The whole point of the internet is that its something the private sector can sort out... but, if Godaddy and ICANN cannot sort out their differences, and with ICANN being the authority the Gov't put in charge, then, the Congress needs to take this matter up. If Godaddy wants to thumb its nose at regulatory bodies, let them do it at least before ones that can suspend their license to operate and levy fines.
Really? We would have had air superiority if we'd had 205 F-22s, but not with only 187? We're really riding the edge that closely? And who have we lost it to, that we would still have had it over if we had 205 vs 187 F-22s
Saying its 205 vs 187 is a distortion. I was kinda thinking we should buy at least 500 F22. Once you stop production, that's it.
Umm... Generally what you say is true, but this is a bad example because an LPD isn't a CV and vice versa. Very different ships for very different jobs.
I got the LPD and the Wasp mixed up.. I always do. The point of the comparison was really, both the Wasp and the British stuff can operate a few VTOL planes. I think the official british role is ASW but they were pressed quite successfuly into an assault and local air superiority role during the Falklands war.
?Well that's a load of horse-shit. Throughout the entire war, the USAF maintained a kill ration of roughly 2:1. The US navy's air-wings had a similar kill ratio initially, but brought it up past 10:1 after the development of the Top Gun academy. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas wfrom, but you're completely wrong.
The objective of an air force is to bring to your party the unimpeded use of the skies to deliver both transport for your troops and weapons to targets. This was never achieved during the war.
A look at the helicopter stats says it all. 11,000 helicopters flew in Vietnam. 5000 were destroyed.. That's nearly half. There was never a time and place where helicopters were not threatened by enemy fire. We never had air superiority, therefor, the USAF lost.
In 1967 US aircraft were getting shot down, and they were getting shot down in 1972.. No air superiority, means, ya lose.
Now you could say that the USAF did not have the proper mandate or rules of engagement to achieve air superiority during the war, and you'd be 100% right. What McNamara did to crippled the USAF was insane...like you can't fire a SAM site until you see the missile... hello.. Just dumb.
A lot of pilots died for it...
And, a lot of soldiers did too. If it were possible for helicopters to fly without being constant target practice, the army might have been able to conduct more effective patrols and seal the border, and really win the war... but the nva always kept the skies as a contested turf, and that was a strategic victory for them.
Re:We can't help it the world is retarded..
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Wow. Just wow. Please do a little bit of research, and then we can talk
How about this. We nuked the Japanese, twice, and we firebombed Germany into the stone age. That pales in comparison to anything that we did to Iran, Guatamela, Haiti, Laos, Cuba, Dominican Republica, Bolivia, etc...
Even in Vietnam, we did not wage the sort of air war that we waged over Germany. In Germany we did indiscrimant bombing of every target there was.
And what happened, after that war?
I'd say not even a decade after being completely flattened, the Germans and Japanese were well on their way to rebuilding their own countries. Indeed, Europe was already revived as an economic rival to the USA by the 1960s. Having flattened itself with two back to back world wars, that's a pretty good accomplishment.
By similar comparison, the Russians had a giant portion of their population killed by the Germans, and 20 years later, put the first man into orbit, and lead off with a number of advances in the sciences.
The Chinese were beat up for a couple of centuries by the west, got mauled by the Japanese in WWII, had the Japanese kill like 20M of their people, then, they killed 30M of themselves after that during the Cultural Revolution, and, then they changed their economic system and within a decade became a manufacturing power and within two decades a world power.
So... all of this persecution talk is an excuse...
If all of these third world countries had people that wanted to succeed, they could succeed, but they don't, and so they won't, no matter how much money you throw at them.
We can't help it the world is retarded..
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
A good way to solve this would be to stop being the world police and pissing everyone off. If we were just cool with people we easily get by with 10% of the defense budget we have now. Besides, I am sure that if we spent less on military and more on social programs we can save more civilians than we would lose soldiers. This whole nationalist, jingoist, fascist thing that the neo-Cons call Patriotism makes me throw up a little
You can call it jingoism and patriotism as much as you want, but the way I see things, half the world lines up each morning to try and dump products onto American consumers to earn their living because their own cultures and countries are too screwed up to provide one for them. How can you sit there and say, "oh, all these poor people around the world don't have running water...", like, how stupid is that? You're like probably in the same breath crying that Americans should buy birth control for third world people because they are too stupid to have safe sex.
I agree that we shouldn't be policing the world. In fact, I think we should be withdrawing some of the defense obligations we already have.
