Yeah, because drilling tunnels randomly between two points is childs play. I mean, what could go wrong? Not like anything else is buried underground....
And who cares if the 10$-15k rental equipment gets stuck under some highway. You can always shut down traffic, bring in the back hoe, break open the pavement, cart of 1/2 ton of concrete and asphalt, and retrieve the device...
The search and retrieve operation would only cost 300k or so.
Man, what world do you people live in? Have you ever tried to get trench permits from a city? And you think arbitrary tunnels will be looked more favorable on?
The EM spectrum is natures peace offering to us to stop fucking drilling holes in her. Lets get some FCC reform, turn the entire spectrum into a shared spectrum with frequency hoping recievers and auto-relays/routers in each consumer device, and use the nearly inifinte amount of bandwidth that electricity and magnetism provide us.
She had one of those speeches that provided absolutely nothing to the debte. Sadam is bad/evil..blah blah blah, but her main points: How much will the war cost, How long will it take, exactly how many on our side will perish and Have we finished the war on terrorism.
No set of answers to any of these questions would change her mind, so why ask them?
Cost should be a basis on whether or not we get into a war? Now that is immoral. If a war was known to take only 1 day, as opposed to 1 year, then it's some how better? What if in that 1 day 10x the number of people died hastily as oppose to 1/10th that number over a year?
How many will die? There's never a way to figure this out. We estimated what now seem to be pretty big loses on the original, yet never came close to that amount. We did the same thing on peace keeping missions. While life is extremly valuable, this metric and this resolution is useless.
Have we finished the war on terrorism? I guess she doesn't beleive this has any impact on that war.
anyhow, i wish her form was working now, i wouldn't mind sending her mail i'm sure she wouldn't mind deleting.
While it can't be powered by the USB line, on the usb phone-side adapter, there is a small slot towards the back of it that allows you to plug the AC or car adatper plug into the usb/phone side plug. Thus powering the phone.
Seems a self-fullfilling prophecy. Because if i were to help someone, you would instantly say that person is/was my friend. Therefore, I only help my friends. And if they are not my friend, well, by media definition they are my enemey. And no country willingly aids its enemies (without first making them friends, at which point we get back the the top of this post).
Also, we can't easily look back on history to predict the movements of the United States. It's a first generation mutation. Unique to history (recorded at least). The first real democracy and free market. It may in fact set the precedent answer to your question (paradox really) for all generations to come. At least in the sense that, we have/had absolute power and didn't use it to colonize the world and genocide those who occupy land our citizens wouldn't mind squatting on instead.
This wasn't rigged. Everyone was told ahead of time that the target missle had a GPS receiver on the warhead as well as a C-band beacon.
The purpose of the test was not in acquisition and tracking, but in the kill vehicle technology (plot a path to a moving point, get within infrared range, correct course, and detonate). Sounds simple, but it gets a bit trickey a closing speeds of ~10km/s.
The x-band satellites just weren't operational over the pacific when these tests were being done. So, when Colo springs control asked Hawaii where the missle was, it responded with information from the GPS receiver but provided artifically 'degraded' data stream. This was underlined and not hidden in the test plan (released before the test). It was done as a 'simulation' of x-band (national missle defense system) data.
Honestly, peoples hostility to this program in current time has me baffled.
The reson pundits of ABM tech would underscore every little failure, or break out conspiracies and wave around "rigged" results, was that we should not be researching ABM technology. Russia's on board now, you can stop pissing your pants worrying were going to invoke a nuclear war by having this technology.
If you hate being lied to, you should take the time to better research what people (including myself) and news sources in general tell you.
It definitely disperses and loses energy from the moment it's fired. Could it hit a 747? yeah. would it destroy it? I think that's kinda depends where it hit it, and how it reacts to the heat/energy. And obviously how critical the component is thats hit.
A bird? yeah, unlucky bird, this isn't exactly a wide beam. A bird would be cooked.
ISS? no way. ISS is like 220 miles above the earth. This this is lucky to reach 20 miles (i doubt that, but i'm sure the range is classified)
This isn't a flame. But, your question is maybe to 'basic' for even the FAQ. When we talk about building a wireless Internet In The Sky via mesh configuration of multiple Access Providers, we inherently assume people understand the point of this is to access the "Internet" as we know it.
It's true however, that if noone had a true net connection, a mesh/web could be "off-line" to the internet (yet still function if you were trying to contact someone else in your web... if you happened to know their private IP.).
It's also true, that if this eventually takes off, and the density of AP's increase (and the technology continues to get better) such a mesh may become more of the 'default' "Internet" than the hard-wired one we use now. Granted, that's pie-in-the-sky thinking, and 5 years away.
I think the original poster has a valid point. And while your point is mostly true, the Celebrity Deathmatch team has gone after 'real' heroes.
Obviously hero is based on perspective, but in the ring has been Ghandi, Moses, Shakespeare, Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and/or Robert E. Lee (a hero to the south i suppose)
Compaq, dell, maybe even IBM have little apps known as Sizing Tools. You download a tool specific to the type of server you want to install (SQL Server, Exchange Server, BizTalk...etc). And then you give it some key information, and it makes recommendations (and nicely enough, some make parts lists). Here's some of dells: Dell Sizing Tools
Compaq's i think you need to do a freee registration to get through.
Because the performance is tied to the system as a whole (CPU, Memory, drives/raid) the only usefully information your going to get that you can use to compare apples to oranges is the TPC numbers for a specific configuration.
