moon, while having a few technical issues, is basically a much more sensible bit of solid ground to base yourself from.
The ISS as a floating lab is very expensive - all it brings to the party is all the hassles of space (living in zero g, life support, things going wrong) and none of the benefits (resources, discovery, exploration)
Perhaps knowing how to save money and prevent unnecessary spendings was what allowed they to become a multi-billion dollar company in the first place.. Like the $1.3 million they paid for a slot at Moffett Field?
In reality wall street has been a bit unhappy with what they have termed "excessive" tertiary spending on perks and superfluous luxuries.
What made Google a multi-billion dollar company was having a good idea and exploiting it very very well - building on it to create a phenomena.
Obviously he doesn't have lawyer costs, but he dose have court costs and the other financial penalties (such as loosing a case and being forced to pay the other sides costs). Where is the money coming to fund all of this? Have far right "moral authority" groups set up a slush fund for him? Filing suit after suit can't go on for ever.
And they can't afford professional translators? If it was just random bits and pieces of no consequence then I might say fair enough - but this is content for their primary services. We aren't talking millions of dollars to translate a few hundred words here or anything - seems very odd.
... they have been throwing their weight about making up rules as they go along for too long (RIAA cases etc which are tantermount to extortion and blackmail). They have gotten way too cocky, now sanctioning DDOS attacks and hacking - this is the digital equivalent of (if we want to play by their "real world rules are digital rules" - "you wouldn't shoplift?") paying criminal scum to break into a premises and destroy goods.
If I were one of the record companies cartel who carries the can then I would be shitting myself - you have been agreeing to do things that are clearly illegal - the "we are fighting people who are breaking the law" means jack shit - the structure of the societies we choose to live in ensures there are accountable law enforcement agencies who do that - you seem to be mistakenly believing that you can make up the laws as you go along.
youth counselor instead, who put the photo into Flickr and chose a CC licence for it?
Because they don't have any money. I could see merit in the case based on privacy and taking action against the correct people - but to actively ignore one of the primary people who could be held liable because they don't have a couple hundred million in turnover and instead go for a corporation and - *for absolutely no reason* a independent licensing body (that move would likely be at the suggestion of the "corporate world" lawyers, some of whom want to destroy anything with an open source mentality - think Balmer but in a court room) then I have no sympathy.
So since the case boils down to nothing but a set of parents seizing on this as a get rich quick scheme it can be filed under unscrupulous ambulance chasing. By leaving the photographer out they have actively proven they aren't interested in defending their daughters privacy - just in grubby money.
Not so much because of "huge" business demand - businesses would probably be happy to sit on their hands for a while and let vista mature - but the OEM's, HP et all., will not want businesses to sit on their hands (i.e. not spend money), and if a "Vista only" machine is forcing buyers to be more cautious when ordering 100 new machines then HP will want XP back in the catalogue to make the sale a bit more likely.
inventor of the Segway Oh well - with all the sense to invent (and mercilessly promote) - a machine that ensures people don't even have to walk any more - all in a country with one of the worst obesity problems in the world.
If a change in the patent system will stop crap like the segway being invented then it will be a change for the good.
particularly the free mobile-to-mobile calls. Is there some element of the UK iPhone service that I'm missing here Just because it is the same phone means absolutely nothing. You are paying O2 AKA Telefonica - they may have put this one in a special box and created a bit of a "specialist" contract - but it is still O2 and they will still fit it within their general price-plans. Free mobile to mobile calls will happen when hell freezes over in the UK - it is one of their best revenue generators - the view accepted by the public for absolutely no reason is that it *should* be more expensive than phoning a landline, coupled with more people owning phones and not even having landlines = lots of money for O2.
As others have commented, on the other hand UK price plans have perks that the US don't - free incoming calls - folks in the UK would react in disbelief if you told them they had to pay to receive - cheap and unified SMS system (don't know if that has improved in the states in the past few years - but it was an absolute mess, and testament here on/. to the vast benefit that interoperability and common standards bring - hello odf).
You are buying a phone - it is a just a bit of electronics - no different to buying a TV in the UK and then complaining that you can't watch NBC on it.
What's wrong with people? The people that do this are scum, that's all. The digital age makes their activities much more visible, but they are essentially the same people that punch a grandmother in the face and steal her wedding ring - just criminal scum who will do anything to get what they want, no matter how low.
Coverage of the announcement plus some comments on the fact that 3 of the "big" firms, IBM, Google & Sun are now squarely behind ODF.
