Now, I could be wrong here! I'd be the first to admit it, but only after I've been proven wrong.
The only way to measure doppler is to have the precise frequency of the pulse before it bounced off of the target. Since the "pulse" that you are receiving could have come from any one of a hundred cell-phones, all transmitting at slightly different frequencies, it seems unlikely that you could ever have this knowledge.
Now, since you have no doppler information, the only way to track speed is to keep track of the target and do the math (calculate the distance between two points and divide the distance by the amount of time it took to cover that distance).
Again, I could be wrong, but this method seems to be unlikely to succeed because the flight trajectory of the plane is not likely to be static (the plane is weaving). A pilot who is travelling in a straight line over hostile territory is probably not that smart.
So, I hope that I've explained why I think that it would be difficult/impossible to obtain speed information. This was all off the top of my head. Would you like more "facts"? Most people who have experience with this subject would probably tell you the same thing.
I was in the U.S. Navy for 6 years and I'm goddamned if I know what the hell you just said.
But, you at least *sound* like you know what you're talking about.
If I understand what you're saying, then the weapons launched against the stealth platform must be vectored by the command center. Didn't the Soviets try this? And it never worked just right?
There is zero chance of there being any sort of (reliable) measurement of doppler here. That makes it unlikely that you could measure speed with any reliability.
I'd have to see this thing in action before I could believe it. I just don't see how you can get around the low re-radiated signal strength, unless they are using some sort of diversity tuning in conjunction with the cell-phone towers. Even then, as you said, the signal would be no different than that of any small, non-threatening target.
Plus, I doubt the military would:
A: Make their sensor platform dependant on someone sending out shout-out's to his/her homies.
B: Ever be allowed enough land rights over wide-enough areas to deploy all the necessary antennas so that they were not dependant on A.
No, my point (with the admittedly poor argument construction) is that property is a manifestation of freedom.
Control of someones property is therefore control of someones freedoms. QED.
WRT to your question at the end of post #397. Why does the accumulation of wealth necessarily mean that others will be starving? I realize that you warned us that the question was polarizing, but why must it be so? There's plenty of gray area in there. Certainly, property rights (specifically the freedom to accumulate wealth), which is constitutionally guaranteed (U.S. specific!), are a more concrete ideal than some abstract, nebulous idea that because I'm accumulating wealth, I must be denying a starving person of money with which to buy food.
Socialism by definition means that the state dictates what activities will and will not be permitted. Owning property is a freedom (for example, here in the U.S.A. I can freely own a gun as long as I'm not a convicted felon, etc., etc., etc.). Being forced to turn over property to the state, or being restricted from owning certain items is therefore a loss of freedom.
Now, extending this argument to it's extreme (why can't I own another person) will result in absurd arguments. The general consensus in the United States is (or at least it used to be) that you can have freedoms as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. Nowadays it's "You can have freedoms as long as you don't have more freedom than anyone else", but that's another matter entirely.
Just my opinion, and I don't mean this as flamebait. Please, if you want to respond to this or moderate me, take a couple of minutes to construct an argument and not just think of me as some kind of kook because I don't see things from your point of view.
The Freenet site on Sourceforge mentions that Freenet (in it's current form) is not very searchable. Adding an SQL layer provides this functionality. My questions would be "How do you still maintain anonymity?" and "What happens when you go looking for something that has been removed because of 'lack of interest'?"
I haven't read the developer docs yet, so I don't know a whole lot about the system. Does someone know the answers to this?
One more thing. This has the added advantage of placing the "disc interpretation" algorithms in software rather than firmware, making future circumvention easier.
Most likely this is the case. The mastering people can do funny things with the TOC, lead in/out and sub-channel data.
I think that most CD-ROM drives will require a firmware upgrade to deal with this (if you want to keep using your old ripping software).
What I could envision is software that reads the entire data stream into a buffer, and ripping software monitors the buffer in real-time, correcting the TOC and sub-channel information as it goes. Should work like normal then.
