Ximian rocks. Microsoft rocks. They both rock. Microsoft has to contend with a major monopoly, AOL-TW, with intense scrutiny while AOL operates with little concern but for from the FCC. Microsoft either has to play nice and reach out to the Free coders, become even more predatory to compete with AOL, or die as it's competition is assimilated borg-like by AOL. Keep an eye out. Microsoft is going to be doing some interesting things in the next few years.
My understanding is that they are floating weapons platforms designed to be employed in turbulent areas of the globe. Loaded with missiles and other goodies, they're able to unleash gobs of fun weapons on enemies of the state.
That's not true at all. The ingredients of Red Bull do not change in any of the nations it is sold in. That is a rumor which Red Bull debunks at their website.
Gee. Thanks, though, as I said, I know America isn't a democracy. Calling it a "democratic republic" is giving it to much credit, though. I actually prefer the term "representative republic" as it doesn't contain any of the wonderful positive vibes the word democracy embodies.
By that token of logic, our government hasn't been legitimate for the whole extent of its duration. There are many positions in the federal government that aren't chosen democratically. While some of the people who fill these roles are dispensed with on a regular basis, others are allowed to maintain their tenure for long periods of time, immune from direct explusion by the people, or even the elected representatives. In addition, those elected representatives are often negligent in their duties, namely stiffing the citizens, instead bickering like children and taking corruption to all new degrees.
I'd hardly call our government legitimate. The only difference is that you can rebel against a monarchy. Our government, which has never been a democracy, by the way, is much more secure. To stage a revolution against the American government would be a terribly difficult task requring the revolutionaries to wage a war against public opinion, not king's men.
Civilization, specifically language, is not a matter of IP. It's an amalgam of effort over a long period of time and, as such, should not be under the control of a few people who only uphold a culture that was created so long before.
That's not entirely true. To a limited extent, the OEMs can include software from other companies in their install if they have the proper licenses from Microsoft. While it doesn't allow the fundamental applications of the OS to be replaced by others, it does allow the company to include some other software. I'll admit, though, that Linux does have a great advantage in this area. Whether it is one that will make it more tasty for the consumer has yet to be seen.
So it's ok to provide the consumer with the applications he needs as long as they are collected from multiple authors? Why is a motley collection of applications better than those produced by one source?
Unfortunately, the real issue is the fact that the additions aren't usually optional. Windows may be good for the novice consumer, but it tends to be nothing but bloat for those who know what they want. Couple the rigidity of the platform with the rent/lease model that seems to be looming ever closer, and it seems to me that you have a very developer-hostile platform.
If only BeOS were to catch on more. I still wonder what the computing world would be like if Be had accepted Apple's proposal.
In case you haven't realized by my ignoring your previous, extraordinarily similar response, I'm sick of trying to explain to you that I covered both ideas. Instead, you feel the need to repeat yourself by responding to the original post not once, but twice, with the same trite crap you've said before. I never said that the only concept proposed for a space elevator was one using a core cable. I also never said the only one was one using an internal car. However, you are mistaken in assuming that the pseudoscientists of scifi, whom you seem to think speak gospel, have never proposed both models.
Also, before you speak about using bloated, pompous language, perhaps you should make sure that you don't misuse the bloated, pompous words that you use yourself in an attempt to sound intelligent. If you wish to take issue with my use of the English language, perhaps you should first grasp the basic concepts.
It's obvious that you have no indepth knowledge of carbon nanotech otherwise you wouldn't be so ludicrously lauding the material. You can not create a cable that could withstand an attack with even todays martial technology, and also incorporate the mag track you would need for the propulsion. The article conveniently ignores this fact. If you, being well versed in the crap SciFi authors come up with, know what the current "paradigm" uses to circumvent this, I'd be glad to hear.
I'll admit, that the internalized elevator is incredibly demented. However, the work that this idea comes from is quite old. While you may fancy yourself quite the scifi reader, you must not read some of the odd writings of old.
