Cellars only work with dry weather events, like tornadoes.(*) Hurricanes usually cause mass flooding. Not fun to be in a hole in the ground when that hole fills with water, with the house above collapsed and flying-death outside. (And a few days until the storm & rains around the hurricane subside.) Even in a tornado, if there's less crap flying around (because it's held together), the event will be more survivable.
None of your examples are biological control. Even foxes were introduced as sport, not to control the rabbits. The others are similarly introduced pests, intended for farming/gardening/pets. Australia has a pretty good record for biological controls (cane toads notwithstanding), but while the biologists get their stuff right, there tends to be a lack of political will to finish the job.
The same is probably true for global vaccination programs. We get close to eliminating something, then back off the last step. (Smallpox being the counter-example)
Wild rabbits were introduced into Australia by an English toff to provide anglophilic sport, not as a bio-control measure. "The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting."
Australia has had a number of successes in biological control of introduced pests. The obsession with cane-toads is due to the lack of examples of that kind of failure.
The real failure of bio-control in Australia is our lack of follow through. Take RCV, for example. It dramatically reduced rabbit numbers, but we didn't follow it with a dedicated "extinction" program. We only introduce a follow-up when the pest develops resistance to the last control.
Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source
You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.
I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, [...]It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.[...] Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim.
C'mon Dissy, don't be deliberately stupid, it's a lame tactic, you know that wasn't what Michael meant. You read the same thread that I did, you originally said (in essence) "if you use GPLed code, with mods, you have to source the mods", Michael replied, "no, the whole code." (Which you probably meant anyway.)
Don't pretend he was arguing that every GPL-toting vendor has to distribute every single bit of GPLed code ever written. Everyone can see he didn't, it just makes you look silly. How hard is it to just say, "Yeah, Michael, that's what I meant"?
(Reading old threads, bad habit. But since no one answered you...)
"The encrypted volume you're looking at (may) contain confidential correspondance between me, and my lawyer,
I believe the judge can appoint himself impartial reviewer. (That's his job, after all, the whole point of the system.) You'd still be required to hand over the key (to prove good faith, at the very least), the recovered files would be held in escrow pending his review. If the files are between you and you silk/doc, they are returned/deleted, if not you will be charged with perjury. (Plus for whatever you actually did and were hiding:)
It's quite common for evidence in dispute (especially documents) to be held in such a way that neither you nor the prosecution/plaintive have access until whatever the dispute is, is resolved.
You can elaborate, if required, by asking if they've ever seen the edge of a pane of glass; so what colour is glass? Green. Same principle.
If that satisfies them, so be it. If they follow up with, "then why are sunsets red", you can talk about light scattering.
You might have them imagine a transparent bag of air, 100kpa/15psi, kilometres across, at 1 AU. It would look more and more sky blue the larger it was. But, line it up with the sun directly behind it, and it turns red. Why? The blue you see from the sides has to come from somewhere, take blue away from white and it leaves yellow/red.
Thus you leave them with the image that their blue sky is someone else's red sunset.
That was my point. Microsoft sells ads to compete with Google, to try to hurt Google's main revenue stream. But it means nothing to Microsoft. (Like Google with Chrome/etc.)
There is a way for Microsoft to screw Google while protecting its own ad business, without attracting regulators.
If IE8 (or 9) blocked all ads by default, but Microsoft then offers an opt-in service to its users; MS will regulate their own advertisers for you. You can set the advertisement behaviour, style, amount, safe-for-work filtering, even the type of businesses that you allow through. For any advertiser or website that joins the scheme.
Judging by comments on ad-block threads, some people want to support their favourite sites, and even Ad-Block Plus users would tolerate ads if they didn't blink and dance, pop-up/under, open windows, float, resize windows, mouse hijack, link to malware/phishing sites, and generally be evil (or slow).
If MS started an opt-in filtered ad scheme, easy to join, easy to use, I doubt regulators could really attack them.
Less people would opt-in than currently don't opt-out (if you follow) but those people would have actively chosen to see ads, and for advertisers that is a more valuable market. I suspect Microsoft would be able to charge more for those eyeballs, and offer more revenue-per-ad for website owners than anyone else, attracting more members.