No, that's what I meant. If they released a Linux distribution (complete with source in compliance with the GPL). When I was referring to binaries only, I meant a BSD release only.
Don't know exactly what would happen, but I can imagine that the big dogs in the Linux world (Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, etc.) wouldn't like it very much.
You can hear the MS hype machine ramping up now! No one was ever fired for buying Microsoft, and now it's free!
I *guess* that Cygnus was successful, but I can't find any bank statements to prove or disprove that. My point is this: While there are a handful of successful purveyors of GPL'd software out there, the vast majority of companies could not make money in this fashion. I agree that MS's tactics are just plain wrong and should be frowned upon. I feel this same way about RMS and the FSF bunch. Surely there is some middle ground here. IMHO, the GPL is not representative of a "middle of the road" solution. The FreeBSD license is a much better compromise, as it maintains the status quo. You can still have free software, and you can still have proprietary solutions.
One other thing to think about. What if MS had a Linux distro, or if they took FreeBSD, "customized it" and released it (binary only) as a free OS? What do you think would happen to RedHat, et al, then?
Certainly you have to give MS credit for placing themselves in such a position of strength.
Anyway, it's interesting to think about.
The GPL is neither particularly restrictive nor nearly as complicated as most people seem to think
You know, it's funny that two out of your three "arguments"
were stated with must, and may not. Those sound like restrictions
to me.
C'mon! You must admit that while the GPL makes the software
free, it places even more restrictions on the developer.
To me, "Free" means that I can do anything, and I mean anything,
with the software that I choose to do. The GPL takes
this freedom away.
Personally, personally mind you, I feel that Microsoft is correct
in their assertion that the GPL is anti-business. You can't make
money with it!
Read the news if you don't believe me.
And before you get on your high-horse about how business is "bad"
Just remember that without business you wouldn't be typing on a
computer to form your response.
You know, this isn't the first time that I've seen this argument on Slashdot.
Maybe the Slashdot should solicit a couple of lawyers (one for both side of the argument) to argue this out legally, so that we could ferret out what is FUD and what is not.
What do you say, readers?
If the GPL is really not that restrictive, then we have nothing to fear!
Yeah, I guess you're right about the sources. I will say though that I haven't found nearly as many un-documented functions as I was lead to believe existed. Then again I have only been developing Windows apps for about 9 months...
I also think that you hit the nail on the head about the tools being a question of style. In the context of what they were designed to do (create GUI standalone or client applications), I think are designed well. Now, I'll be the first to say that if we have to write a server application, we push the customer to a FreeBSD (that's a whole other subject!) based solution. *nix does servers better than any other OS, period.
I still maintain that for what it was designed for (GUI development) the MS methodology is sound.
Just thought that I would point out that the source does, in fact, come with the MFC's. That first argument does not wash.
As for the second, well, that's being a little harsh isn't it? The MS developers routinely develop with their own tools, so wouldn't it be in their best interest for them to work as well as possible? They didn't get that big by being so stupid as that!
One problem that I have is poor documentation. If you've ever had to go diving through the MSDN Library, you know how frustrating that can be. Doc A leads to Doc B, which says "For more information, click here.", which leads back to Doc A! You feel like tearing your hair out.
Let me also clarify something that I just found out myself.
Geo-Synchronous means that the spacecraft is in a general location in the sky, but that it tends to wander in a pattern similar to a figure-8 (due to the wobble of the earth). You do require a tracking subsystem to maintain communications with that type of satellite.
Geo-Stationary means that the satellite appears to be motionless. I think that those types of satellites are controlled by ground controllers who use thrusters to keep them in an imaginary "box" in orbit.
Just wanted to clarify, and if you'd like to read for yourself, try this. (Look for section 3C). Or this article, which cuts the legs out from underneath your whole argument.
Cheers! and I'll say again: Jeez, is it just me or did the Slashdot crowd used to be better educated than this.
I've got news for you, jack. Geo-Synchronous satellites are in use, right now, all around the world.
Where did you get the idea that they weren't?