I was merely speaking of all the different proposals, particularly the one I assumed the root author, in his odd statement, was referring to. The fact that you seem to think that I proposed this merely to be contrary angers me. If I assumed wrong, and he wasn't speaking about an internal model, then I'm puzzled as to how there would be pressure problems.
However, you said tube. You didn't say nanotube. Without the prefix one assumes that a fool like you is using the word incorrectly to refer to the concept I spoke of: an internal lift. Perhaps you should remember to be precise in your language if you'd like to be arrogant. No one is debating the size of a nanotube. No one ever intended to. It is only by your diminished ability to read that you came to this conclusion.
If you intend to speak of the cable, say cable. Do not call it a tube. If you intend to speak of the nanotubes, say nanotubes not tubes. If you wish to speak about the internal concept of space elevators, say tube all you want. You are in the wrong.
I presented multiple possibilities on ways of accomplishing the idea. I said there were two situations: one where you pressurize the interior and one where you pressurize the car. While the concept with the cart running internal requires a lot more to accomplish, it has actually been one suggested by some.
As for your assertion of my stupidity, I would remind you that since the entire concept is just that, a concept, there is no standard to compare against.
Finally, to argue semantics you should have learned in 5th grade geometry: a tube is a cylinder with another cylinder with the same height yet smaller radius subtracted from the original. To argue that a tube has nothing within a tube to pressurize is to ignore everything you should have learned in school.
Unfortunately, you have simplified the problem too much in the heat of your arrogance. While pressure can be regulated on craft such as airplanes or submarines, this is because you are dealing with a closed vessel of limited size. A space elevator, if ever built, would have incredible length and girth to accomodate more than people. At it's smallest, the tube would require an incredible amount of effort to keep pressurized. In addition, the compressors would most likely need to be placed along the length of the tube. However, the tube does not necessarily need to be pressurized. If the car of the elevator were to be properly equipped, you would not have to. Yet this means that the elevator would have to carry an oxygen source.
Since you thought of the problem as merely something tethered in orbit, it's obvious you oversimplified things. The problem is not one that is easy nor feasible. You err in thinking that pressurization would be easy. The entire project would be trememndously difficult and, despite the optimistic tone of the article, not possible at this time in our technological development. Also, as had been said in the article, the elevator will not provide a tremendous benefit to the holding nation. The reason is as follows: explosive weapons. This structure would be extremely vulnerable along the whole of its incredible length.
When I first heard about this, I was thinking to myself, "Hey, someone's working to make sure Wim van Eck's legacy can be staved off cheaply and easily."
Mind you, I'm an overly paranoid person who doesn't necessarily know as much as he should, so you can somewhat understand where this addled thought came from. I'm sure you can also understand, then, my disgust when discovering its true purpose. However, my original impression raised a few questions in my mind. Is van Eck Phreaking still a viable thing? Could it be used in some form to bypass this?
It is redundant because every single time a news article is posted involving Microsoft, whether their actions are normal or extreme, laudable or contemptable, there is always a joke of the exact same vein. While it was funny to read, it was also very twinkish and redundant.
Despite the obvious lack of thought processes involved in the creation of this question, I'll give an answer.
Computers function based on what can be considered an entirely different language. Such is why we have boundaries between platforms. While it is possible to cross that boundary given certain programs, it is still difficult. Thus, assuming the hardware was compatible, chances are that the software wouldn't be.
The hardware, though, probably wouldn't be either for one main reason: silicon processors aren't powerful enough to manage any of the rigors of long-distance flight aboard a spaceship. We're talking about either the maintenance of an advanced drive system requiring, perhaps billions of billions of billions of operations a nanosecond, or the maintenance of a large colony ship carrying a large gene pool to prevent inbreeding and possessing an entire encapsulated ecosystem. Either way, silicon isn't going to do shit. And once you kill sillicon, chances are that you aren't going to stay in a binary setup. Thus, the hardwares would be incompatible as well.