And if not, it still hurts Google's revenue a whole lot more than merely being a rival ad-server. Add in a faux grass-roots whisper campaign against Google-search not filtering key-word-hijacking ad sites from search results, something that genuinely annoys people, and you start to hurt Google's brand-cool as well.
(Oblig: if this happened, I'd be lining up with everyone else screaming "itsatrap", I'm not saying it's good, just thinking out loud. When fighting Google, MS seems more stupid than evil. Bizarrely they are not abusing their monopoly.)
ChromeOS... is a value added to Google's crown jewels, their advertising and search business.... Google can go whole hog right away and directly compete with Windows by giving Chrome OS away and supporting it without any fear of their profits being destroyed. It's a different game.
That works both ways, though. It occurred to me awhile ago that Microsoft can kill Google with relative ease. Microsoft is a software vendor. Everything else they do is frill. Google is an advertising broker. Everything else they do, even search, is branding.
As you point out, Google has been threatening Microsoft's revenue base by offering office-type software for free, in teh cloud. Threatening WinMobile revenue with Android. Now they'll threaten Microsoft's desktop OS revenue. Microsoft responds by trying to target Google's search engine. But that misses the point, Google isn't a search company, they sell ads.
Imagine if Microsoft had built an ad-blocker into the heart of IE8. Not an add-on engine for ABP&co to use, but built into the browser, on by default, administered by Microsoft themselves. It wouldn't be "targeting" Google directly, any more than blocking pop-ups targeted any specific advertiser, it would none-the-less royally fuck Google's revenue. 40% browser marketshare to Firefox, most using ABP, 20% IE8 all using MS-ad-block. Google has a rapidly declining 40% of "saleable" web users left. Less revenue, less R&D, fewer shiny-new things, less brand awe...
It's amazing that after the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo successes we can't seem to figure out how to make heavy lift rockets. This is nearly 40 years after Apollo was canceled
(Emphasis mine.) You have your own answer. Apollo came after Gemini, which came after Mercury, all in a single decade. And several years of NASA unmanned (though occasionally monkeyed) flights before that. A decade of various missile work before that. And a decade of prior smaller scale work each by Goddard & co and the Naz^H^H^HGermans before that. Every guy working on Apollo had years of prior experience blowing up rockets, senior guys decades.
Since Apollo, you had skylab. A one-off bit of throw away kit. Then a ten year wait after Apollo for the shuttle. Then "Freedom", a 20+ year long program downgraded to the ISS around a Russian core. 20 years, to deliver a single station.
Then, over 20 years since the newest shuttle was built, we have Constellation - Ares & Orion. No incremental development, no learning their "craft", just one design, refusing all criticism, and fuck you if it's wrong.
(And Ares I isn't a first step, it's the first half of a single program. It isn't a training run, it isn't allowed to go wrong.)
NASA's problems aren't lack of either funding or some mythical "Vision" or Kennedyesque "Challenge", nor is it political interference; it's lack of experience. Noone who has been working at NASA&co less than 20 years has been involved with the development of a manned launcher. Not one. Not the designers, the managers who chose that design, not the engineers working on it.
I don't care how high their IQ's, how many PhD's per square mile they have, you cannot expect them to succeed without giving them a chance to build real hardware for ten years, real rockets, real capsules, before they design your final project.
Why not just equip the crew capsule with retro rockets?
It is. That's the thing that looks like an antenna on top of all manned expendables, including artists' impressions of the Ares I/Orion stack. The escape tower. It has a bunch of solid rockets (oh the irony) that lift it away from any explosion.
That's not the problem. The problem is they then parachute back through their own debris cloud. Which, in the case of solid rocket based launchers, is on fire.
I can curl up in my easy chair with my dog(...) and a good book. It's incredibly awkward to do the same with a laptop. I do realize that smaller and probably far less awkward technology exists for reading e-books, but why would I purchase some piece of tech to do what the books I already own do.
When was the last time you moved? Two boxes, marked kitchen, two boxes marked bedroom, two boxes marked computer-stuff *, 15 boxes marked books. 15 Heavy Boxes Marked Books. And I don't own that many books. Bring on the digital revolution, I would be more than happy to have every book I've ever owned on a tablet-style device. (DRM notwithstanding)
(And another 15 two-foot tight-packed bundles of magazines on the curb. How the hell did I get a periodicals section?)