Geo-Synchronous means that the satellite's orbital velocity is such that it appears to "hover" in the sky, which means that you don't have to have the antenna track the device. That's why you can see all those cute little dishes (and monstrous old C band dishes here in the US) in peoples yards. The dishes aren't moving around, so they must be communicating with a Geo-Synchronous satellites. Wow! They're doing pretty good for something that doesn't work!
BTW, you might want to do a little research before you go spouting off again. The frequencies at which those satellites operate don't require a lot of power under normal circumstances, and in any case the reciever sensitivities are getting better and better every year. (Which means that you don't have to transmit as much power to recieve an acceptable signal.)
OK. I have not installed any one of those distributions in quite some time, so I'm out of that loop. Thanks for the info.
My previous point still stands though, that I personally, personally mind you!, think that Caldera would have been a better choice. It's installation is almost as easy as Corel, and it has flexibility, unlike the Corel installation. Once it's installed though, you get a real Linux desktop system, without all the candy coating that the Corel distribution has. I don't know about you, but when I tried the Corel distribution... Did you ever see the movie It's A Wonderful Life? Remember when George Bailey was offered the job at Mr. Potter's bank, and he shook Potter's hand? That's kind of the way I felt using the Corel distribution. It's a laudable goal (ease of use) but it comes at a price, namely the system is somewhat dumbed down and is trying very hard to be like Windows. Hey, if you want to run Windows, run Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to measure doppler is to have the precise frequency of the pulse before it bounced off of the target. Since the "pulse" that you are receiving could have come from any one of a hundred cell-phones, all transmitting at slightly different frequencies, it seems unlikely that you could ever have this knowledge.
Now, since you have no doppler information, the only way to track speed is to keep track of the target and do the math (calculate the distance between two points and divide the distance by the amount of time it took to cover that distance).
Again, I could be wrong, but this method seems to be unlikely to succeed because the flight trajectory of the plane is not likely to be static (the plane is weaving). A pilot who is travelling in a straight line over hostile territory is probably not that smart.
So, I hope that I've explained why I think that it would be difficult/impossible to obtain speed information. This was all off the top of my head. Would you like more "facts"? Most people who have experience with this subject would probably tell you the same thing.
But, you at least *sound* like you know what you're talking about.
If I understand what you're saying, then the weapons launched against the stealth platform must be vectored by the command center. Didn't the Soviets try this? And it never worked just right?
There is zero chance of there being any sort of (reliable) measurement of doppler here. That makes it unlikely that you could measure speed with any reliability.
I'd have to see this thing in action before I could believe it. I just don't see how you can get around the low re-radiated signal strength, unless they are using some sort of diversity tuning in conjunction with the cell-phone towers. Even then, as you said, the signal would be no different than that of any small, non-threatening target.
Plus, I doubt the military would:
A: Make their sensor platform dependant on someone sending out shout-out's to his/her homies.
B: Ever be allowed enough land rights over wide-enough areas to deploy all the necessary antennas so that they were not dependant on A.
This is a pipe dream.
Control of someones property is therefore control of someones freedoms. QED.
WRT to your question at the end of post #397. Why does the accumulation of wealth necessarily mean that others will be starving? I realize that you warned us that the question was polarizing, but why must it be so? There's plenty of gray area in there. Certainly, property rights (specifically the freedom to accumulate wealth), which is constitutionally guaranteed (U.S. specific!), are a more concrete ideal than some abstract, nebulous idea that because I'm accumulating wealth, I must be denying a starving person of money with which to buy food.
Again, just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Socialism by definition means that the state dictates what activities will and will not be permitted. Owning property is a freedom (for example, here in the U.S.A. I can freely own a gun as long as I'm not a convicted felon, etc., etc., etc.). Being forced to turn over property to the state, or being restricted from owning certain items is therefore a loss of freedom.
Now, extending this argument to it's extreme (why can't I own another person) will result in absurd arguments. The general consensus in the United States is (or at least it used to be) that you can have freedoms as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. Nowadays it's "You can have freedoms as long as you don't have more freedom than anyone else", but that's another matter entirely.
