Maybe there's some NIH, maybe there's some fear that Microsoft has patented their way. Sometimes the standards come first, and it's Microsoft that does it differently. None of it is a good situation.
Unfortunately the "new model" is more of this type of stuff, not less.
Many years ago, a friend and I took my dad's boat out for a spin at a nearby lake. The sky started darkening, so we brought the boat back and got the boat out of the water. I was strapping the thing down when not only did I get a really eerie static feeling, I took a shock from the metal clamp on the strap. We rushed into the car as things really cut loose. After it had calmed down, we got back out, finished strapping down the boat, and left.
When there's lightning in the area, you have no idea where it's going to hit. As others have said, the lightning goes up. Not only that, but I can tell you from personal experience that you feel it in the whole general vicinity prior to the strike. Incidentally, everyone else there was pretty reasonable, too. I saw no panics, stampedes, or whatever. Of course when it's clear that the sky is about to cut loose most people get in their cars. I was just so close to driving away that I stayed out a little longer, hoping to finish before things started.
Only problem, to work best the screening effect is needed prior to reproduction. But then again, it seems that true cellphone addicts may be too busy chatting to bother to reproduce. I'm not sure how that affects the genetic emergence of true multithreading, though.
Does this really work? For the given example, does "if (document.gelElementsByClassName)" really mean that it will work the way you expect, for any and every implementation? That's the other part of standards - there's following the standard, and then there's "following the standard", which aren't necessarily interoperable... like Kerberos and a certain unnamed implementation.
The reason for standards isn't to keep companies like Microsoft in check, though it has that result, and that is good for the marketplace. Standards are supposed to reduce costs. In this particular example, the way your iLO team *should* do the job is to first check for html compliance, then check for IE6 - as the largest-share noncompliant browser, then check for any other non-compliant browsers you can't afford to ignore. At that point, you have 3 ways to branch in your code - compliant, IE6, and unsupported.
The software industry is pretty nearly hopelessly fouled up, because of the lack of clear and properly used standards. A large part of this is Microsoft's fault, though not all, by any means. Unfortunately, rather than software getting better, other industries are getting worse. Customer lock-in is an addictive drug, and in the long term is probably as wise, even from a business sense.
I honestly can't say that the guy's inspiring, but he's been getting a decent amount of face time on TV when astronomical facts are called for. He at least informs, and what he says isn't obviously incorrect. Perhaps not a ringing endorsement, but he at least deserves mention here.
On the other hand, I once saw an interview of Richard Feynmann on TV. The guy was absolutely stunning. You see others on TV and say, "He seems reasonably intelligent, despite being a celebrity/politician/whatever." Feynmann was the real thing.
Then you need passwords on at least 3 or 4 systems of different heritages, each with their own not-entirely-compatible password requirements, and of course all have the same (too-frequent) change interval. Since it's all the same company, you'd like to keep them in sync, but it's a bit of a pain on "password change day," not to mention the fact that as others have mentioned, you now have a Venn diagram of various restrictions, and you really want to land in the intersection of all. The cracking space has been reduced...
It's also telling that the Bigelow design is basically NASAs "TransHab". I never understood the whole story, but the TranHab project had some really sore enemies, to the point that (from what I heard) ISS funding legislation was written specifically forbidding the TransHab to EVER be attached. Sounds like some more wonderful bits of corruption, there. I was at first skeptical because it was "inflatable" but upon further reading it sounded safer than traditional solid construction.
I suggest YOU take a look at a little computing/software history, and you'll see how an anti-Microsoft (See, I can do it without substituting "$" for "s".) bias has been earned and deserved.
And if you think an anti-Microsoft bias is unfair, give me a benign explanation of AARD. And if you can actually come up with one for that, there are several dozen more behind it.
While there appear to be some pockets of sanity and even enlightenment within Microsoft, I've seen NOTHING to suggest that the company as a whole has reformed.
I wasn't under the impression that Armadillo Aerospace actually sold anything. I thought it was put together to compete for X-Prize type stuff, and so far I didn't think they'd won anything. How can they be profitable without revenue?
Not that I object - I've always said that if I ever got absurd amounts of money, I'd start my own space program, too.
Because if it's a choice between survival and not, I'll choose survival every time. There are various levels of survival - personal, genetic/bloodline, species, memetic, etc. Choosing which should survive at the possible expense of others can be very thorny, but I will very clearly choose survival of what I feel is most important in the prevailing circumstances.
If you wish to decide against survival, as long as my person and priorities are not involved, don't let me stop you.