Sattelites should not be a matter of nations but of the world. The sky above may be vast, but if it becomes too crowded, everyone will be affected. We need to form a global organization for the regulation of sattelites before our skies become too crowded with junk.
That said, I must also congratulate India on a wonderful advance. I hope that someday the manned exploration of our solar system will be picked up one day, and the involvement of other nations in space will further that hope.
Our government resembles an oligarchy more than a democratic republic. Even wrose, it's a plutocratic oligarchy that seems to becoming ever more an aristocratic nation.
That isn't true at all. Correspondence has never been protected by copyright laws. Email isn't the digital equivalent of Thoreau's Walden. It shouldn't be protected by law when "real" correspondence isn't. If the email does contain something more than standard communcative material, then it should be protected. But to do so to all email is a joke.
Why must the courts and legislatures of our world continue to think of computers as things foreign to traditional law? Why must they continue to make computer laws and decisions that would be considered unreasonable when applied to the real world? Computers are just another tool. With the printing press, there wasn't as much legal change. The monarchies and aristocracies of Europe feared it, but they could always have their troops smash a printing press. Computers and internets make the oligarchies and plutocracies of today shudder, though, because they can't do that. They have little control. They want control so they continue to pass insane laws.
Government involvement in an open source development project would certainly do a lot to validate the license as a viable alternative to close source projects. DARPA is a pretty interesting group, though. After all, these are the guys who want to bring enhancing exo-armor to the military in a decade or so. Will other, more banal, branches of the government adopt open source soon? Will we see the IRS running their own financial oriented flavor of BSD or even more ironically, the USPTO running an opened source setup. Or are other sectors of the Federale already using open source?
Slashdot Mirror
Ximian rocks. Microsoft rocks. They both rock. Microsoft has to contend with a major monopoly, AOL-TW, with intense scrutiny while AOL operates with little concern but for from the FCC. Microsoft either has to play nice and reach out to the Free coders, become even more predatory to compete with AOL, or die as it's competition is assimilated borg-like by AOL. Keep an eye out. Microsoft is going to be doing some interesting things in the next few years.
My understanding is that they are floating weapons platforms designed to be employed in turbulent areas of the globe. Loaded with missiles and other goodies, they're able to unleash gobs of fun weapons on enemies of the state.
That's not true at all. The ingredients of Red Bull do not change in any of the nations it is sold in. That is a rumor which Red Bull debunks at their website.
Gee. Thanks, though, as I said, I know America isn't a democracy. Calling it a "democratic republic" is giving it to much credit, though. I actually prefer the term "representative republic" as it doesn't contain any of the wonderful positive vibes the word democracy embodies.
By that token of logic, our government hasn't been legitimate for the whole extent of its duration. There are many positions in the federal government that aren't chosen democratically. While some of the people who fill these roles are dispensed with on a regular basis, others are allowed to maintain their tenure for long periods of time, immune from direct explusion by the people, or even the elected representatives. In addition, those elected representatives are often negligent in their duties, namely stiffing the citizens, instead bickering like children and taking corruption to all new degrees.
I'd hardly call our government legitimate. The only difference is that you can rebel against a monarchy. Our government, which has never been a democracy, by the way, is much more secure. To stage a revolution against the American government would be a terribly difficult task requring the revolutionaries to wage a war against public opinion, not king's men.
Civilization, specifically language, is not a matter of IP. It's an amalgam of effort over a long period of time and, as such, should not be under the control of a few people who only uphold a culture that was created so long before.
That's not entirely true. To a limited extent, the OEMs can include software from other companies in their install if they have the proper licenses from Microsoft. While it doesn't allow the fundamental applications of the OS to be replaced by others, it does allow the company to include some other software. I'll admit, though, that Linux does have a great advantage in this area. Whether it is one that will make it more tasty for the consumer has yet to be seen.
