Actually, the grandparent poster does have a point here. To use your analogy, the areas we drive in ARE a factor in what vehicle we use. For example, you wouldn't want to go offroading in a low profile sportscar, nor would you want to drive an 18-wheel big rig in Manhattan. The environment is very relevant to the choice of transportation.
So similarly, the choice of browser is very relevant to the sites you need to access. Like it or not, Microsoft (among others) have segmented the web by introducing technologies that are not browser-independant. We can rant and rave all we want about telling people to stop making things locked in to IE, but the simple truth is that it the current landscape isn't ideal and we have to cope with it as a result. In fact, the only way to turn that tide is for continued adoption of non-IE browsers to the point that IE's dominance will wane and therefore cause developers to recognize that they can't code to one platform because it breaks the 80/20 rule (and IIRC, IE is at 90% right now, meaning that we have a long way to go).
We need the ability to moderate the articles themselves. Myself, I'd give the article a -1, Redundant (covered before, as you mention), -1, Troll (for trying to get people unnecessarily spun up), and -1, Flamebait (for name dropping Linus in a conversation that has nothing to do with him).
No offense to former VP Gore, but I think Jerry Yang and David Milo would bear far more credit for the explosion of the Internet outside of those realms than Gore could ever have contributed. Yahoo! was one of those magical websites in it early days which really tied the web together. A portal before the term was even coined.
I think Phil Zimmermann would be a more apt recipient for that award. PGP gave the US govt fits the the better part of a decade. Made them redefine their stance on technology as a strategic weapon.
FWIW, that award should be duly given to Phil Zimmerman.
Re:Never write off Microsoft...
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
the reason why MSIE destroyed Netscape's dominance wasn't its superiority, it was because MSIE was just there, an easy mouse click away on every new Windows 95 PC
There are a couple other reasons, mostly historical. Netscape had to be downloaded, and furthermore given that the majority of Internet connections were dial-up (and not all at 56k), grabbing it was very time-intensive. Couple that with the aforementioned functionality problems that Netscape 4.x had compared to IE 5.x, and it further tilted the playing field in Microsoft's favor. The icing on the cake is that most Web surfers are interminably lazy -- game over.
The other big reason is that Microsoft started pushing very hard at that time to get web developers to code for IE-IIS integration, to the detriment of alternative browsers. To this date, we're still suffering the effects of this divergence.
Use Firefox to block pop-ups and install the Adblock extension with the latest filter list to block ads. Haven't seen very many in a long time now -- 1995 style with 2005 content.
Not so sure about Google and Fark which are purely online, but it seems logical that traditional newspapers will pass on the cost to their print subscribers.
The idiotic thing is that Nikon isn't even considering offering a module to be plugged into Photoshop to allow this. I mean, If you're going to buy a $5000 camera in the first place, ponying up $90 more to allow it to work with Photoshop seems like such an obvious solution.
Of course, if Nikon wants to shoot their toes off, that's their business.
Let's think about this for a second from an American and Linux biased perspective. Gates and Chirac are all chummy together, and at some later date the US reapplies pressure on Microsoft, Ballmer and Gates finally say, "Nah, don't need you America", and bail Redmond to setup HQ in Paris.
So basically, it would be yet another reason to hate the French and Microsoft. Where's the downside here?
Given that it's winter in Seattle, it might be a while [before I can test this out]. I should have built a rain-powered death ray or a death ray powered by granola.
The story the BSA would probably tell you is that it's probably an ROI problem. BSA would not likely take on members who wouldn't stand to gain from their membership through the education and advocacy of unlicensed use of software, not to mention to recuperation of revenues from violators.
Behind the scenes though, it's more likely that this is a good ole boys club bent on ensuring the for-profit business model of software distribution. Since FOSS does not live by these tenets, it's unlikely they'd be accepted as a member.
Asus isn't exactly small, but Motorola is comparatively gigantic. This would be a major uphill battle against MOT's legal team if anything more than threats were considered. Not saying it's an unwinnable fight, but it would be very difficult and costly -- likely beyond the means of most coders or entities with software under the GPL. Makes entities like the EFF very powerful in this case.
Re:It's just too hard for them
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My guess is that it's cultural. As I recall from my undergrad days, the women that were in my CS classes were by and large non-American. It's very likely that there is an ingrained stigma against American women entering science fields, although I can't imagine why, as I do not see any variation in the range of skill or expertise between men and women in my workplace -- there are good and bad for both, but neither is ahead of or behind the other.
Most of the time, the perps are organized crime from all over the planet. That some of the scams actually reside in Nigeria is both a coincidence and part of the plan -- the perps lure you there to make the transaction, and then up the "buy-in" price in person. Of course, by that time, you've already spent thousands to get there, you're in a strange land far from home with no protections -- might as well follow through with the deal and get out as fast as possible, eh?
