The reason is that Americans still regard the BBC as the ultimate broadcasting organisation, and if it is OK for the BBC to broadcast, it must be OK to screen it to a US audience. In fact, if it has been shown on the BBC, that means that it is of such outstandingly good quality, that all Americans should be strapped to their favourite reclining chair in front of the TV and made to watch it.
Of course, UK audiences would rather watch "Friends".....
The British realised from the start that they had very little money and as a result have developed the lander equivalent of the mini; a basic vehicle that will get the job done. It seems a lot of improvisation has been used to develop and test Beagle 2. Even the testing seems to have been sponsored photo opportunities.
The NASA approach is a Rolls-Royce solution by comparison; whilst they have a budget, I'm willing to bet it has more zeroes on the end. In addition the landers are mobile, and that will always add another level of complexity to the lander.
The only problem I can see with beagle is that it is going to be at the same spot each time; it is definitely not going to be an interesting ever changing webcam view! Whilst Beagle probably packs more science on board, the US missions with their capability to go anywhere have better long term attractiveness
Not quite true. You are overlooking staff costs, often the most expensive component of a team. While Rutan may be doing it for fun, you still have to keep the weenies paid. Even if they are working for you already, you are taking their time from projects that earn the company revenue.
AFAIK, they don't techically have to turn round. Unlike an orbital craft, they do not have to worry about reentry heat as they are going straight up and straight down (more or less). So they can come down ass-backwards if they want.
Of course, I would suspect that in reality, the crafts center of gravity will point it the right way round when it starts to fall, and the minimal atmosphere will certainly do the rest once they get to 100,000 feet or so.
Another idea would be for the rocket to have some sort of vector control and use the last few grammes of fuel to point the craft in the right direction.
I've bought and paid for a TiVo. Its very nice, but now I want something more powerful. If TiVo offered a PVR that got email, ran games, had a Ethernet port and built in Satellite tuner, could serve to PCs etc, I'd be buyng it.
B.T.W. I know a TiVo2 can do some of these things just not all, whereas a MythTv box can do anything you tell it to.
... make emergency landings everywhere all of the time. Its sortof expected that if you run any type of landing strip you do your best to help anyone out. I presume he filed a flight plan which is all you really have to do to get from a) to b).
It seems that in packing him off in a plane and his plane on the next ship they are being spiteful, not logical. The article said that they would be shipping him out on a flight, so if a flight can get in, bringing a few jerricans would be a good idea and charging him for support costs is more than fair.
IIRC the tivo just operates the cable box using a LED plugged into a serial port, so I don't think ii would be much of a challenge to create a cable to do the same from a PC.....
I agree with the last statement about being sure that all the hardware will be supported by the software, but that could just as easily be achieved by having an NHS approved release of Linux, and doing its own technical support in house. With 800,000 users, you need a large measure of support only answerable to you anyway.
Noone gets any satisfaction with modding ACs down.
Lets respond to the troll.
Why give away the programs? So the programmers can make money by selling support and consultancy services. Funnily enough, they often found companies of their own to do this.
In Eldred, they didn't rule in favour of SCO's opinion, they ruled in favour of Ashcrofts line. It had nothing to do with SCOs opinion. And while we disagree with the DMCA, it protects Linux hippies from companies like SCO too.
The US Constitution permits Congress to use Copyright to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It does not specify how that promotion should take place.
The Eldred case does not really apply here, as Eldred was contesting the authority of Congress to extend copyright, sadly rejected. Even so, profit can be defined in many ways, and Open Source developers do profit from the work that they put into their software. The normal method of profit is that they are able to consult or offer support contracts on the basis of their proven skill in software development. The more widely used the software, the more in demand their services. In addition, authors gain by improved status and recognition both inside and outside the community.
In recent letters published on Groklaw, it has been established that employees and officers of SCO were aware that their developers were actively assisting and contributing to all the projects now under dispute, including the parts under dispute with IBM. Given this tacit approval, one cannot now change your mind and withdraw those efforts.
Again in your letter, you have made the mistake of claiming it is your intellectual property that is being distributed. The weight of evidence now shows that any intellectual property owned by you has been released to the public domain with your knowledge, or was never your property in the first place. You have little grounds for claiming that any intellectual property truly owned by you is in Linux or any other Open Source software. All claims you have made so far have been proven to be untrue.
As I understand it, the offer still stands; release all files which you claim is your intellectual property, and if proven, it would be withdrawn from Linux. We fail to see what problems you have with releasing those files, since after all, you are claiming that they are already in Linux; thus any confidentiality has already been lost.
It's certainly in Microsofts instance to at least allow Word to read documents complying with the specification, otherwise people may reject office for the simple reason it can't read documents matching it's own standards. And companies friendly ot MS will rely on this for their own development, not just Open Source peeps.
It's about the only item Microsoft actually includes in their OS that they haven't bastardized to any great extent. ...and thats a pity. A better bundled terminal program is desperately needed by Windows.
We have received your invoice for $20 and have settled it with the relevant authorities on Eros. If you contact them I am sure they will remit our payment to you.
Slashdot Mirror
...would fail to undock when told to!
Maybe it could sidle up to Beagle 2 and give it a push out of whatever ditch it has managed to land in!
Does Rover carry any jump leads?
The reason is that Americans still regard the BBC as the ultimate broadcasting organisation, and if it is OK for the BBC to broadcast, it must be OK to screen it to a US audience. In fact, if it has been shown on the BBC, that means that it is of such outstandingly good quality, that all Americans should be strapped to their favourite reclining chair in front of the TV and made to watch it.
Of course, UK audiences would rather watch "Friends".....