In terms of which is better (1 big CPU vs 2 med CPUs), it COMPLETLY depends on your application (which you've told us nothing about). SQL Server is obviously very good at utilizing multiple CPUs. This isn't like trying to get a Quake Server to show some benefiti off 2/4 CPUs. I think it fair to say SQL Server is optimized for more than one CPU.
However, you results still depend on what you do with SQL Server. If you have a lot of long running queries yet have a high degree of concurrency then you will see benefit from multiple CPUs. If you have long complex queries that do a lot of processor intensive stuff (check the query plan for your biggest queries) and they have concurrency issues (locking key tables, affinity for the same group of rows...etc) then a very powerfull processor that can get through the bottle neck quicker may be better for you.
Also, as someone else mentioned there is some 'redundancy' with 2 cpus. Although, this benefit isn't as clean as say, having an extra power supply. If a CPU goes, there's a good chance the box is going down. You can most likely disable that CPU on reboot (or hopefully the BIOS does it for you) but still, you're down until then.
I don't know how the industry uses these words, but they way I understand them, Antibacterial is usefull against bacteria type microorganisms. Whereas antibiotics specifically target specific microorganisms (bacteria, but also viruses, fungi...etc)
IE, clorax is Antibacteria, but not Antibiotic.
While i suppose when you throw all the permutations of evolution as a denominator of the probability it becomes 'possible' it's still, unlikely, that a super antibacterial resistent bacteria is going to be evolved by using antibacterial soap instead of other soap.
Abuse antibiotics though, and we could be up the creek.
Viruses will run rampent(sp)! A simple cell call from one VoIP phone to another could potentially carry a virus embeded into the bits. Answer a phone call, and your phone's screen starts flashing with Devil horns... or an IE logo... Your phone is now dead
A phone called placed between two VOIP enabled devices using SIP has about as much chance of executing arbitrary code as a browser does displaying a jpg image. Yes, a chance exists (poorly written code with buffer overflows at precisely the wrong time) but on a scale of 1 to 10 it's a -7.
Everything else you listed can be done using current technology without VOIP cell phones. You can buy a voice muffler device from RadioShack, not to mention a bag with marbles worked well for Charlie Browns teacher (waaah waah wahhh wahh?).
Put down the joint, lose the paranoia, and see the brigther side of life (tunneling your cell phone calls over WIFI points bypassing Ma'Bell and possibly for free or pennies on the minute).
Why not try reading a source other then The Register about what Palladium _really_ is. Then post some bright, inquisitive comments on it, poking holes in it or stating what about the Palladium program you specifically find worthless. Rather than this "woe is me, and woe is the world for the palladium doth commeth.... abandon all ye hope".
Christ, palladium comes with an off switch. Turn it off and run your 'untrusted' code on your machine. Your corporate firewall may not let you throw if you aren't in Pallidum mode, but so be it. It has nothing to do with the gov't throwing you in jail.
But what is "normal" in China can be altered under duress. When Chinese authorities ordered Microsoft to surrender its software's underlying source codes--the keys to encryption--as the price of doing business there, Microsoft chose to fight, spearheading an unprecedented Beijing-based coalition of American, Japanese, and European Chambers of Commerce. Faced with being left behind technologically, the Chinese authorities dropped their demands. Theoretically, China's desire to be part of the Internet should have given the capitalists who wired it similar leverage. Instead, the leverage all seems to have remained with the government, as Western companies fell all over themselves bidding for its favor. AOL, Netscape Communications, and Sun Microsystems all helped disseminate government propaganda by backing the China Internet Corporation, an arm of the state-run Xinhua news agency.
Politicians, at least those in our society, never seem to give a straight answer to a question. If a journalist asks a specific question, the politician answers with a "sound bite" or short, memorized speech which is related to, but does not necessarily answer, the reporter's question
For a scientist, he answers his own questions remarkably like a Politician.
While reading his responses, I felt as if no matter what the question, his only intention was to plug his own problems or somehow get back to what he was talking about in the previous question.
In fact, other than 2 questions, I would say the others where not answered. And furthermore, you could concat all his answers and you'd have one flowing diatribe on academia. Which, I'm not saying is incorrect, but we're here to talk about AI. Leave your griefs and personal problems on the mat outside the door.
Great, if this was 2-8 years ago...
on
Qt vs MFC
·
· Score: 2
(my apologies to Wired Magazine)
Tired: MFC Wired: System.Windows.Forms
Anyone creating an app from scratch right now, or porting an app not written in MFC, should _not_ be even considering MFC. New MFC enhancements are usefull for maintaing the (large) base of MFC apps written in it over the last ?10? years. It's time is over though.
This is why I'm against this type of Activism. It makes me cringe, and (if they do it at some conference) I sink in my seat feeling embarrassed for them (and somehow myself). I may agree with their viewpoints, but I know what they _appear_ to be, to the otherside. They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France. They may have keen insights, wonderful diatribes on slashdot, and in on-line environments, they may seem on step away from Churchill in how the words flow from their fingertips and rouse us.
But in public, they are Type _G_ geeks. Easily spotable, obviously not comfortable (with themselves or others), and get caught in a moment of passion that they would normally rectify by re-reading and rewriting a flame email/newsgroup post/ slashdot post... but in real world there is no drafts folder.