Buried in the comments to Marc's blog entry is this reply from Marcelo Lopez, Jr.:
I've come to believe that the ability to DELIVER software is INVERSELY proportional to the size of the company.
Now I'd rephrase that as proportional to the size of the product, not the company, but this comment is almost exactly on the mark. Windows has become so bloated, so patched, so susceptible to every ailment in the IT world, that it is almost impossible for Microsoft to get new updates to the customers because the amount of QA and UAT needed validate the new releases can delay product releases almost indefinitely. That they can release anything at all due to having to test for every single bug on the planet is amazing in and of itself.
Ok, I'll grant you that. So let's do the math in reverse.
Let's assume you're right and he landed with no fuel. Let's also assume that TFA is correct that the average cruising burn rate (not takeoff, nor landing) is 102 lbs/hr, and that according to the Mission Log, he started cruising about 12.5 hours into the flight. That means he cruised for 54.5 hours and therefore should have spent about 5559 pounds of fuel in that time.
Let's also assume that he did have a maximum of 15,400 pounds of fuel for the whole trip. Minus the 5559 spent cruising, that means he spent 9,841 pounds of fuel over 12.5 hours getting up to altitude, for a burn rate of about 787 lbs/hr. So, yes, it's many times higher, so you could be correct about that.
The odd part to me is that it took 12.5 hours to get to 45,000 feet. At an average of 60 ft/minute, this is nearly a level ascent, although I will assume that the initial ascent following takeoff was at a much faster rate than the overall ascent. It just seems awfully slow to me to get to that height. I'm also guesstimating that the plane is at least 2x as heavy at takeoff than at cruising speed due to the fuel load, but the burn rate is almost 8x as expensive. This seems terribly non-linear for what is essentially an almost level ascent, even with the additional weight of the fuel. Of course, I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but even so, it just seems inefficient to me overall.
Either that, or the ascent burn was not that much and there was plenty of fuel left in the tank (or there was a much greater leak/lossage than being reported).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the grandparent poster does have a point here. To use your analogy, the areas we drive in ARE a factor in what vehicle we use. For example, you wouldn't want to go offroading in a low profile sportscar, nor would you want to drive an 18-wheel big rig in Manhattan. The environment is very relevant to the choice of transportation.
So similarly, the choice of browser is very relevant to the sites you need to access. Like it or not, Microsoft (among others) have segmented the web by introducing technologies that are not browser-independant. We can rant and rave all we want about telling people to stop making things locked in to IE, but the simple truth is that it the current landscape isn't ideal and we have to cope with it as a result. In fact, the only way to turn that tide is for continued adoption of non-IE browsers to the point that IE's dominance will wane and therefore cause developers to recognize that they can't code to one platform because it breaks the 80/20 rule (and IIRC, IE is at 90% right now, meaning that we have a long way to go).
Michael Bolton: I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
We need the ability to moderate the articles themselves. Myself, I'd give the article a -1, Redundant (covered before, as you mention), -1, Troll (for trying to get people unnecessarily spun up), and -1, Flamebait (for name dropping Linus in a conversation that has nothing to do with him).
No offense to former VP Gore, but I think Jerry Yang and David Milo would bear far more credit for the explosion of the Internet outside of those realms than Gore could ever have contributed. Yahoo! was one of those magical websites in it early days which really tied the web together. A portal before the term was even coined.
Crap.....self-scoring -1, Redundant. Ignorance of the buttons coupled with an itchy mouse gesture capability can be an unfortunate combination...
I think Phil Zimmermann would be a more apt recipient for that award. PGP gave the US govt fits the the better part of a decade. Made them redefine their stance on technology as a strategic weapon.
FWIW, that award should be duly given to Phil Zimmerman.
the reason why MSIE destroyed Netscape's dominance wasn't its superiority, it was because MSIE was just there, an easy mouse click away on every new Windows 95 PC
There are a couple other reasons, mostly historical. Netscape had to be downloaded, and furthermore given that the majority of Internet connections were dial-up (and not all at 56k), grabbing it was very time-intensive. Couple that with the aforementioned functionality problems that Netscape 4.x had compared to IE 5.x, and it further tilted the playing field in Microsoft's favor. The icing on the cake is that most Web surfers are interminably lazy -- game over.
The other big reason is that Microsoft started pushing very hard at that time to get web developers to code for IE-IIS integration, to the detriment of alternative browsers. To this date, we're still suffering the effects of this divergence.
Use Firefox to block pop-ups and install the Adblock extension with the latest filter list to block ads. Haven't seen very many in a long time now -- 1995 style with 2005 content.
Not so sure about Google and Fark which are purely online, but it seems logical that traditional newspapers will pass on the cost to their print subscribers.