So it's ok to provide the consumer with the applications he needs as long as they are collected from multiple authors? Why is a motley collection of applications better than those produced by one source?
Unfortunately, the real issue is the fact that the additions aren't usually optional. Windows may be good for the novice consumer, but it tends to be nothing but bloat for those who know what they want. Couple the rigidity of the platform with the rent/lease model that seems to be looming ever closer, and it seems to me that you have a very developer-hostile platform.
If only BeOS were to catch on more. I still wonder what the computing world would be like if Be had accepted Apple's proposal.
In case you haven't realized by my ignoring your previous, extraordinarily similar response, I'm sick of trying to explain to you that I covered both ideas. Instead, you feel the need to repeat yourself by responding to the original post not once, but twice, with the same trite crap you've said before. I never said that the only concept proposed for a space elevator was one using a core cable. I also never said the only one was one using an internal car. However, you are mistaken in assuming that the pseudoscientists of scifi, whom you seem to think speak gospel, have never proposed both models.
Also, before you speak about using bloated, pompous language, perhaps you should make sure that you don't misuse the bloated, pompous words that you use yourself in an attempt to sound intelligent. If you wish to take issue with my use of the English language, perhaps you should first grasp the basic concepts.
It's obvious that you have no indepth knowledge of carbon nanotech otherwise you wouldn't be so ludicrously lauding the material. You can not create a cable that could withstand an attack with even todays martial technology, and also incorporate the mag track you would need for the propulsion. The article conveniently ignores this fact. If you, being well versed in the crap SciFi authors come up with, know what the current "paradigm" uses to circumvent this, I'd be glad to hear.
I'll admit, that the internalized elevator is incredibly demented. However, the work that this idea comes from is quite old. While you may fancy yourself quite the scifi reader, you must not read some of the odd writings of old.
I was merely speaking of all the different proposals, particularly the one I assumed the root author, in his odd statement, was referring to. The fact that you seem to think that I proposed this merely to be contrary angers me. If I assumed wrong, and he wasn't speaking about an internal model, then I'm puzzled as to how there would be pressure problems.
However, you said tube. You didn't say nanotube. Without the prefix one assumes that a fool like you is using the word incorrectly to refer to the concept I spoke of: an internal lift. Perhaps you should remember to be precise in your language if you'd like to be arrogant. No one is debating the size of a nanotube. No one ever intended to. It is only by your diminished ability to read that you came to this conclusion.
If you intend to speak of the cable, say cable. Do not call it a tube. If you intend to speak of the nanotubes, say nanotubes not tubes. If you wish to speak about the internal concept of space elevators, say tube all you want. You are in the wrong.
I presented multiple possibilities on ways of accomplishing the idea. I said there were two situations: one where you pressurize the interior and one where you pressurize the car. While the concept with the cart running internal requires a lot more to accomplish, it has actually been one suggested by some.
As for your assertion of my stupidity, I would remind you that since the entire concept is just that, a concept, there is no standard to compare against.
Finally, to argue semantics you should have learned in 5th grade geometry: a tube is a cylinder with another cylinder with the same height yet smaller radius subtracted from the original. To argue that a tube has nothing within a tube to pressurize is to ignore everything you should have learned in school.
Unfortunately, you have simplified the problem too much in the heat of your arrogance. While pressure can be regulated on craft such as airplanes or submarines, this is because you are dealing with a closed vessel of limited size. A space elevator, if ever built, would have incredible length and girth to accomodate more than people. At it's smallest, the tube would require an incredible amount of effort to keep pressurized. In addition, the compressors would most likely need to be placed along the length of the tube. However, the tube does not necessarily need to be pressurized. If the car of the elevator were to be properly equipped, you would not have to. Yet this means that the elevator would have to carry an oxygen source.