We need logic, and sound reasoning to combat these RIAA types. We need to show the Dept of Commerce, Congress, the courts, and the public, that we really are this smart, and we can logically show why all or part of DRM is a bad thing.
I give all who attended tremendous credit, and even thanks. Any representation is better than no representation (much like publicity).
And to all the uber-geeks our there, I implore any who have the opportunity again to participate in such an hearing, to think of yourself as Mr. Spock (the star trek one, not the baby doctor). Try not to show emotion, counter the enemies emotion and rants with sound logic. And make sure you have the facts, and never assume. But please, don't try any mind-meld or vulcan sleeper grips.
MS arbitrarily changed the word format for a minor upgrade
It wasn't arbitrary. It was a major shift between major versions. It was well publicized before hand, and I know, at the time, my IT department was ready for it
This forced people to upgrade to 97 when they got files written in 97 and 95 would not open it.
No. If someone in Word97 disabled the compatibility mode, then someone in Word 95 to read Word 97, would have to use the (free download) Word97 Importer for Word 95.
MS SQL server by default uses case insensitive collation which is not SQL 92 compliant. That's just one I bet I can find a few more if I dig around.
This is a myth. Look up the SQL 92 standard and tell me where you see that default implementation of the DBMS is supposed to be "case insensitive collation". SQL92 leaves it implementation-dependent. What you probably mean is "SQL Server doesn't have the same defaults as Oracle". Which is true. I don't really no which one is better, because I don't do much Unicode work, where this really begins to matter. But the default SQL Server has been using all these years came from the Sybase SQL Server code-base.
You are conveniently overlooking the many "extensions" IE supports. I know you have to do that because (apparently) it's your job to spread MS FUD here but we all have visited sites which are useless in non IE borwsers. From vbscript to activeX controls, to proprietary tags. Embrace and extend.
Oh, yeah, and Netscape never put in their own HTML extensions. Remeber ISINDEX? PROMPT? not to mention, most of the Netscape extensions did _not_ become part of the HTML standard, while many of the MS ones did. And the HTML standard body was _not_ pro-ms. They were just normal developers who agreed with sane logic. (blink tag excluded, ) And as someone who wrote AX componets, before the 'Internet' took off, the ability to put my AX controls in IE allowed me to port many heavy front-end systems to lighter web-based systems in little or no time. Same thing with the ability to have VB Script on the page. MS put in that ability for people like _ME_. That's loyalty.
The ability to put AX in a page was never intended to make people format their linux hard drives, and install NT to view some page. It was there for us developers who invested a lot of money in AX technology and training. Not to mention, it was part of the whole AX Document stuff which IE was a client to.
I rarely see AX on public internet sites. Many times I see it on intranets, where an IT department has some app which performs something on the client and it's best done as a compiled binary. So I guess everyones BS fear about "AX in IE will force web browsing to be platform specific" was all just FUD (after all, IE is the dominant browser, and browsing is not platform specific). If you have trouble viewing sites, I really doubt it's because of AX. My guess is DOM 1.0 and CSS2 are your biggest hurdles, and that comes down to netscape/opera implementation.
But who cares if someone wanted to put AX on their site. They know they'd be limiting themselves to a specific platform, it's their perogative to do that. Web sites do it everyday when they ask themselves the question "Should we worry about Mac support/testing?". Many times, large sites say "no". And the only reason Macs can view things (generally) fine is because the Graphic Artist who designed the look of the site constantly bugs the web developers with their mac bugs. Otherwise, a company would say "I'm not paying 2x as much for a website just so.5% of my vistors can see it". It's their decision. That's their right.
Well except that you can't code GUI and Database which makes it just about useless outside of.NET
oh really? And the windows forms may not be complete yet, but they will eventually: here But who wants ugly window forms on linux? Use GTK
When you are talking about the character of somebody it's perfectly OK to point out evil acts in their past. Should we ignore the past records of child molesters, murderers and rapist because "they are not doing it now"?.
First, it's a corporate entity, not a human entity. If you take into account the turnover rate, it's a completely new MS from back then. Infer from that what little there is, but you can't say it's the same company (is IBM the same company it was 30 years ago? what about the ma'bells?). As for child molester, rapists and murderers, I take it you're of the mindset that believe once you commit a crime, you can never truly repent and make up for. Scarlet letter them for ever and such. No point in debating that with you, it's an intrinsic belief that won't change.
During the communist regime in the soviet republic people stood in bread lines but there were always a few who made out like bandits.
You don't really want to compare MS v Communism and OSS v Communism do you?
Sure you made money but a bunch of people paid to buy crappy shit that broke, were coerced into buying shit they did not want, were denied competing products, yadda yadda yadda
Well, I guess here's where I simply have to agree to disagree. As someone that's built many a companies IT networks, and large software solutions that run on top of those networks, I have to say I never had that experience. All my clients have been happy, all still are. The software works, the networks hum, and databases purr. Granted, I'm not the founder of Dr. Dos. And I'm not saying predatory tactics weren't employed and shouldn't be reprimanded, but again, i don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Even if there's lots of starving kids in the world who I could adopt. MS is an American company, and like most (if not all Fortune 100) companies they play for keeps. they are aggressive, they think out strategies and plans and use tactics more similar to fighting wars then what many would consider 'doing business'. this is the nature of free enterprise. We don't own castles anymore, we own companies. And as head of your own company, you pretty much feel like a king. Survival of the fittest. Attack with the sun at your back, and from high ground. Don't expect this to be some sort of British battle where both sides line up in equal numbers in the middle of a large field and get to take turns shooting or stabbing each other.