If anyone these days has the balls to take on Microsoft, it's Intel. Intel has Moblin, and just sunk a pile of money into Moblin. I suspect they're also a bit tired of getting the screw-deal from Microsoft, too. Intel's entire low-end is pretty much zero profit - they make all their money on the high-end that piggy-backs on top. The lion's share of profit on low-end computing goes to Microsoft. Most live with it, I suspect Intel is tired of that situation.
Not that Intel doesn't have their monopoly abuses, too.
I would think that the direct rotational coupling makes hybrid regenerative braking about as good as it gets. In other words, some sort of regenerative speed bumps probably can't be recovering energy when the hybrid can't, and I doubt they would be as efficient. As for regenerative vs friction on the Prius, obviously the most regenerative recovery is happening when friction braking isn't. I just have no idea when each method is being used, but if I were designing the car, I'd use regenerative as much as possible, and only use friction in panic stops where more force is needed, and at very low speeds where regeneration might quit working.
This wasn't always true. Once WWII really got going, EVERY part of the US was involved. Corporations made out, but they certainly put out, as well.
Personally I don't like this modern "distilled" view of corporations, though I know that what I do and don't like doesn't matter worth a hill of beans. But if a person acted the way we now seem to expect corporations to act, we'd call them sociopaths. Certainly not the kind of person I would see as a friend, and for that matter the kind of person I avoid in business deals. Unfortunately with corporations there is so little option NOT to deal with them, so few alternatives, so similar.
First off, it just isn't a very good idea to start going tit-for-tat with the US government. That's especially true for a convicted monopolist, not to mention the fact that the previous administration essentially cancelled anything so severe as even a wrist-slap.
That judgement could be re-examined.
Second, that's just a really patriotic, really American thing to do. Or does it mean that patriotism is defined one way for corporations and their heads, and another way for "merely working Americans"? For one of the most profitable corporations in US history to in all essence say, "I don't want to pay my fair share, I'm taking the rest of the American jobs overseas," is a real slap in the face. It's also not as if this is meant to be a tax increase, it's meant to be eliminating a tax shelter. For you and me, using such a tax shelter would be cheating, avoiding doing our fair share.
Third, I'm sure "Vista for the US Army" isn't a done deal. Also don't forget, Linus Torvalds is a US resident, and I'm sure *he* pays his income taxes, as do the various US-residing RedHat, Novell, etc, employees.
I've looked into LDAP/Kerberos authentication for my home LAN several times, and basically given up every time. There appears to be a software mix that will do the job, but each piece needs to be configured *just so* in order to work with all of the others. Furthermore, there appear to be a few people out there who really know their stuff, and to them I'll bet this is all easy.
But it appears that those people all work for companies that sell Directory Server services. They're quite willing to be helpful on specific questions, but the overall integration is still not well documented, from what I can see. As near as I can tell, it's like the Bad Old Unix days, when everyone wanted to be The Solution - for a price. I haven't really looked at the RedHat Directory server or similar products, wishing to use the pieces, and wishing for integration documentation.
Why this on a home LAN? For some odd reason, I've tried to run my LAN on industrial-strength software - BIND, ISC DHCP, etc. I'm used to single-sign-in at work, and would really like it at home, given that $HOME is shared over NFSv4. I also usually am too busy doing other things, which is another reason why there's been no progress in years.
Maybe an integrated OSS Directory Server will make it into my house, but there's no way I'm footing the bill it would take to add AD, here.
I thought you were saying we were "past all of that". I wish we were, and fear that we're not. I guess you're really saying that the current model isn't justified. I have to agree with you on that, but part of the problem is that it doesn't matter what you, I, or the whole readership of Slashdot think. Think "Meatballs", and "It just doesn't matter!", and why it doesn't. The same reasoning applies here as there - unfortunately.
I'm in the silicon business, and I've often thought it would be great to get parts into rockets, better yet, missiles. Look at the bright side...
The entire operational liftime of your part is measured in minutes, maybe even seconds. None of the kpoh stuff. Particularly with missiles, your part is destroyed at the end of operational life, and it's well-protected before that. No need to worry about reverse engineering and such.
Of course there is a problem with field returns, because if something bad makes it to the field, you really want them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there's some NIH, maybe there's some fear that Microsoft has patented their way. Sometimes the standards come first, and it's Microsoft that does it differently. None of it is a good situation.
Unfortunately the "new model" is more of this type of stuff, not less.
In cases like this, it seems to me that someone should go back to the standards body, give them a dope-slap upside the head, and say, "Fix it!"
Conversely, does arguing with a man make you drive better?
How about arguing with inanimate objects, like a brick?