Jingoism is valid. Patriotism is true. Nationalism is just. When you see one country succeeding, and, many others roiling in their own stupidity, [despite trillions of dollars in foreign aid, btw], you have to ask, why have we been successful, what are those values that made us that way, and adopt institutions and civic rules to preserve them. But of course in your mind its wrong to not preserve that which makes your country better, and really, underlying your heart is more a desire for the destruction of your country than the benefit of humanity. If everyone was a jingoistic patriotic nationalist, their countries would be better, and the world would be better.
Having read about the F-35 [wikipedia.org], I can see why the administration and the Pentagon would favor it over the F-22.
the F-35 is not a bad little airplane but the real advantage of the F-22 is maneuvering and flat out speed. The F-22 is publicly stated as a Mach 1.6 aircraft but its really more like a nearly Mach 3 plane. If you can imagine something almost like an SR-71 that can shoot and fight, that's sorta what the F-22 is really all about.
If that is the case then why don't we keep building them until they are free? As a bonus, we will have an unstoppable Air Force. Oh wait, we already did before the F-22.
In case anyone didn't notice, the Vietnamese pretty much kicked the USAF's rear. Some of that was because of poor strategic decisions by LBJ, but a lot of it was because we had planes that couldn't dogfight. Now we just made the same mistake, again...
Reading the title and summary would make you think that the entire program has been cancelled
The program has been cancelled. When they make no more planes, that means, cancelled.
The F22 is already in service and will remain in service for quite some time.
The original point of the F22 was to replace an aging F15 for air superiority. So we have 600 F-15s to be replaced by 188 F-22s.
Lost in the shuffle is that the argument that we do not need to invest in air superiority because we already have it. Air superiority comes from the aircraft, and if you don't have them, you don't have it. The USA has just given up strategic air superiority, is what this means. We did good for a while because nobody could touch the F-15, but, in simulated missions a flight of USAF F15s were shot to pieces by an Indian Air Force flying more modern Mirages.
The amount of money being saved by the cancelling the F22 is cheap... this is more of a "lets send some kind of a message and show how we won't escalate a gen V fighter arms race" crap.
To point out to the feds that if one department actually sponsors the writing of a piece of code, by virtue of it being open source, other branches of the government would be able to take advantage of it in some way. What government is really looking for is platforms to write end to end systems on.
But there is a problem. Government is not about doing a job efficiently, for either political party. It is about spreading the wealth around and bringing bucks to your home state. It's not really wrong, its just how democracy actually is. Republicans say they are against this, but, man, every year the US Senate bought another LPD because they were made in Trent Lotts home state, until now the USA has like almost 20 little aircraft carriers about the same size as the 2 the British operate, and that's on top of its nimitzs. And George W Bush certainly kept Johnson Space Center in Texas rolling...
Now if Microsoft were actually politically smart, they would put federal systems development centers in the northeast. Washington state just isn't well, important enough politically for government work...
I will apply to be a Windmill Animal Safety Monitor, and am looking forward to completing my WASMD certification to do exactly that! This must be one of those jobs that can't be outsourced!
My broom, bat eating animal suit, and firecrackers are ready!
Just think, if they could get the lasers well, a lot more powerful, you could have an internal fusion engine... launch some deuterium into the piston, light it off with a laser... why, we could have the internal "combustion" engine for billions of years to come.
Re:I would disagree with the premise.
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 1
households...
So, could I not spoof somebody else's IP address so long as they are on my subnet?
What if somebody spoofs mine?
I don't think its so clear cut.
I would disagree with the premise.
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"A judge rules that IP addresses are not 'personally identifiable information' (PII) because they identify computers, not people. That's absurd,
I think that is not absurd. IP's could be utterly random, changed by anything... there's no process or standard or central authority or anything that guarantees that its even your computer. In order for you to have a computer identifer that is legally bound to you, you have to go through a quasi government process that has
a) the applicant providing proof of identification b) the register validating that identification and issuing the ip to the person... c) payment or proof of payments to associate the identification with the applicant. d) finally, the ip should remain the property of the applicant, but, the government should track transfers.
If you did all that, then, yes, you might say the ip belongs to a person, because that's the only process that can eliminate reasonable doubt.
If you want to keep computers as general purpose machines, you must make the distinction between the software whose task is to make the computer hardware accessible and the software that sits on top of that other software in order to run tasks for which the computer has been completely abstracted.
No you don't. You don't have to do that at all. I mean, you could even argue that in the HTML world, that, having a browser is a necessary thing for making full use of a network card.
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
Like what?