The idiotic thing is that Nikon isn't even considering offering a module to be plugged into Photoshop to allow this. I mean, If you're going to buy a $5000 camera in the first place, ponying up $90 more to allow it to work with Photoshop seems like such an obvious solution.
Of course, if Nikon wants to shoot their toes off, that's their business.
There has been one newsworthy thing that has (or more correctly, has not) happened today.
There hasn't been a dupe yet.
Let's think about this for a second from an American and Linux biased perspective. Gates and Chirac are all chummy together, and at some later date the US reapplies pressure on Microsoft, Ballmer and Gates finally say, "Nah, don't need you America", and bail Redmond to setup HQ in Paris.
So basically, it would be yet another reason to hate the French and Microsoft. Where's the downside here?
FTB...
Given that it's winter in Seattle, it might be
a while [before I can test this out]. I should have built a rain-powered death ray or a death ray
powered by granola.
Even better, and even more hilarious due to its outright seriousness and sheer length is Wikipedia's Leet entry.
Ah, my faith in corporate ethics finally takes a tiny swing upwards.....feeling warm....hey, there's fuzzy too....
The story the BSA would probably tell you is that it's probably an ROI problem. BSA would not likely take on members who wouldn't stand to gain from their membership through the education and advocacy of unlicensed use of software, not to mention to recuperation of revenues from violators.
Behind the scenes though, it's more likely that this is a good ole boys club bent on ensuring the for-profit business model of software distribution. Since FOSS does not live by these tenets, it's unlikely they'd be accepted as a member.
Asus isn't exactly small, but Motorola is comparatively gigantic. This would be a major uphill battle against MOT's legal team if anything more than threats were considered. Not saying it's an unwinnable fight, but it would be very difficult and costly -- likely beyond the means of most coders or entities with software under the GPL. Makes entities like the EFF very powerful in this case.
My guess is that it's cultural. As I recall from my undergrad days, the women that were in my CS classes were by and large non-American. It's very likely that there is an ingrained stigma against American women entering science fields, although I can't imagine why, as I do not see any variation in the range of skill or expertise between men and women in my workplace -- there are good and bad for both, but neither is ahead of or behind the other.
Division of labor is good when discussed as a concept in CS classes, but is badly implemented by MBAs.
The division part is implemented fine -- the problem is in the original assumption by mgmt that one employee = 4 equal 100% parts.
It's not the size of the fine, but the precedent it sets that is important here.
Most of the time, the perps are organized crime from all over the planet. That some of the scams actually reside in Nigeria is both a coincidence and part of the plan -- the perps lure you there to make the transaction, and then up the "buy-in" price in person. Of course, by that time, you've already spent thousands to get there, you're in a strange land far from home with no protections -- might as well follow through with the deal and get out as fast as possible, eh?
See Wikipedia's Advance Fee Fraud webpage for more info.
Buried in the comments to Marc's blog entry is this reply from Marcelo Lopez, Jr.:
I've come to believe that the ability to DELIVER software is INVERSELY proportional to the size of the company.
Now I'd rephrase that as proportional to the size of the product, not the company, but this comment is almost exactly on the mark. Windows has become so bloated, so patched, so susceptible to every ailment in the IT world, that it is almost impossible for Microsoft to get new updates to the customers because the amount of QA and UAT needed validate the new releases can delay product releases almost indefinitely. That they can release anything at all due to having to test for every single bug on the planet is amazing in and of itself.
It's not my number -- came from CNN's article.
Ok, I'll grant you that. So let's do the math in reverse.
Let's assume you're right and he landed with no fuel. Let's also assume that TFA is correct that the average cruising burn rate (not takeoff, nor landing) is 102 lbs/hr, and that according to the Mission Log, he started cruising about 12.5 hours into the flight. That means he cruised for 54.5 hours and therefore should have spent about 5559 pounds of fuel in that time.
Let's also assume that he did have a maximum of 15,400 pounds of fuel for the whole trip. Minus the 5559 spent cruising, that means he spent 9,841 pounds of fuel over 12.5 hours getting up to altitude, for a burn rate of about 787 lbs/hr. So, yes, it's many times higher, so you could be correct about that.
The odd part to me is that it took 12.5 hours to get to 45,000 feet. At an average of 60 ft/minute, this is nearly a level ascent, although I will assume that the initial ascent following takeoff was at a much faster rate than the overall ascent. It just seems awfully slow to me to get to that height. I'm also guesstimating that the plane is at least 2x as heavy at takeoff than at cruising speed due to the fuel load, but the burn rate is almost 8x as expensive. This seems terribly non-linear for what is essentially an almost level ascent, even with the additional weight of the fuel. Of course, I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but even so, it just seems inefficient to me overall.
Either that, or the ascent burn was not that much and there was plenty of fuel left in the tank (or there was a much greater leak/lossage than being reported).