It's corporate Darwinism. No matter how well seated you think a company is, they are always 1 week away from chapter-11.
So you are not able to program in non-ms environments?
I've programed in non-ms environments. They money tends to be much better in MS environments. Why should I starve just to 'avoid' Microsoft?
Besides, being a developer is not all about money.
Well, I have a lifestyle I enjoy, and it requires a certain mean income. If I were to fall below that mean, I would not be able to maintain that style of living, and that would make me sad. So in a way, for me, being a developer is about making money.
Knowing that you are doing the "right thing" goes long way into making one feel that one is doing something meaningful, in the long term. And part of the "right thing" usually happens to be avoiding MS products where feasible
It's logic like that which scares me. Nothing in this world is so perfectly exact as "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil". MS has been good to it's developers. I enjoy using their tool-sets, and my clients enjoy what I build with them. And best of all, I enjoy building it. Your grievances with some part of MS, while no doubt important, are but one aspect of a multi-faceted corporate entity. I'm not inclined to throw the baby out with the bath water.
And especially avoiding donating any of one's precious mind-share to Microsoft
Every time you mention "M$" or make some derogatory vague accusation toward them, you're donating 'precious mind-share to Microsoft'.
As much as people wish MS was the Scientology of the Software world, they aren't. The numbers that fall to each side in these debates will always be about even. Which should tell you something about the argument itself.
FUD FUD Everywhere... I seem to have to do this about once a month on slashdot, so I may as well get it out of the way now.
How about MS Word, Access, Excel and Powerpoint?
Word, Excel, and Powerpoint formats have been released by MS. Word and Excel are actually supported binary formats (You can call their dev-support line if you have some issue with accessing the file structure). Power-point is not support, but is not confidential/proprietary.
Ok, if you don't want to write your own program to read the format, save you data in common formats then RTF for Word and HTML for Word/Excel/Power Point. Anytime an office 2k and later application saves to HTML it really means 'save to XML'. Look at the file, it's pretty easy to comprehend, and it's documented as well.
Access? Access is an ugly mutt of a programming language and database. There is no alternative to Access on Linux unless your going to rewrite it in some other language/db. What do you expect the format to be? It's heavily dependent on VBA, and the database engine more recently is closer to SQL then any of the old Jet systems. The MDB file actually contains p-code 'compiled' by the VBA subsystem. Asking for a format to something as ugly and complicated as that is insane. Do you expect Oracle to open up their database binary format? Should all the binary data files in lotus notes be standardized and published?
How about how Word 95 can't open any Word 97 docs.
How about RTFM. When you roll out Word 97, it by default maintains compatability with Word 95. It does this at the cost of disk space (writes both versions basically). You can configure Word 97 to only save as Word 95 as well. Also, MS provided Word import converters for the other direction.
Why was this done? Progress. You've heard about that right? Sometimes, when your a programmer, you make near sighted decisions that later bite you in the ass. Other times you come up with a better way of doing something, and you weight the change.
The Office team wanted Office 97 formats to be DocFiles, it's part of OLE 2.0, look it up it was all the rage in 1995. Basically, it allows multiple binary streams per document. Docfiles also provide their own internal mechanisms for subdirectories, locking, and transaction (i.e., commit/rollback) semantics. This has all sorts of other wonderfull benefits to us developers. Rather than let themselves and their features be forever locked in place due to old format, they bit the bullet and went for the change.
How about Access 97 vs 2000
See above paragraph. Change is a good thing. It means something is still alive.
How about MS SQL Server, and your "special" extensions to SQL
That's right, extensions. OPTIONAL FEATURES YOU MAY CHOOSE TO USE. SQL 92 and the other standards work just fine on SQL Server. You aren't forced to use the extensions. They are well labeled. You make a decision at design time, "Do I plan to be tied to SQL? Do I want to be able to leverage other RDMS systems?" Based on those choices you may decided to begin to use xp_sendMail or NOT TO. As a developer, I'd recommend against it. the xp_* procedures are nice for testing, or making some custom admin jobs, but if you use them in an app that is going to need to be RDMS neutral, you are the fault. Do you think developers are stupid enough to acidentally use an xp_ procedure and not know it's specific to MS SQL Server? "Duh, i didn't know Oracle didn't have xp_msver command! How can I tell what Window Version this is runnning on!"
How about Active X, C#, HTML that only works on IE.
Active X is a standard. Implement it as a plugin, and walla, it works on Netscape. Oh wait, someone's already done it. Implementing it to work on another OS is a bit more of a challenge, but simply that... a challenge. You can do it if you'd like, it's well documented. I have no idea what your're problem is with C#. My guess is you don't fully understand the CLR. Here's a hint, with certain OSS projects in the works, your C# code will work on Linux. Walk in peace in this enlightenment. Oh yeah, C# the language itself (.net aside) is completely documented. Implement it however you want.
As for HTML that only works in IE, this is a subject we could spend hours on. Most of the time, the reason HTML works in IE and not in NS, is because IE is more FORGIVING. It overlooks a lot of your errors. DOM, CSS, HTML (the actual standard, not what you were refering to be anything inside a web page) and many other _STANDARDS_ are well documented and each browser has very well known pluses and minuses in how it handles any 1 of thousands of test. Pick some specific issue if you want to further that line of dicussion.