(*) Actually, "computer-stuff-fragile-fragile-do-not-drop-no-i'm-serious-i-will-fucking-kill-you". Okay, maybe the digi-book tablet-thing still has a flaw or two.
but on Slashdot there are some really dim people, so I'm stating this for them:)
And we appreciate your small words, and big fonts.
Do you read this site? I mean, you are a 600k UID, I'm around 1.3 million; yet in the short time since I registered an account, I've seen that GPL argument many times. Hell, every time a copyright topic emerges, some idiot drags it out. And each time someone carefully explains why it's wrong.(*)
So why are you still posting the same exact argument, unaltered, as if it hadn't been discussed and dissected so many times before. As I asked, do you actually read this site? Or is your post just an obscure troll?
* For anyone genuinely new: The usual counter is, "GPL may require copyright, but it also only needs to exist because copyright exists. If there was no copyright, all software would be freeware, and all available source would be open. While you could, theoretically, hide your code and just release binaries, if everyone can copy (and hack) your binaries freely, what is your motivation for doing so? There's no commercial advantage."
Slashdot Mirror
Cellars only work with dry weather events, like tornadoes.(*) Hurricanes usually cause mass flooding. Not fun to be in a hole in the ground when that hole fills with water, with the house above collapsed and flying-death outside. (And a few days until the storm & rains around the hurricane subside.) Even in a tornado, if there's less crap flying around (because it's held together), the event will be more survivable.
(*Unless it's a really awesome cellar.)
I find the juxtaposition of "underpants" with Vader's "I find your (lack of faith) disturbing," to be mentally painful. Ow ow ow, force-balls.
It doesn't count unless you use it in a sentence.
(Oops, bit late, I haven't been online...)
None of your examples are biological control. Even foxes were introduced as sport, not to control the rabbits. The others are similarly introduced pests, intended for farming/gardening/pets. Australia has a pretty good record for biological controls (cane toads notwithstanding), but while the biologists get their stuff right, there tends to be a lack of political will to finish the job.
The same is probably true for global vaccination programs. We get close to eliminating something, then back off the last step. (Smallpox being the counter-example)
Wild rabbits were introduced into Australia by an English toff to provide anglophilic sport, not as a bio-control measure. "The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting."
Australia has had a number of successes in biological control of introduced pests. The obsession with cane-toads is due to the lack of examples of that kind of failure.
The real failure of bio-control in Australia is our lack of follow through. Take RCV, for example. It dramatically reduced rabbit numbers, but we didn't follow it with a dedicated "extinction" program. We only introduce a follow-up when the pest develops resistance to the last control.
Eventually it would just give you the pips.
Oops. Bad Mods. Bad mods gone. Sorry.
Any bits of it you modified, you have to provide those modifications as source
You have to offer to supply the source for all GPL software, not just your changes.
I do NOT, i repeat NOT, have to provide an entire mirror of ftp.kernel.org, [...]It is not possible to expect the developers (or in this case, distributers) to have the source for *ALL* gpl software. That is just ridiculous.[...] Again, not *ALL* GPLed source code, as you claim.
C'mon Dissy, don't be deliberately stupid, it's a lame tactic, you know that wasn't what Michael meant. You read the same thread that I did, you originally said (in essence) "if you use GPLed code, with mods, you have to source the mods", Michael replied, "no, the whole code." (Which you probably meant anyway.)
Don't pretend he was arguing that every GPL-toting vendor has to distribute every single bit of GPLed code ever written. Everyone can see he didn't, it just makes you look silly. How hard is it to just say, "Yeah, Michael, that's what I meant"?
Sorry, but that is definitely not what "Hoe Squad" sounds like at all.
What? No "hoe and weed" where you come from?
(Reading old threads, bad habit. But since no one answered you...)
"The encrypted volume you're looking at (may) contain confidential correspondance between me, and my lawyer,
I believe the judge can appoint himself impartial reviewer. (That's his job, after all, the whole point of the system.) You'd still be required to hand over the key (to prove good faith, at the very least), the recovered files would be held in escrow pending his review. If the files are between you and you silk/doc, they are returned/deleted, if not you will be charged with perjury. (Plus for whatever you actually did and were hiding :)
It's quite common for evidence in dispute (especially documents) to be held in such a way that neither you nor the prosecution/plaintive have access until whatever the dispute is, is resolved.