Just my opinion, and I don't mean this as flamebait. Please, if you want to respond to this or moderate me, take a couple of minutes to construct an argument and not just think of me as some kind of kook because I don't see things from your point of view.
I don't know about this. If it's private, then why are the IP's controlled? Why must you use a public IP?
The Freenet site on Sourceforge mentions that Freenet (in it's current form) is not very searchable. Adding an SQL layer provides this functionality. My questions would be "How do you still maintain anonymity?" and "What happens when you go looking for something that has been removed because of 'lack of interest'?"
I haven't read the developer docs yet, so I don't know a whole lot about the system. Does someone know the answers to this?
Me too! I immediately went and downloaded it...
This is something worth taking note of.
One more thing. This has the added advantage of placing the "disc interpretation" algorithms in software rather than firmware, making future circumvention easier.
Most likely this is the case. The mastering people can do funny things with the TOC, lead in/out and sub-channel data.
I think that most CD-ROM drives will require a firmware upgrade to deal with this (if you want to keep using your old ripping software).
What I could envision is software that reads the entire data stream into a buffer, and ripping software monitors the buffer in real-time, correcting the TOC and sub-channel information as it goes. Should work like normal then.
My $0.02
Are you on crack???!!!!
Transactions are there so you don't *have* to implement that sort of thing in code.
That's the difference between an RDBMS and some garbage like MySQL.
Trust me. They are needed.
No, that's what I meant. If they released a Linux distribution (complete with source in compliance with the GPL). When I was referring to binaries only, I meant a BSD release only.
Don't know exactly what would happen, but I can imagine that the big dogs in the Linux world (Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, etc.) wouldn't like it very much.
You can hear the MS hype machine ramping up now!
No one was ever fired for buying Microsoft, and now it's free!
It would be interesting to see.
I *guess* that Cygnus was successful, but I can't find any bank statements to prove or disprove that. My point is this: While there are a handful of successful purveyors of GPL'd software out there, the vast majority of companies could not make money in this fashion. I agree that MS's tactics are just plain wrong and should be frowned upon. I feel this same way about RMS and the FSF bunch. Surely there is some middle ground here. IMHO, the GPL is not representative of a "middle of the road" solution. The FreeBSD license is a much better compromise, as it maintains the status quo. You can still have free software, and you can still have proprietary solutions.
One other thing to think about. What if MS had a Linux distro, or if they took FreeBSD, "customized it" and released it (binary only) as a free OS? What do you think would happen to RedHat, et al, then?
Certainly you have to give MS credit for placing themselves in such a position of strength.
Anyway, it's interesting to think about.
The GPL is neither particularly restrictive nor nearly as complicated as most people seem to think
You know, it's funny that two out of your three "arguments"
were stated with must, and may not. Those sound like restrictions
to me.
C'mon! You must admit that while the GPL makes the software
free, it places even more restrictions on the developer.
To me, "Free" means that I can do anything, and I mean anything,
with the software that I choose to do. The GPL takes
this freedom away.
Personally, personally mind you, I feel that Microsoft is correct
in their assertion that the GPL is anti-business. You can't make
money with it!
Read the news if you don't believe me.
And before you get on your high-horse about how business is "bad"
Just remember that without business you wouldn't be typing on a
computer to form your response.
1971 - "Free" Love
2001 - "Free" Software
It's all a bunch of self-serving hippie crap.
You know, this isn't the first time that I've seen this argument on Slashdot.
Maybe the Slashdot should solicit a couple of lawyers (one for both side of the argument) to argue this out legally, so that we could ferret out what is FUD and what is not.
What do you say, readers?
If the GPL is really not that restrictive, then we have nothing to fear!
Dude?
The guru's boxes that he speaks of are error messages including the address of where the error occured. It was meant to be funny.
Don't take it so serious! Nobody is thinking that they will make any new hardware based on the 68K series.....