How about Kerberos?
I'm going to assume you mean the extension added to the kerberos protocol so it would work in MS AD model? God forbid they use an EXPLICITLY ALLOWED vendor specific extension field for EXACTLY the purpose it was built for in the Kerberos specification. It's in the protocol for a reason.
How about breaking the OS/2 3.X compatibility mode every time they did virtually anything to Windows.
Being that was written by the IBM guys back when NT was the next OS/2 I sympothize (as a developer) with MS having to maintain someone elses subsystem every time they tried to make NT better. And I say this rarely to (valid) points such as this, but... who cares. That subsystem was horrible.
How about the totally bogus error messages you got in the beta versions of Windows 3.x when you were using DR Dos?
How about we worry about what's going on now, rather than bitch about things that no doubt happened in the past and no doubt we not 'good'. My guess is you're not trying to do a Dr. Dos upgrade to Win3.x beta right now. After all we're talking about going Window shop to linux and vice versa.
MS probably has one of the worst records of ANY company in the history of the computer industry. Locking you into a specific "hamster wheel" is their specialty.
OK, so long as we don't get into generalizations.
If you like being MS's "hamster" go ahead. Many of the rest of us don't really care for it. For many reasons, money out of our pocket being one of them
I guess as a developer, they've only put money into the my pockets (and bank accounts).
Just remember, "Everybody hurts.... sometimes...."
You can grow your own and do what you will with them.
They can't ever take that away from you.
Will it be tough taking on someone already dug in and defending their turf? Hell yes. There's a reason many business teach Sun Tzu to their associates.... business is WAR!
And we all know, all's fair in love and war.
So quit your whining, buy some lemon trees, and start making good, wholesome, fresh, lemonade for whatever profit margin you want. If that 5$ lemonade is as bad AS YOU SAY IT IS, then who wouldn't rather have yours?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because drilling tunnels randomly between two points is childs play. I mean, what could go wrong? Not like anything else is buried underground....
And who cares if the 10$-15k rental equipment gets stuck under some highway. You can always shut down traffic, bring in the back hoe, break open the pavement, cart of 1/2 ton of concrete and asphalt, and retrieve the device...
The search and retrieve operation would only cost 300k or so.
Man, what world do you people live in? Have you ever tried to get trench permits from a city? And you think arbitrary tunnels will be looked more favorable on?
The EM spectrum is natures peace offering to us to stop fucking drilling holes in her. Lets get some FCC reform, turn the entire spectrum into a shared spectrum with frequency hoping recievers and auto-relays/routers in each consumer device, and use the nearly inifinte amount of bandwidth that electricity and magnetism provide us.
-malakai
She had one of those speeches that provided absolutely nothing to the debte. Sadam is bad/evil..blah blah blah, but her main points: How much will the war cost, How long will it take, exactly how many on our side will perish and Have we finished the war on terrorism.
No set of answers to any of these questions would change her mind, so why ask them?
Cost should be a basis on whether or not we get into a war? Now that is immoral.
If a war was known to take only 1 day, as opposed to 1 year, then it's some how better? What if in that 1 day 10x the number of people died hastily as oppose to 1/10th that number over a year?
How many will die? There's never a way to figure this out. We estimated what now seem to be pretty big loses on the original, yet never came close to that amount. We did the same thing on peace keeping missions. While life is extremly valuable, this metric and this resolution is useless.
Have we finished the war on terrorism? I guess she doesn't beleive this has any impact on that war.
anyhow, i wish her form was working now, i wouldn't mind sending her mail i'm sure she wouldn't mind deleting.
-malakai
While it can't be powered by the USB line, on the usb phone-side adapter, there is a small slot towards the back of it that allows you to plug the AC or car adatper plug into the usb/phone side plug. Thus powering the phone.
-malakai
You can get unlimited data access from them for 90 bucks a month.
60 bucks for the USB cable. Phone appears as a USB modem to the OS.
-Malakai
Seems a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Because if i were to help someone, you would instantly say that person is/was my friend. Therefore, I only help my friends. And if they are not my friend, well, by media definition they are my enemey. And no country willingly aids its enemies (without first making them friends, at which point we get back the the top of this post).
Also, we can't easily look back on history to predict the movements of the United States. It's a first generation mutation. Unique to history (recorded at least). The first real democracy and free market. It may in fact set the precedent answer to your question (paradox really) for all generations to come. At least in the sense that, we have/had absolute power and didn't use it to colonize the world and genocide those who occupy land our citizens wouldn't mind squatting on instead.
-malakai
This wasn't rigged. Everyone was told ahead of time that the target missle had a GPS receiver on the warhead as well as a C-band beacon.
The purpose of the test was not in acquisition and tracking, but in the kill vehicle technology (plot a path to a moving point, get within infrared range, correct course, and detonate). Sounds simple, but it gets a bit trickey a closing speeds of ~10km/s.
The x-band satellites just weren't operational over the pacific when these tests were being done. So, when Colo springs control asked Hawaii where the missle was, it responded with information from the GPS receiver but provided artifically 'degraded' data stream. This was underlined and not hidden in the test plan (released before the test). It was done as a 'simulation' of x-band (national missle defense system) data.
Honestly, peoples hostility to this program in current time has me baffled.
The reson pundits of ABM tech would underscore every little failure, or break out conspiracies and wave around "rigged" results, was that we should not be researching ABM technology. Russia's on board now, you can stop pissing your pants worrying were going to invoke a nuclear war by having this technology.