Thank god someone remembered this.
You can elaborate, if required, by asking if they've ever seen the edge of a pane of glass; so what colour is glass? Green. Same principle.
If that satisfies them, so be it. If they follow up with, "then why are sunsets red", you can talk about light scattering.
You might have them imagine a transparent bag of air, 100kpa/15psi, kilometres across, at 1 AU. It would look more and more sky blue the larger it was. But, line it up with the sun directly behind it, and it turns red. Why? The blue you see from the sides has to come from somewhere, take blue away from white and it leaves yellow/red.
Thus you leave them with the image that their blue sky is someone else's red sunset.
Science is poetry bitches.
That was my point. Microsoft sells ads to compete with Google, to try to hurt Google's main revenue stream. But it means nothing to Microsoft. (Like Google with Chrome/etc.)
There is a way for Microsoft to screw Google while protecting its own ad business, without attracting regulators.
If IE8 (or 9) blocked all ads by default, but Microsoft then offers an opt-in service to its users; MS will regulate their own advertisers for you. You can set the advertisement behaviour, style, amount, safe-for-work filtering, even the type of businesses that you allow through. For any advertiser or website that joins the scheme.
Judging by comments on ad-block threads, some people want to support their favourite sites, and even Ad-Block Plus users would tolerate ads if they didn't blink and dance, pop-up/under, open windows, float, resize windows, mouse hijack, link to malware/phishing sites, and generally be evil (or slow).
If MS started an opt-in filtered ad scheme, easy to join, easy to use, I doubt regulators could really attack them.
Less people would opt-in than currently don't opt-out (if you follow) but those people would have actively chosen to see ads, and for advertisers that is a more valuable market. I suspect Microsoft would be able to charge more for those eyeballs, and offer more revenue-per-ad for website owners than anyone else, attracting more members.
And if not, it still hurts Google's revenue a whole lot more than merely being a rival ad-server. Add in a faux grass-roots whisper campaign against Google-search not filtering key-word-hijacking ad sites from search results, something that genuinely annoys people, and you start to hurt Google's brand-cool as well.
(Oblig: if this happened, I'd be lining up with everyone else screaming "itsatrap", I'm not saying it's good, just thinking out loud. When fighting Google, MS seems more stupid than evil. Bizarrely they are not abusing their monopoly.)
ChromeOS ... is a value added to Google's crown jewels, their advertising and search business. ... Google can go whole hog right away and directly compete with Windows by giving Chrome OS away and supporting it without any fear of their profits being destroyed. It's a different game.
That works both ways, though. It occurred to me awhile ago that Microsoft can kill Google with relative ease. Microsoft is a software vendor. Everything else they do is frill. Google is an advertising broker. Everything else they do, even search, is branding.
As you point out, Google has been threatening Microsoft's revenue base by offering office-type software for free, in teh cloud. Threatening WinMobile revenue with Android. Now they'll threaten Microsoft's desktop OS revenue. Microsoft responds by trying to target Google's search engine. But that misses the point, Google isn't a search company, they sell ads.
Imagine if Microsoft had built an ad-blocker into the heart of IE8. Not an add-on engine for ABP&co to use, but built into the browser, on by default, administered by Microsoft themselves. It wouldn't be "targeting" Google directly, any more than blocking pop-ups targeted any specific advertiser, it would none-the-less royally fuck Google's revenue. 40% browser marketshare to Firefox, most using ABP, 20% IE8 all using MS-ad-block. Google has a rapidly declining 40% of "saleable" web users left. Less revenue, less R&D, fewer shiny-new things, less brand awe...
[shrugs] Random thought.
Greyhueofdoubt's post contains the phrase "First post".
It's amazing that after the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo successes we can't seem to figure out how to make heavy lift rockets. This is nearly 40 years after Apollo was canceled
(Emphasis mine.) You have your own answer. Apollo came after Gemini, which came after Mercury, all in a single decade. And several years of NASA unmanned (though occasionally monkeyed) flights before that. A decade of various missile work before that. And a decade of prior smaller scale work each by Goddard & co and the Naz^H^H^HGermans before that. Every guy working on Apollo had years of prior experience blowing up rockets, senior guys decades.