Since you thought of the problem as merely something tethered in orbit, it's obvious you oversimplified things. The problem is not one that is easy nor feasible. You err in thinking that pressurization would be easy. The entire project would be trememndously difficult and, despite the optimistic tone of the article, not possible at this time in our technological development. Also, as had been said in the article, the elevator will not provide a tremendous benefit to the holding nation. The reason is as follows: explosive weapons. This structure would be extremely vulnerable along the whole of its incredible length.
When I first heard about this, I was thinking to myself, "Hey, someone's working to make sure Wim van Eck's legacy can be staved off cheaply and easily."
Mind you, I'm an overly paranoid person who doesn't necessarily know as much as he should, so you can somewhat understand where this addled thought came from. I'm sure you can also understand, then, my disgust when discovering its true purpose. However, my original impression raised a few questions in my mind. Is van Eck Phreaking still a viable thing? Could it be used in some form to bypass this?
It is redundant because every single time a news article is posted involving Microsoft, whether their actions are normal or extreme, laudable or contemptable, there is always a joke of the exact same vein. While it was funny to read, it was also very twinkish and redundant.
In Latin, transport comes from trans (across) + porto (I carry) to mean 'I carry across.' Basically, I carry the crap around.
Despite the obvious lack of thought processes involved in the creation of this question, I'll give an answer.
Computers function based on what can be considered an entirely different language. Such is why we have boundaries between platforms. While it is possible to cross that boundary given certain programs, it is still difficult. Thus, assuming the hardware was compatible, chances are that the software wouldn't be.
The hardware, though, probably wouldn't be either for one main reason: silicon processors aren't powerful enough to manage any of the rigors of long-distance flight aboard a spaceship. We're talking about either the maintenance of an advanced drive system requiring, perhaps billions of billions of billions of operations a nanosecond, or the maintenance of a large colony ship carrying a large gene pool to prevent inbreeding and possessing an entire encapsulated ecosystem. Either way, silicon isn't going to do shit. And once you kill sillicon, chances are that you aren't going to stay in a binary setup. Thus, the hardwares would be incompatible as well.
Sattelites should not be a matter of nations but of the world. The sky above may be vast, but if it becomes too crowded, everyone will be affected. We need to form a global organization for the regulation of sattelites before our skies become too crowded with junk.
That said, I must also congratulate India on a wonderful advance. I hope that someday the manned exploration of our solar system will be picked up one day, and the involvement of other nations in space will further that hope.
Our government resembles an oligarchy more than a democratic republic. Even wrose, it's a plutocratic oligarchy that seems to becoming ever more an aristocratic nation.
What they don't mention is that the car can only run for 4.1 seconds before dying...
That isn't true at all. Correspondence has never been protected by copyright laws. Email isn't the digital equivalent of Thoreau's Walden. It shouldn't be protected by law when "real" correspondence isn't. If the email does contain something more than standard communcative material, then it should be protected. But to do so to all email is a joke.
Yes but for the sake of simplifying my arguments such that many headaches would be avoided, it was necessary to do so.
Why must the courts and legislatures of our world continue to think of computers as things foreign to traditional law? Why must they continue to make computer laws and decisions that would be considered unreasonable when applied to the real world? Computers are just another tool. With the printing press, there wasn't as much legal change. The monarchies and aristocracies of Europe feared it, but they could always have their troops smash a printing press. Computers and internets make the oligarchies and plutocracies of today shudder, though, because they can't do that. They have little control. They want control so they continue to pass insane laws.
They will not succeed.
It is often easier to download songs from Napster users than to rip the tracks from the CD. It is much quicker to download them.
Government involvement in an open source development project would certainly do a lot to validate the license as a viable alternative to close source projects. DARPA is a pretty interesting group, though. After all, these are the guys who want to bring enhancing exo-armor to the military in a decade or so. Will other, more banal, branches of the government adopt open source soon? Will we see the IRS running their own financial oriented flavor of BSD or even more ironically, the USPTO running an opened source setup. Or are other sectors of the Federale already using open source?
I intended to suggest that we must first find an organic means of producing pure Carbon in addition to resolving other problems.