If you hate being lied to, you should take the time to better research what people (including myself) and news sources in general tell you.
-malakai
It definitely disperses and loses energy from the moment it's fired.
Could it hit a 747? yeah. would it destroy it? I think that's kinda depends where it hit it, and how it reacts to the heat/energy. And obviously how critical the component is thats hit.
A bird? yeah, unlucky bird, this isn't exactly a wide beam. A bird would be cooked.
ISS? no way. ISS is like 220 miles above the earth. This this is lucky to reach 20 miles (i doubt that, but i'm sure the range is classified)
Mars? what are you smoking.
Alien ship? only if they were tailing that 747
This isn't a flame. But, your question is maybe to 'basic' for even the FAQ. When we talk about building a wireless Internet In The Sky via mesh configuration of multiple Access Providers, we inherently assume people understand the point of this is to access the "Internet" as we know it.
It's true however, that if noone had a true net connection, a mesh/web could be "off-line" to the internet (yet still function if you were trying to contact someone else in your web... if you happened to know their private IP.).
It's also true, that if this eventually takes off, and the density of AP's increase (and the technology continues to get better) such a mesh may become more of the 'default' "Internet" than the hard-wired one we use now. Granted, that's pie-in-the-sky thinking, and 5 years away.
-malakai
There's something in our culture about "heros" fighting it out. Even moreso if they are peacefull.
-malakai
I think the original poster has a valid point. And while your point is mostly true, the Celebrity Deathmatch team has gone after 'real' heroes.
Obviously hero is based on perspective, but in the ring has been Ghandi, Moses, Shakespeare, Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and/or Robert E. Lee (a hero to the south i suppose)
Also, lets look at a quote from Fight Club:
Compaq, dell, maybe even IBM have little apps known as Sizing Tools. You download a tool specific to the type of server you want to install (SQL Server, Exchange Server, BizTalk...etc). And then you give it some key information, and it makes recommendations (and nicely enough, some make parts lists).
Here's some of dells:
Dell Sizing Tools
Compaq's i think you need to do a freee registration to get through.
Because the performance is tied to the system as a whole (CPU, Memory, drives/raid) the only usefully information your going to get that you can use to compare apples to oranges is the TPC numbers for a specific configuration.
In terms of which is better (1 big CPU vs 2 med CPUs), it COMPLETLY depends on your application (which you've told us nothing about). SQL Server is obviously very good at utilizing multiple CPUs. This isn't like trying to get a Quake Server to show some benefiti off 2/4 CPUs. I think it fair to say SQL Server is optimized for more than one CPU.
However, you results still depend on what you do with SQL Server. If you have a lot of long running queries yet have a high degree of concurrency then you will see benefit from multiple CPUs. If you have long complex queries that do a lot of processor intensive stuff (check the query plan for your biggest queries) and they have concurrency issues (locking key tables, affinity for the same group of rows...etc) then a very powerfull processor that can get through the bottle neck quicker may be better for you.
Also, as someone else mentioned there is some 'redundancy' with 2 cpus. Although, this benefit isn't as clean as say, having an extra power supply. If a CPU goes, there's a good chance the box is going down. You can most likely disable that CPU on reboot (or hopefully the BIOS does it for you) but still, you're down until then.
-malakai
i love that this was posted "by Anonymous Coward". It underscores everything that is wrong with that post.
I don't know how the industry uses these words, but they way I understand them, Antibacterial is usefull against bacteria type microorganisms. Whereas antibiotics specifically target specific microorganisms (bacteria, but also viruses, fungi...etc)
IE, clorax is Antibacteria, but not Antibiotic.
While i suppose when you throw all the permutations of evolution as a denominator of the probability it becomes 'possible' it's still, unlikely, that a super antibacterial resistent bacteria is going to be evolved by using antibacterial soap instead of other soap.
Abuse antibiotics though, and we could be up the creek.
A phone called placed between two VOIP enabled devices using SIP has about as much chance of executing arbitrary code as a browser does displaying a jpg image. Yes, a chance exists (poorly written code with buffer overflows at precisely the wrong time) but on a scale of 1 to 10 it's a -7.
Everything else you listed can be done using current technology without VOIP cell phones. You can buy a voice muffler device from RadioShack, not to mention a bag with marbles worked well for Charlie Browns teacher (waaah waah wahhh wahh?).
Put down the joint, lose the paranoia, and see the brigther side of life (tunneling your cell phone calls over WIFI points bypassing Ma'Bell and possibly for free or pennies on the minute).
-malakai
Why not try reading a source other then The Register about what Palladium _really_ is. Then post some bright, inquisitive comments on it, poking holes in it or stating what about the Palladium program you specifically find worthless. Rather than this "woe is me, and woe is the world for the palladium doth commeth.... abandon all ye hope".
Christ, palladium comes with an off switch. Turn it off and run your 'untrusted' code on your machine. Your corporate firewall may not let you throw if you aren't in Pallidum mode, but so be it. It has nothing to do with the gov't throwing you in jail.
-malakai
from: http://www.fofg.org/news/who_lost_china_internet.
great article.
-malakai
While reading his responses, I felt as if no matter what the question, his only intention was to plug his own problems or somehow get back to what he was talking about in the previous question.