Yeah, I guess you're right about the sources.
I will say though that I haven't found nearly as many un-documented functions as I was lead to believe existed. Then again I have only been developing Windows apps for about 9 months...
I also think that you hit the nail on the head about the tools being a question of style. In the context of what they were designed to do (create GUI standalone or client applications), I think are designed well. Now, I'll be the first to say that if we have to write a server application, we push the customer to a FreeBSD (that's a whole other subject!) based solution. *nix does servers better than any other OS, period.
I still maintain that for what it was designed for (GUI development) the MS methodology is sound.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=us erinfo&nick=CDanek
/. down).
So fucking what? This guy has just as much right to be here as you do.
I really get tired of you bigoted Linux users.
If you don't have anything constructive to say, just keep your mouth shut (and the noise level on
Just thought that I would point out that the source does, in fact, come with the MFC's. That first argument does not wash.
As for the second, well, that's being a little harsh isn't it? The MS developers routinely develop with their own tools, so wouldn't it be in their best interest for them to work as well as possible? They didn't get that big by being so stupid as that!
One problem that I have is poor documentation. If you've ever had to go diving through the MSDN Library, you know how frustrating that can be. Doc A leads to Doc B, which says "For more information, click here.", which leads back to Doc A! You feel like tearing your hair out.
My $0.02....
There's no way this can be right. I thought that the idea of a hyperlink has been around since the late 60's? Xanadu or something????
Let me also clarify something that I just found out myself.
Geo-Synchronous means that the spacecraft is in a general location in the sky, but that it tends to wander in a pattern similar to a figure-8 (due to the wobble of the earth). You do require a tracking subsystem to maintain communications with that type of satellite.
Geo-Stationary means that the satellite appears to be motionless. I think that those types of satellites are controlled by ground controllers who use thrusters to keep them in an imaginary "box" in orbit.
Just wanted to clarify, and if you'd like to read for yourself, try this. (Look for section 3C).
Or this article, which cuts the legs out from underneath your whole argument.
Cheers! and I'll say again: Jeez, is it just me or did the Slashdot crowd used to be better educated than this.
What the hell?
I've got news for you, jack. Geo-Synchronous satellites are in use, right now, all around the world.
Where did you get the idea that they weren't?
Geo-Synchronous means that the satellite's orbital velocity is such that it appears to "hover" in the sky, which means that you don't have to have the antenna track the device. That's why you can see all those cute little dishes (and monstrous old C band dishes here in the US) in peoples yards. The dishes aren't moving around, so they must be communicating with a Geo-Synchronous satellites. Wow! They're doing pretty good for something that doesn't work!
BTW, you might want to do a little research before you go spouting off again. The frequencies at which those satellites operate don't require a lot of power under normal circumstances, and in any case the reciever sensitivities are getting better and better every year. (Which means that you don't have to transmit as much power to recieve an acceptable signal.)
Are you stupid or something?
The Hubble orbits at around 300-400 miles (could be even less). The highest the shuttle has ever been is less than 500 miles.
Geo-synchronous orbit is over 22 thousand miles.
They'd better have one long manipulator arm!
Jeez, is it just me or did the Slashdot crowd used to be better educated than this.
Ahh,
OK. I have not installed any one of those distributions in quite some time, so I'm out of that loop. Thanks for the info.
My previous point still stands though, that I personally, personally mind you!, think that Caldera would have been a better choice. It's installation is almost as easy as Corel, and it has flexibility, unlike the Corel installation. Once it's installed though, you get a real Linux desktop system, without all the candy coating that the Corel distribution has. I don't know about you, but when I tried the Corel distribution... Did you ever see the movie It's A Wonderful Life? Remember when George Bailey was offered the job at Mr. Potter's bank, and he shook Potter's hand? That's kind of the way I felt using the Corel distribution. It's a laudable goal (ease of use) but it comes at a price, namely the system is somewhat dumbed down and is trying very hard to be like Windows. Hey, if you want to run Windows, run Windows.
My $0.02
Peace