Many years ago, a friend and I took my dad's boat out for a spin at a nearby lake. The sky started darkening, so we brought the boat back and got the boat out of the water. I was strapping the thing down when not only did I get a really eerie static feeling, I took a shock from the metal clamp on the strap. We rushed into the car as things really cut loose. After it had calmed down, we got back out, finished strapping down the boat, and left.
When there's lightning in the area, you have no idea where it's going to hit. As others have said, the lightning goes up. Not only that, but I can tell you from personal experience that you feel it in the whole general vicinity prior to the strike. Incidentally, everyone else there was pretty reasonable, too. I saw no panics, stampedes, or whatever. Of course when it's clear that the sky is about to cut loose most people get in their cars. I was just so close to driving away that I stayed out a little longer, hoping to finish before things started.
Think of it as evolution in action.
Only problem, to work best the screening effect is needed prior to reproduction. But then again, it seems that true cellphone addicts may be too busy chatting to bother to reproduce. I'm not sure how that affects the genetic emergence of true multithreading, though.
Does this really work? For the given example, does "if (document.gelElementsByClassName)" really mean that it will work the way you expect, for any and every implementation? That's the other part of standards - there's following the standard, and then there's "following the standard", which aren't necessarily interoperable... like Kerberos and a certain unnamed implementation.
Stupid practice.
The reason for standards isn't to keep companies like Microsoft in check, though it has that result, and that is good for the marketplace. Standards are supposed to reduce costs. In this particular example, the way your iLO team *should* do the job is to first check for html compliance, then check for IE6 - as the largest-share noncompliant browser, then check for any other non-compliant browsers you can't afford to ignore. At that point, you have 3 ways to branch in your code - compliant, IE6, and unsupported.
The software industry is pretty nearly hopelessly fouled up, because of the lack of clear and properly used standards. A large part of this is Microsoft's fault, though not all, by any means. Unfortunately, rather than software getting better, other industries are getting worse. Customer lock-in is an addictive drug, and in the long term is probably as wise, even from a business sense.
I honestly can't say that the guy's inspiring, but he's been getting a decent amount of face time on TV when astronomical facts are called for. He at least informs, and what he says isn't obviously incorrect. Perhaps not a ringing endorsement, but he at least deserves mention here.
On the other hand, I once saw an interview of Richard Feynmann on TV. The guy was absolutely stunning. You see others on TV and say, "He seems reasonably intelligent, despite being a celebrity/politician/whatever." Feynmann was the real thing.
It gets worse...
Then you need passwords on at least 3 or 4 systems of different heritages, each with their own not-entirely-compatible password requirements, and of course all have the same (too-frequent) change interval. Since it's all the same company, you'd like to keep them in sync, but it's a bit of a pain on "password change day," not to mention the fact that as others have mentioned, you now have a Venn diagram of various restrictions, and you really want to land in the intersection of all. The cracking space has been reduced...
In fiction, "Tank Farm Dynamo" by David Brin
It's also telling that the Bigelow design is basically NASAs "TransHab". I never understood the whole story, but the TranHab project had some really sore enemies, to the point that (from what I heard) ISS funding legislation was written specifically forbidding the TransHab to EVER be attached. Sounds like some more wonderful bits of corruption, there. I was at first skeptical because it was "inflatable" but upon further reading it sounded safer than traditional solid construction.
You forgot "lather, rinse, repeat".
You've got to destroy the first one before you can say, "Oops, we really DID need that thing up there," and go for another one.
I suggest YOU take a look at a little computing/software history, and you'll see how an anti-Microsoft (See, I can do it without substituting "$" for "s".) bias has been earned and deserved.
And if you think an anti-Microsoft bias is unfair, give me a benign explanation of AARD. And if you can actually come up with one for that, there are several dozen more behind it.
While there appear to be some pockets of sanity and even enlightenment within Microsoft, I've seen NOTHING to suggest that the company as a whole has reformed.
Doesn't GNOME stand for GNu Object Network Model Environment?
Doesn't RMS own the GNU trademark?
If the GNOME foundation insists on Mono and C#, can't RMS send them a Cease and Desist over use of the GNU trademark, and turn them into "OME"?
I wasn't under the impression that Armadillo Aerospace actually sold anything. I thought it was put together to compete for X-Prize type stuff, and so far I didn't think they'd won anything. How can they be profitable without revenue?
Not that I object - I've always said that if I ever got absurd amounts of money, I'd start my own space program, too.
Because if it's a choice between survival and not, I'll choose survival every time. There are various levels of survival - personal, genetic/bloodline, species, memetic, etc. Choosing which should survive at the possible expense of others can be very thorny, but I will very clearly choose survival of what I feel is most important in the prevailing circumstances.
If you wish to decide against survival, as long as my person and priorities are not involved, don't let me stop you.