The British realised from the start that they had very little money and as a result have developed the lander equivalent of the mini; a basic vehicle that will get the job done. It seems a lot of improvisation has been used to develop and test Beagle 2. Even the testing seems to have been sponsored photo opportunities.
The NASA approach is a Rolls-Royce solution by comparison; whilst they have a budget, I'm willing to bet it has more zeroes on the end. In addition the landers are mobile, and that will always add another level of complexity to the lander.
The only problem I can see with beagle is that it is going to be at the same spot each time; it is definitely not going to be an interesting ever changing webcam view! Whilst Beagle probably packs more science on board, the US missions with their capability to go anywhere have better long term attractiveness
Lots of British hold lovingly to their pounds, gallons and miles per hour.
Even the documentation I saw used non-SI units, so the possibility of a screw up still exists.
Not quite true. You are overlooking staff costs, often the most expensive component of a team. While Rutan may be doing it for fun, you still have to keep the weenies paid. Even if they are working for you already, you are taking their time from projects that earn the company revenue.
Actually, getting the rocket to fly in the right direction is easy. See NASA's model rocket section here for a simple guide.
AFAIK, they don't techically have to turn round. Unlike an orbital craft, they do not have to worry about reentry heat as they are going straight up and straight down (more or less). So they can come down ass-backwards if they want.
Of course, I would suspect that in reality, the crafts center of gravity will point it the right way round when it starts to fall, and the minimal atmosphere will certainly do the rest once they get to 100,000 feet or so.
Another idea would be for the rocket to have some sort of vector control and use the last few grammes of fuel to point the craft in the right direction.
I've bought and paid for a TiVo. Its very nice, but now I want something more powerful. If TiVo offered a PVR that got email, ran games, had a Ethernet port and built in Satellite tuner, could serve to PCs etc, I'd be buyng it.
B.T.W. I know a TiVo2 can do some of these things just not all, whereas a MythTv box can do anything you tell it to.
... make emergency landings everywhere all of the time. Its sortof expected that if you run any type of landing strip you do your best to help anyone out. I presume he filed a flight plan which is all you really have to do to get from a) to b).
It seems that in packing him off in a plane and his plane on the next ship they are being spiteful, not logical. The article said that they would be shipping him out on a flight, so if a flight can get in, bringing a few jerricans would be a good idea and charging him for support costs is more than fair.
Yes and no.
That return flight home has to carry somethings in doesn't it. 104 gallons of fuel extra maybe? Paid for by Jon?
Why they just didn't sell him the fuel and add a service charge for the inconvenience?
..doesn't appear impressed with SCO either!
Blame Canada!
IIRC the tivo just operates the cable box using a LED plugged into a serial port, so I don't think ii would be much of a challenge to create a cable to do the same from a PC.....
I agree with the last statement about being sure that all the hardware will be supported by the software, but that could just as easily be achieved by having an NHS approved release of Linux, and doing its own technical support in house. With 800,000 users, you need a large measure of support only answerable to you anyway.
Noone gets any satisfaction with modding ACs down.
Lets respond to the troll.
Why give away the programs? So the programmers can make money by selling support and consultancy services. Funnily enough, they often found companies of their own to do this.
In Eldred, they didn't rule in favour of SCO's opinion, they ruled in favour of Ashcrofts line. It had nothing to do with SCOs opinion. And while we disagree with the DMCA, it protects Linux hippies from companies like SCO too.
The US Constitution permits Congress to use Copyright to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It does not specify how that promotion should take place.
The Eldred case does not really apply here, as Eldred was contesting the authority of Congress to extend copyright, sadly rejected. Even so, profit can be defined in many ways, and Open Source developers do profit from the work that they put into their software. The normal method of profit is that they are able to consult or offer support contracts on the basis of their proven skill in software development. The more widely used the software, the more in demand their services. In addition, authors gain by improved status and recognition both inside and outside the community.
In recent letters published on Groklaw, it has been established that employees and officers of SCO were aware that their developers were actively assisting and contributing to all the projects now under dispute, including the parts under dispute with IBM. Given this tacit approval, one cannot now change your mind and withdraw those efforts.
Again in your letter, you have made the mistake of claiming it is your intellectual property that is being distributed. The weight of evidence now shows that any intellectual property owned by you has been released to the public domain with your knowledge, or was never your property in the first place. You have little grounds for claiming that any intellectual property truly owned by you is in Linux or any other Open Source software. All claims you have made so far have been proven to be untrue.
As I understand it, the offer still stands; release all files which you claim is your intellectual property, and if proven, it would be withdrawn from Linux. We fail to see what problems you have with releasing those files, since after all, you are claiming that they are already in Linux; thus any confidentiality has already been lost.
See if you can get the most bounty on your head! Open to script kiddies everywhere!
Why is it not in Mozilla properly yet?
i.e. you have to recompile your browser to get it installed.
What do you load swallows up with so they are laden swallows?
It's certainly in Microsofts instance to at least allow Word to read documents complying with the specification, otherwise people may reject office for the simple reason it can't read documents matching it's own standards. And companies friendly ot MS will rely on this for their own development, not just Open Source peeps.
You put at the start of the XML document which character set you are using; there may be a Word option to set this up for your document.
It's about the only item Microsoft actually includes in their OS that they haven't bastardized to any great extent.
...and thats a pity. A better bundled terminal program is desperately needed by Windows.
We have received your invoice for $20 and have settled it with the relevant authorities on Eros. If you contact them I am sure they will remit our payment to you.
Regards
NASA
a) Does this mean Global Warming goes into overdrive?
b) If you are wearing anything metal, do sparks arcing all over you?