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
I would say that if you wanted to go by sound engineering principals, David Cutler's inclusion of real ACLS, auditing, the hardware abstraction layer, the existence of different subsystems that can run on top of the OS layer... You can complain about the implementation but I think it is inaccurate to say that NT has less layers of abstraction than Linux does.
I mean, Comcast used to let me call this actual American person that would order a movie for me... I usually got the person because I owed them money, but then she'd put my film order in...
A browser is firmly in the application space, any serious operating environments make sure that this remains so.
The distinction between operating system and application is entirely arbitrary. The phrase operating system, literally, means "software system to operate the computer with", therefor, it could even include applications.
It's really here why one could say, that, Linux is a better operating system than Windows, because it comes a word processor, a C++ IDE, and a bunch of other stuff. It has more ways to operate the computer.
The MSHTML is the issue. What's the point of saying you have removed the web browser, when you really haven't? If you want to remove the web browser, the HTML rendering engine has to go. Otherwise, anyone could wrap a simple browser wrapper around IE's rendering engine and still get the effect of shutting out browser competitors. Microsoft is completely right in this, and the EU is simply wrong. A modern operating system includes a bundled browser.
For the same reasons Zed does, but without all the ranting. I just looked at licenses today and was comparing the Microsoft Public License to the GPL, and the MSPL lets consumers of source code do whatever they want with it, including make tons of money on proprietary apps. I'm thinking, if someone really wanted to do that, which, in my case is doubtful, they could email me and ask, and we could talk about a separate license for them.
Actually, they're doing a pretty GOOD job. If you can convince 4 out of 10 of your customers to pay for an unnecessary update that nets them no benefit, I'd say that yes, your marketing department certainly did something right.
I like Win7. I'm ponying up my $200 for file dialogs that don't suck and many other things. Assuming, of course, that I have a job.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of the internet is that its something the private sector can sort out... but, if Godaddy and ICANN cannot sort out their differences, and with ICANN being the authority the Gov't put in charge, then, the Congress needs to take this matter up. If Godaddy wants to thumb its nose at regulatory bodies, let them do it at least before ones that can suspend their license to operate and levy fines.
Really? We would have had air superiority if we'd had 205 F-22s, but not with only 187? We're really riding the edge that closely? And who have we lost it to, that we would still have had it over if we had 205 vs 187 F-22s
Saying its 205 vs 187 is a distortion. I was kinda thinking we should buy at least 500 F22. Once you stop production, that's it.
Umm... Generally what you say is true, but this is a bad example because an LPD isn't a CV and vice versa. Very different ships for very different jobs.
I got the LPD and the Wasp mixed up.. I always do. The point of the comparison was really, both the Wasp and the British stuff can operate a few VTOL planes. I think the official british role is ASW but they were pressed quite successfuly into an assault and local air superiority role during the Falklands war.
?Well that's a load of horse-shit. Throughout the entire war, the USAF maintained a kill ration of roughly 2:1. The US navy's air-wings had a similar kill ratio initially, but brought it up past 10:1 after the development of the Top Gun academy. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas wfrom, but you're completely wrong.
The objective of an air force is to bring to your party the unimpeded use of the skies to deliver both transport for your troops and weapons to targets. This was never achieved during the war.
A look at the helicopter stats says it all. 11,000 helicopters flew in Vietnam. 5000 were destroyed.. That's nearly half. There was never a time and place where helicopters were not threatened by enemy fire. We never had air superiority, therefor, the USAF lost.
In 1967 US aircraft were getting shot down, and they were getting shot down in 1972.. No air superiority, means, ya lose.
Now you could say that the USAF did not have the proper mandate or rules of engagement to achieve air superiority during the war, and you'd be 100% right. What McNamara did to crippled the USAF was insane...like you can't fire a SAM site until you see the missile... hello.. Just dumb.
A lot of pilots died for it...
And, a lot of soldiers did too. If it were possible for helicopters to fly without being constant target practice, the army might have been able to conduct more effective patrols and seal the border, and really win the war... but the nva always kept the skies as a contested turf, and that was a strategic victory for them.
Wow. Just wow. Please do a little bit of research, and then we can talk
How about this. We nuked the Japanese, twice, and we firebombed Germany into the stone age. That pales in comparison to anything that we did to Iran, Guatamela, Haiti, Laos, Cuba, Dominican Republica, Bolivia, etc...
Even in Vietnam, we did not wage the sort of air war that we waged over Germany. In Germany we did indiscrimant bombing of every target there was.
And what happened, after that war?