Since Apollo, you had skylab. A one-off bit of throw away kit. Then a ten year wait after Apollo for the shuttle. Then "Freedom", a 20+ year long program downgraded to the ISS around a Russian core. 20 years, to deliver a single station.
Then, over 20 years since the newest shuttle was built, we have Constellation - Ares & Orion. No incremental development, no learning their "craft", just one design, refusing all criticism, and fuck you if it's wrong.
(And Ares I isn't a first step, it's the first half of a single program. It isn't a training run, it isn't allowed to go wrong.)
NASA's problems aren't lack of either funding or some mythical "Vision" or Kennedyesque "Challenge", nor is it political interference; it's lack of experience. Noone who has been working at NASA&co less than 20 years has been involved with the development of a manned launcher. Not one. Not the designers, the managers who chose that design, not the engineers working on it.
I don't care how high their IQ's, how many PhD's per square mile they have, you cannot expect them to succeed without giving them a chance to build real hardware for ten years, real rockets, real capsules, before they design your final project.
Why not just equip the crew capsule with retro rockets?
It is. That's the thing that looks like an antenna on top of all manned expendables, including artists' impressions of the Ares I/Orion stack. The escape tower. It has a bunch of solid rockets (oh the irony) that lift it away from any explosion.
That's not the problem. The problem is they then parachute back through their own debris cloud. Which, in the case of solid rocket based launchers, is on fire.
Escape Towers
Escape Launch Systems
Coz when I sleep the veins pop out in my neck like that, too.
If we're honest, 99% of application reviews will read:
Grant refused until "Barry" Hussein Soetoro releases his long-form birth certificate!!!!!one!
taking over government argghhghggh (spattered with flecks of foam.)
AR has excellent collision detection.
America wants to read their new president's long-form birth certificate and college transcripts, stoned.
I can curl up in my easy chair with my dog(...) and a good book. It's incredibly awkward to do the same with a laptop. I do realize that smaller and probably far less awkward technology exists for reading e-books, but why would I purchase some piece of tech to do what the books I already own do.
When was the last time you moved? Two boxes, marked kitchen, two boxes marked bedroom, two boxes marked computer-stuff *, 15 boxes marked books. 15 Heavy Boxes Marked Books. And I don't own that many books. Bring on the digital revolution, I would be more than happy to have every book I've ever owned on a tablet-style device. (DRM notwithstanding)
(And another 15 two-foot tight-packed bundles of magazines on the curb. How the hell did I get a periodicals section?)
(*) Actually, "computer-stuff-fragile-fragile-do-not-drop-no-i'm-serious-i-will-fucking-kill-you". Okay, maybe the digi-book tablet-thing still has a flaw or two.
but on Slashdot there are some really dim people, so I'm stating this for them :)
And we appreciate your small words, and big fonts.
I've been having fun with Parallel Kingdom for months! Highly recommended.
I'm a bit late, but nonetheless I'm curious how you feel about the original AC's freak out about the dangers of iPhone+GPS+VirtualRealityGame?
I'm assuming that it would be just a geekier version of any honest-to-god real world amateur team-sport/outdoor-recreation.
Are you asking for pictures? Coz...
Do you read this site? I mean, you are a 600k UID, I'm around 1.3 million; yet in the short time since I registered an account, I've seen that GPL argument many times. Hell, every time a copyright topic emerges, some idiot drags it out. And each time someone carefully explains why it's wrong.(*)
So why are you still posting the same exact argument, unaltered, as if it hadn't been discussed and dissected so many times before. As I asked, do you actually read this site? Or is your post just an obscure troll?
* For anyone genuinely new: The usual counter is, "GPL may require copyright, but it also only needs to exist because copyright exists. If there was no copyright, all software would be freeware, and all available source would be open. While you could, theoretically, hide your code and just release binaries, if everyone can copy (and hack) your binaries freely, what is your motivation for doing so? There's no commercial advantage."
like minded strangers who could become friends if only they knew you existed.
I don't know why, but for some reason that phrasing creeps the hell out of me. All fixed smiles and unblinking stares.