If anyone these days has the balls to take on Microsoft, it's Intel. Intel has Moblin, and just sunk a pile of money into Moblin. I suspect they're also a bit tired of getting the screw-deal from Microsoft, too. Intel's entire low-end is pretty much zero profit - they make all their money on the high-end that piggy-backs on top. The lion's share of profit on low-end computing goes to Microsoft. Most live with it, I suspect Intel is tired of that situation.
Not that Intel doesn't have their monopoly abuses, too.
Now we can engage in lily-gilding...
I would think that the direct rotational coupling makes hybrid regenerative braking about as good as it gets. In other words, some sort of regenerative speed bumps probably can't be recovering energy when the hybrid can't, and I doubt they would be as efficient. As for regenerative vs friction on the Prius, obviously the most regenerative recovery is happening when friction braking isn't. I just have no idea when each method is being used, but if I were designing the car, I'd use regenerative as much as possible, and only use friction in panic stops where more force is needed, and at very low speeds where regeneration might quit working.
Maybe it's OK for reclaiming energy from cars in places where they're supposed to be slowing down, instead of wasting it in the breaks.
But if it's a Prius (or other hybrid) with regenerative braking...
This wasn't always true. Once WWII really got going, EVERY part of the US was involved. Corporations made out, but they certainly put out, as well.
Personally I don't like this modern "distilled" view of corporations, though I know that what I do and don't like doesn't matter worth a hill of beans. But if a person acted the way we now seem to expect corporations to act, we'd call them sociopaths. Certainly not the kind of person I would see as a friend, and for that matter the kind of person I avoid in business deals. Unfortunately with corporations there is so little option NOT to deal with them, so few alternatives, so similar.
4. Reopen the antitrust actions, and include post-settlement complaints. Snarl 'em up in court. Chew them up filing legal responses, etc.
5. (Bonus) Replace all of their chairs with heavy-duty models made of Depleted Uranium. Watch Steve Ballmer throw one of those!
First off, it just isn't a very good idea to start going tit-for-tat with the US government. That's especially true for a convicted monopolist, not to mention the fact that the previous administration essentially cancelled anything so severe as even a wrist-slap.
That judgement could be re-examined.
Second, that's just a really patriotic, really American thing to do. Or does it mean that patriotism is defined one way for corporations and their heads, and another way for "merely working Americans"? For one of the most profitable corporations in US history to in all essence say, "I don't want to pay my fair share, I'm taking the rest of the American jobs overseas," is a real slap in the face. It's also not as if this is meant to be a tax increase, it's meant to be eliminating a tax shelter. For you and me, using such a tax shelter would be cheating, avoiding doing our fair share.
Third, I'm sure "Vista for the US Army" isn't a done deal. Also don't forget, Linus Torvalds is a US resident, and I'm sure *he* pays his income taxes, as do the various US-residing RedHat, Novell, etc, employees.
I've looked into LDAP/Kerberos authentication for my home LAN several times, and basically given up every time. There appears to be a software mix that will do the job, but each piece needs to be configured *just so* in order to work with all of the others. Furthermore, there appear to be a few people out there who really know their stuff, and to them I'll bet this is all easy.
But it appears that those people all work for companies that sell Directory Server services. They're quite willing to be helpful on specific questions, but the overall integration is still not well documented, from what I can see. As near as I can tell, it's like the Bad Old Unix days, when everyone wanted to be The Solution - for a price. I haven't really looked at the RedHat Directory server or similar products, wishing to use the pieces, and wishing for integration documentation.
Why this on a home LAN? For some odd reason, I've tried to run my LAN on industrial-strength software - BIND, ISC DHCP, etc. I'm used to single-sign-in at work, and would really like it at home, given that $HOME is shared over NFSv4. I also usually am too busy doing other things, which is another reason why there's been no progress in years.
Maybe an integrated OSS Directory Server will make it into my house, but there's no way I'm footing the bill it would take to add AD, here.
I thought you were saying we were "past all of that". I wish we were, and fear that we're not. I guess you're really saying that the current model isn't justified. I have to agree with you on that, but part of the problem is that it doesn't matter what you, I, or the whole readership of Slashdot think. Think "Meatballs", and "It just doesn't matter!", and why it doesn't. The same reasoning applies here as there - unfortunately.
I'm in the silicon business, and I've often thought it would be great to get parts into rockets, better yet, missiles. Look at the bright side...
The entire operational liftime of your part is measured in minutes, maybe even seconds. None of the kpoh stuff.
Particularly with missiles, your part is destroyed at the end of operational life, and it's well-protected before that. No need to worry about reverse engineering and such.
Of course there is a problem with field returns, because if something bad makes it to the field, you really want them.