In fact, other than 2 questions, I would say the others where not answered. And furthermore, you could concat all his answers and you'd have one flowing diatribe on academia. Which, I'm not saying is incorrect, but we're here to talk about AI. Leave your griefs and personal problems on the mat outside the door.
(my apologies to Wired Magazine)
Tired: MFC
Wired: System.Windows.Forms
Anyone creating an app from scratch right now, or porting an app not written in MFC, should _not_ be even considering MFC. New MFC enhancements are usefull for maintaing the (large) base of MFC apps written in it over the last ?10? years. It's time is over though.
Blaming the death of this 60 foot creature on us
This is why I'm against this type of Activism. It makes me cringe, and (if they do it at some conference) I sink in my seat feeling embarrassed for them (and somehow myself). I may agree with their viewpoints, but I know what they _appear_ to be, to the otherside.
They are the Greenpeace nuts on inflatables ramming whaling ships or nuclear powered aircraft carrier off the coast of France.
They may have keen insights, wonderful diatribes on slashdot, and in on-line environments, they may seem on step away from Churchill in how the words flow from their fingertips and rouse us.
But in public, they are Type _G_ geeks. Easily spotable, obviously not comfortable (with themselves or others), and get caught in a moment of passion that they would normally rectify by re-reading and rewriting a flame email/newsgroup post/ slashdot post... but in real world there is no drafts folder.
We need logic, and sound reasoning to combat these RIAA types. We need to show the Dept of Commerce, Congress, the courts, and the public, that we really are this smart, and we can logically show why all or part of DRM is a bad thing.
I give all who attended tremendous credit, and even thanks. Any representation is better than no representation (much like publicity).
And to all the uber-geeks our there, I implore any who have the opportunity again to participate in such an hearing, to think of yourself as Mr. Spock (the star trek one, not the baby doctor). Try not to show emotion, counter the enemies emotion and rants with sound logic. And make sure you have the facts, and never assume. But please, don't try any mind-meld or vulcan sleeper grips.
-malakai
What you probably mean is "SQL Server doesn't have the same defaults as Oracle". Which is true. I don't really no which one is better, because I don't do much Unicode work, where this really begins to matter. But the default SQL Server has been using all these years came from the Sybase SQL Server code-base. Oh, yeah, and Netscape never put in their own HTML extensions. Remeber ISINDEX? PROMPT? not to mention, most of the Netscape extensions did _not_ become part of the HTML standard, while many of the MS ones did. And the HTML standard body was _not_ pro-ms. They were just normal developers who agreed with sane logic. (blink tag excluded, )
And as someone who wrote AX componets, before the 'Internet' took off, the ability to put my AX controls in IE allowed me to port many heavy front-end systems to lighter web-based systems in little or no time. Same thing with the ability to have VB Script on the page. MS put in that ability for people like _ME_. That's loyalty.
The ability to put AX in a page was never intended to make people format their linux hard drives, and install NT to view some page. It was there for us developers who invested a lot of money in AX technology and training. Not to mention, it was part of the whole AX Document stuff which IE was a client to.
I rarely see AX on public internet sites. Many times I see it on intranets, where an IT department has some app which performs something on the client and it's best done as a compiled binary. So I guess everyones BS fear about "AX in IE will force web browsing to be platform specific" was all just FUD (after all, IE is the dominant browser, and browsing is not platform specific). If you have trouble viewing sites, I really doubt it's because of AX. My guess is DOM 1.0 and CSS2 are your biggest hurdles, and that comes down to netscape/opera implementation.
But who cares if someone wanted to put AX on their site. They know they'd be limiting themselves to a specific platform, it's their perogative to do that. Web sites do it everyday when they ask themselves the question "Should we worry about Mac support/testing?". Many times, large sites say "no". And the only reason Macs can view things (generally) fine is because the Graphic Artist who designed the look of the site constantly bugs the web developers with their mac bugs. Otherwise, a company would say "I'm not paying 2x as much for a website just so
And the windows forms may not be complete yet, but they will eventually: here
But who wants ugly window forms on linux? Use GTK First, it's a corporate entity, not a human entity. If you take into account the turnover rate, it's a completely new MS from back then. Infer from that what little there is, but you can't say it's the same company (is IBM the same company it was 30 years ago? what about the ma'bells?).
As for child molester, rapists and murderers, I take it you're of the mindset that believe once you commit a crime, you can never truly repent and make up for. Scarlet letter them for ever and such. No point in debating that with you, it's an intrinsic belief that won't change. You don't really want to compare MS v Communism and OSS v Communism do you? Well, I guess here's where I simply have to agree to disagree. As someone that's built many a companies IT networks, and large software solutions that run on top of those networks, I have to say I never had that experience. All my clients have been happy, all still are. The software works, the networks hum, and databases purr.
Granted, I'm not the founder of Dr. Dos. And I'm not saying predatory tactics weren't employed and shouldn't be reprimanded, but again, i don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Even if there's lots of starving kids in the world who I could adopt.
MS is an American company, and like most (if not all Fortune 100) companies they play for keeps. they are aggressive, they think out strategies and plans and use tactics more similar to fighting wars then what many would consider 'doing business'. this is the nature of free enterprise. We don't own castles anymore, we own companies. And as head of your own company, you pretty much feel like a king.
Survival of the fittest. Attack with the sun at your back, and from high ground. Don't expect this to be some sort of British battle where both sides line up in equal numbers in the middle of a large field and get to take turns shooting or stabbing each other.