I'd say not even a decade after being completely flattened, the Germans and Japanese were well on their way to rebuilding their own countries. Indeed, Europe was already revived as an economic rival to the USA by the 1960s. Having flattened itself with two back to back world wars, that's a pretty good accomplishment.
By similar comparison, the Russians had a giant portion of their population killed by the Germans, and 20 years later, put the first man into orbit, and lead off with a number of advances in the sciences.
The Chinese were beat up for a couple of centuries by the west, got mauled by the Japanese in WWII, had the Japanese kill like 20M of their people, then, they killed 30M of themselves after that during the Cultural Revolution, and, then they changed their economic system and within a decade became a manufacturing power and within two decades a world power.
So... all of this persecution talk is an excuse...
If all of these third world countries had people that wanted to succeed, they could succeed, but they don't, and so they won't, no matter how much money you throw at them.
A good way to solve this would be to stop being the world police and pissing everyone off. If we were just cool with people we easily get by with 10% of the defense budget we have now. Besides, I am sure that if we spent less on military and more on social programs we can save more civilians than we would lose soldiers. This whole nationalist, jingoist, fascist thing that the neo-Cons call Patriotism makes me throw up a little
You can call it jingoism and patriotism as much as you want, but the way I see things, half the world lines up each morning to try and dump products onto American consumers to earn their living because their own cultures and countries are too screwed up to provide one for them. How can you sit there and say, "oh, all these poor people around the world don't have running water...", like, how stupid is that? You're like probably in the same breath crying that Americans should buy birth control for third world people because they are too stupid to have safe sex.
I agree that we shouldn't be policing the world. In fact, I think we should be withdrawing some of the defense obligations we already have.
Jingoism is valid. Patriotism is true. Nationalism is just. When you see one country succeeding, and, many others roiling in their own stupidity, [despite trillions of dollars in foreign aid, btw], you have to ask, why have we been successful, what are those values that made us that way, and adopt institutions and civic rules to preserve them. But of course in your mind its wrong to not preserve that which makes your country better, and really, underlying your heart is more a desire for the destruction of your country than the benefit of humanity. If everyone was a jingoistic patriotic nationalist, their countries would be better, and the world would be better.
What's amusing to me is that people think education or health care is a proper role for unaccountable entities whose primary responsibility is profit.
And how is that different from government? In the end, its just power, and guess who has the most? Why, the government.
Having read about the F-35 [wikipedia.org], I can see why the administration and the Pentagon would favor it over the F-22.
the F-35 is not a bad little airplane but the real advantage of the F-22 is maneuvering and flat out speed. The F-22 is publicly stated as a Mach 1.6 aircraft but its really more like a nearly Mach 3 plane. If you can imagine something almost like an SR-71 that can shoot and fight, that's sorta what the F-22 is really all about.
If that is the case then why don't we keep building them until they are free? As a bonus, we will have an unstoppable Air Force. Oh wait, we already did before the F-22.
In case anyone didn't notice, the Vietnamese pretty much kicked the USAF's rear. Some of that was because of poor strategic decisions by LBJ, but a lot of it was because we had planes that couldn't dogfight. Now we just made the same mistake, again...
Reading the title and summary would make you think that the entire program has been cancelled
The program has been cancelled. When they make no more planes, that means, cancelled.
The F22 is already in service and will remain in service for quite some time.
The original point of the F22 was to replace an aging F15 for air superiority. So we have 600 F-15s to be replaced by 188 F-22s.
Lost in the shuffle is that the argument that we do not need to invest in air superiority because we already have it. Air superiority comes from the aircraft, and if you don't have them, you don't have it. The USA has just given up strategic air superiority, is what this means. We did good for a while because nobody could touch the F-15, but, in simulated missions a flight of USAF F15s were shot to pieces by an Indian Air Force flying more modern Mirages.
The amount of money being saved by the cancelling the F22 is cheap... this is more of a "lets send some kind of a message and show how we won't escalate a gen V fighter arms race" crap.
To point out to the feds that if one department actually sponsors the writing of a piece of code, by virtue of it being open source, other branches of the government would be able to take advantage of it in some way. What government is really looking for is platforms to write end to end systems on.
But there is a problem. Government is not about doing a job efficiently, for either political party. It is about spreading the wealth around and bringing bucks to your home state. It's not really wrong, its just how democracy actually is. Republicans say they are against this, but, man, every year the US Senate bought another LPD because they were made in Trent Lotts home state, until now the USA has like almost 20 little aircraft carriers about the same size as the 2 the British operate, and that's on top of its nimitzs. And George W Bush certainly kept Johnson Space Center in Texas rolling...