As for the announcement - the 35 FT developers on OOO can't be a bad thing - OOO has the potential to become a large force for good, but it has always been a couple of steps away from where it could, and should, be - hopefully this might help rectify that.
He has a bias toward Apple (he loves everything they do, they should send him a check for the amount he writes supporting them) I don't know the guy, but that doesn't surprise me. His criticism of ubuntu that the user has to "learn a whole new user interface" can not only be applied to any mac - but is actually be *more* relevent for them given that ubuntu has purposefully structured itself (to some extent) to mimic the windows shell - something that "one button" apple haven't done due to legacy.
Slashdot Mirror
A house on the moon? Which would be next to useless
Failure to understand that (and it is not only an aside in the US space policy - it is the US space policy) means I can't really go any further. Permanent settlement on the moon is the goal - I *started* my post with the words "If you plan to not only go to the moon, but to setup permanent bases, then the ISS is largely irrelevant". I can't say any more really. If you want to argue about the merits of having a permanent base on the moon then that is an entirely different subject, not one that I was talking about.
If you plan to not only go to the moon, but to setup permanent bases, then the ISS is largely irrelevant (in its current form). The ISS is complex, hard to maintain, and relatively difficult to live on. The moon, while having a few technical issues, is basically a much more sensible bit of solid ground to base yourself from. The ISS as a floating lab is very expensive - all it brings to the party is all the hassles of space (living in zero g, life support, things going wrong) and none of the benefits (resources, discovery, exploration)
Was just going to post the same thing. This is already in firefox, and is disabled by default. It is not even borderline news - it just is not news.
In reality wall street has been a bit unhappy with what they have termed "excessive" tertiary spending on perks and superfluous luxuries.
What made Google a multi-billion dollar company was having a good idea and exploiting it very very well - building on it to create a phenomena.
Obviously he doesn't have lawyer costs, but he dose have court costs and the other financial penalties (such as loosing a case and being forced to pay the other sides costs). Where is the money coming to fund all of this? Have far right "moral authority" groups set up a slush fund for him? Filing suit after suit can't go on for ever.
And they can't afford professional translators? If it was just random bits and pieces of no consequence then I might say fair enough - but this is content for their primary services. We aren't talking millions of dollars to translate a few hundred words here or anything - seems very odd.
... they have been throwing their weight about making up rules as they go along for too long (RIAA cases etc which are tantermount to extortion and blackmail). They have gotten way too cocky, now sanctioning DDOS attacks and hacking - this is the digital equivalent of (if we want to play by their "real world rules are digital rules" - "you wouldn't shoplift?") paying criminal scum to break into a premises and destroy goods.
If I were one of the record companies cartel who carries the can then I would be shitting myself - you have been agreeing to do things that are clearly illegal - the "we are fighting people who are breaking the law" means jack shit - the structure of the societies we choose to live in ensures there are accountable law enforcement agencies who do that - you seem to be mistakenly believing that you can make up the laws as you go along.
Because they don't have any money. I could see merit in the case based on privacy and taking action against the correct people - but to actively ignore one of the primary people who could be held liable because they don't have a couple hundred million in turnover and instead go for a corporation and - *for absolutely no reason* a independent licensing body (that move would likely be at the suggestion of the "corporate world" lawyers, some of whom want to destroy anything with an open source mentality - think Balmer but in a court room) then I have no sympathy.
So since the case boils down to nothing but a set of parents seizing on this as a get rich quick scheme it can be filed under unscrupulous ambulance chasing. By leaving the photographer out they have actively proven they aren't interested in defending their daughters privacy - just in grubby money.
Not so much because of "huge" business demand - businesses would probably be happy to sit on their hands for a while and let vista mature - but the OEM's, HP et all., will not want businesses to sit on their hands (i.e. not spend money), and if a "Vista only" machine is forcing buyers to be more cautious when ordering 100 new machines then HP will want XP back in the catalogue to make the sale a bit more likely.
The sooner October 1993 arrives the better.
What's wrong with people? The people that do this are scum, that's all. The digital age makes their activities much more visible, but they are essentially the same people that punch a grandmother in the face and steal her wedding ring - just criminal scum who will do anything to get what they want, no matter how low.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/technology/18blue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=technology&pagewanted=print
Coverage of the announcement plus some comments on the fact that 3 of the "big" firms, IBM, Google & Sun are now squarely behind ODF. As for the announcement - the 35 FT developers on OOO can't be a bad thing - OOO has the potential to become a large force for good, but it has always been a couple of steps away from where it could, and should, be - hopefully this might help rectify that.