It's corporate Darwinism. No matter how well seated you think a company is, they are always 1 week away from chapter-11.
-malakai
As much as people wish MS was the Scientology of the Software world, they aren't. The numbers that fall to each side in these debates will always be about even. Which should tell you something about the argument itself.
-malakai
I seem to have to do this about once a month on slashdot, so I may as well get it out of the way now. Word, Excel, and Powerpoint formats have been released by MS. Word and Excel are actually supported binary formats (You can call their dev-support line if you have some issue with accessing the file structure). Power-point is not support, but is not confidential/proprietary.
Ok, if you don't want to write your own program to read the format, save you data in common formats then RTF for Word and HTML for Word/Excel/Power Point.
Anytime an office 2k and later application saves to HTML it really means 'save to XML'. Look at the file, it's pretty easy to comprehend, and it's documented as well.
Access? Access is an ugly mutt of a programming language and database. There is no alternative to Access on Linux unless your going to rewrite it in some other language/db. What do you expect the format to be? It's heavily dependent on VBA, and the database engine more recently is closer to SQL then any of the old Jet systems. The MDB file actually contains p-code 'compiled' by the VBA subsystem. Asking for a format to something as ugly and complicated as that is insane.
Do you expect Oracle to open up their database binary format? Should all the binary data files in lotus notes be standardized and published? How about RTFM. When you roll out Word 97, it by default maintains compatability with Word 95. It does this at the cost of disk space (writes both versions basically). You can configure Word 97 to only save as Word 95 as well. Also, MS provided Word import converters for the other direction.
Why was this done? Progress. You've heard about that right? Sometimes, when your a programmer, you make near sighted decisions that later bite you in the ass. Other times you come up with a better way of doing something, and you weight the change.
The Office team wanted Office 97 formats to be DocFiles, it's part of OLE 2.0, look it up it was all the rage in 1995. Basically, it allows multiple binary streams per document. Docfiles also provide their own internal mechanisms for subdirectories, locking, and transaction (i.e., commit/rollback) semantics. This has all sorts of other wonderfull benefits to us developers. Rather than let themselves and their features be forever locked in place due to old format, they bit the bullet and went for the change. See above paragraph. Change is a good thing. It means something is still alive. That's right, extensions. OPTIONAL FEATURES YOU MAY CHOOSE TO USE. SQL 92 and the other standards work just fine on SQL Server. You aren't forced to use the extensions. They are well labeled. You make a decision at design time, "Do I plan to be tied to SQL? Do I want to be able to leverage other RDMS systems?" Based on those choices you may decided to begin to use xp_sendMail or NOT TO. As a developer, I'd recommend against it. the xp_* procedures are nice for testing, or making some custom admin jobs, but if you use them in an app that is going to need to be RDMS neutral, you are the fault. Do you think developers are stupid enough to acidentally use an xp_ procedure and not know it's specific to MS SQL Server? "Duh, i didn't know Oracle didn't have xp_msver command! How can I tell what Window Version this is runnning on!" Active X is a standard. Implement it as a plugin, and walla, it works on Netscape. Oh wait, someone's already done it. Implementing it to work on another OS is a bit more of a challenge, but simply that... a challenge. You can do it if you'd like, it's well documented.
I have no idea what your're problem is with C#. My guess is you don't fully understand the CLR. Here's a hint, with certain OSS projects in the works, your C# code will work on Linux. Walk in peace in this enlightenment. Oh yeah, C# the language itself (.net aside) is completely documented. Implement it however you want.
As for HTML that only works in IE, this is a subject we could spend hours on. Most of the time, the reason HTML works in IE and not in NS, is because IE is more FORGIVING. It overlooks a lot of your errors. DOM, CSS, HTML (the actual standard, not what you were refering to be anything inside a web page) and many other _STANDARDS_ are well documented and each browser has very well known pluses and minuses in how it handles any 1 of thousands of test. Pick some specific issue if you want to further that line of dicussion. I'm going to assume you mean the extension added to the kerberos protocol so it would work in MS AD model? God forbid they use an EXPLICITLY ALLOWED vendor specific extension field for EXACTLY the purpose it was built for in the Kerberos specification. It's in the protocol for a reason. Being that was written by the IBM guys back when NT was the next OS/2 I sympothize (as a developer) with MS having to maintain someone elses subsystem every time they tried to make NT better.
And I say this rarely to (valid) points such as this, but... who cares. That subsystem was horrible. How about we worry about what's going on now, rather than bitch about things that no doubt happened in the past and no doubt we not 'good'.
My guess is you're not trying to do a Dr. Dos upgrade to Win3.x beta right now. After all we're talking about going Window shop to linux and vice versa. OK, so long as we don't get into generalizations. I guess as a developer, they've only put money into the my pockets (and bank accounts).
Just remember, "Everybody hurts.... sometimes...."
-malakai
Lemons grow on trees.
You can grow your own and do what you will with them.
They can't ever take that away from you.
Will it be tough taking on someone already dug in and defending their turf? Hell yes. There's a reason many business teach Sun Tzu to their associates.... business is WAR!
And we all know, all's fair in love and war.
So quit your whining, buy some lemon trees, and start making good, wholesome, fresh, lemonade for whatever profit margin you want. If that 5$ lemonade is as bad AS YOU SAY IT IS, then who wouldn't rather have yours?
-malakai
And what exactly are these horrible proprietary and constantly changing file formats? And the standards?
-malakai