Now if Microsoft were actually politically smart, they would put federal systems development centers in the northeast. Washington state just isn't well, important enough politically for government work...
I will apply to be a Windmill Animal Safety Monitor, and am looking forward to completing my WASMD certification to do exactly that! This must be one of those jobs that can't be outsourced!
My broom, bat eating animal suit, and firecrackers are ready!
Just think, if they could get the lasers well, a lot more powerful, you could have an internal fusion engine... launch some deuterium into the piston, light it off with a laser... why, we could have the internal "combustion" engine for billions of years to come.
households...
So, could I not spoof somebody else's IP address so long as they are on my subnet?
What if somebody spoofs mine?
I don't think its so clear cut.
"A judge rules that IP addresses are not 'personally identifiable information' (PII) because they identify computers, not people. That's absurd,
I think that is not absurd. IP's could be utterly random, changed by anything... there's no process or standard or central authority or anything that guarantees that its even your computer. In order for you to have a computer identifer that is legally bound to you, you have to go through a quasi government process that has
a) the applicant providing proof of identification
b) the register validating that identification and issuing the ip to the person...
c) payment or proof of payments to associate the identification with the applicant.
d) finally, the ip should remain the property of the applicant, but, the government should track transfers.
If you did all that, then, yes, you might say the ip belongs to a person, because that's the only process that can eliminate reasonable doubt.
If you want to keep computers as general purpose machines, you must make the distinction between the software whose task is to make the computer hardware accessible and the software that sits on top of that other software in order to run tasks for which the computer has been completely abstracted.
No you don't. You don't have to do that at all. I mean, you could even argue that in the HTML world, that, having a browser is a necessary thing for making full use of a network card.
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
Like what?
The myriad of security problems with MS OSes, where marketing and commercial matters took precedence over sound Engineering principles, tell us al lot about why the distinction although arbitrary, it is still important.
I would say that if you wanted to go by sound engineering principals, David Cutler's inclusion of real ACLS, auditing, the hardware abstraction layer, the existence of different subsystems that can run on top of the OS layer... You can complain about the implementation but I think it is inaccurate to say that NT has less layers of abstraction than Linux does.
I mean, Comcast used to let me call this actual American person that would order a movie for me... I usually got the person because I owed them money, but then she'd put my film order in...
A browser is firmly in the application space, any serious operating environments make sure that this remains so.
The distinction between operating system and application is entirely arbitrary. The phrase operating system, literally, means "software system to operate the computer with", therefor, it could even include applications.
It's really here why one could say, that, Linux is a better operating system than Windows, because it comes a word processor, a C++ IDE, and a bunch of other stuff. It has more ways to operate the computer.
government agency in any civilization, ever.
Everything they do is cool.
Country: Kazakhstan
38.42% Opera
37.18% IE
22.26% Firefox
In Soviet Kazakstan, Opera is not bundled, Opera bundles you!
If you don't see the problem, then you are blind. What is the last 10 years ? What is IE6 ?
IF Apple had beat Microsoft way back in the day, we would all be bitching about Safari.
IF Linux wins, we'll be bitching about um, Konquerer.
Any product that wins in any competition will die because people will get sick of the reasons that it won.
[troll - look at vi, which triumphed over emacs... and look at how much its not evolved]
The MSHTML is the issue. What's the point of saying you have removed the web browser, when you really haven't? If you want to remove the web browser, the HTML rendering engine has to go. Otherwise, anyone could wrap a simple browser wrapper around IE's rendering engine and still get the effect of shutting out browser competitors. Microsoft is completely right in this, and the EU is simply wrong. A modern operating system includes a bundled browser.
I was just going to post that, if NASA needs people that can spend months in space, they can go Navy... like, when they got Alan Shepard.
For the same reasons Zed does, but without all the ranting. I just looked at licenses today and was comparing the Microsoft Public License to the GPL, and the MSPL lets consumers of source code do whatever they want with it, including make tons of money on proprietary apps. I'm thinking, if someone really wanted to do that, which, in my case is doubtful, they could email me and ask, and we could talk about a separate license for them.
Actually, they're doing a pretty GOOD job. If you can convince 4 out of 10 of your customers to pay for an unnecessary update that nets them no benefit, I'd say that yes, your marketing department certainly did something right.
I like Win7. I'm ponying up my $200 for file dialogs that don't suck and many other things. Assuming, of course, that I have a job.