Look, if we're such a rotten bunch of fucks, why do you want to live here anyway? Hearing from people who immigrate to this country for the privilege of telling us what a bunch of assholes we are is getting really old. It's not like you were shanghaied... we aren't exactly begging people to come here. If you don't like this country, there are over a hundred others you could go to. Please.
Maybe we should treat Americans the way Americans treat Mexicans?
Considering a lot more Canadians immigrate to the US than the other way around, I find that rather amusing. And I don't mean as a percentage of the population, the literal number of Canadians immigrating to the US exceeds the number of Americans immigrating to Canada.
Considering Canada has a smaller population than California, that doesn't say much about Canada.
So go right ahead - something tells me there will be a lot more unhappy Canadians than Americans when reciprocate.
You might consider reading the constitution that you swore to uphold and protect before you go get fucked, especially the fourth amendment. Then you would understand how egregiously unconstitutional this new law is.
You might want to read it yourself:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Notice the criteria is "unreasonable". Obviously, "unreasonable" is situationally dependent. Given the circumstances in Arizona, I submit the law is quite reasonable, indeed.
Damn, I wish I had mod points! You got that absolutely right! As you pointed out, why do we need more immigrants when we already have double-digit unemployment? I'm getting sick of my country getting used for an international public toilet.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
— Adam Smith
Seriously. He has no goal set, no time-line for achieving it, just some vague promise that he's going to be spending the money on research that will enable future missions.
I wonder where air travel would be today if the Wright brothers had grounded their plane until some research facility designed the jet engine?
Well, there was that, too. I remember the silly commercial with the nuns. But the point is, they made a number of bad marketing decisions, and yes, they did drop it within a year of Windows 95 coming. I was also running it at the time.
But now that I think of it, there may be some sense to resurrecting OS/2. IBM's 5-year no-compete agreement with Lenovo ended in April of this year, so maybe they're giving some thought about re-entering the desktop market. Given that they don't want to play in the commodity space, perhaps they're looking at some kind of proprietary platform, which, considering the success of the Mac, isn't an entirely outrageous idea.
Of course, that's idle speculation on my part. IBM isn't a consumer-focused company, so it's not clear where such a thing would fit into their product line. But other than that, I have no idea why they'd be interested in resurrecting it at this late date.
That was a move I just couldn't understand - IBM dropping OS/2 just as Windows 95 came out.
Here's the situation - Microsoft is forcing it's user base to migrate off of DOS and Windows 3.x. Both Windows 95 and OS/2 are backward compatible with DOS/Windows 3.x, and at the time, there were more native applications available for OS/2 than applications that used Windows 95's exclusive features, and OS/2 was far and away acknowledged to be the technically superior OS. Since Microsoft was forcing a migration to an unfamiliar environment in any event, you'd have thought it would have been the perfect opportunity for IBM to swoop in and grab some of Microsoft's user base.
So, given a golden opportunity to capitalize on a disruption in the OS market, what did IBM do? Dropped OS/2 like a hot potato and walked away without looking back. I just couldn't understand their reasoning.
A resurgence of OS/2 at this point might be a cute trick, but I doubt it's going to happen. Given that IBM is currently doing everything it can to cut costs and is laying off people left and right, I can't really see them investing resources into a product that has limited interest in it. It's not even clear that they still have the expertise on the payroll to pull it off. It's a great rumor, but sorry, in the current environment, I'm just not seeing this as happening.
Actually, if you're a space geek, the military taking over the space program is the best news you could wish for. Just take a look at who gets a budget. To the DOD, NASA's budget is a rounding error. If you actually want to see this stuff get funded, the Air Force is the best place for it.
Actually, Armstrong is notorious for shutting up. He's a very private person and generally avoids the limelight. That's what makes his statement so surprising - he's usually gone out of his way to stay out of the political infighting.
If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way. When was the last time you heard a public statement from Neil Armstrong?
I don't know who should win in this one. Perhaps I'll wait till the docs are actually filed and can read the actual arguments and get actual law instead of some journalists opinion on what is.
Exactly what grounds would Adobe sue on? If Apple was offering a competing proprietary product to play Flash media, I could (possibly) see an anti-trust case. But they aren't, they're simply not offering the functionality. This isn't really the same thing as Netscape vs. Microsoft.
Oracle originally only made an offer for Sun's hardware assets. They only bought the entire company after IBM made a bid for it. That doesn't sound much like Oracle had much enthusiasm for Sun's hardware. Apparently they bought it only because it came with the dinner.
If that's all I can get, it's better than a perpetual backslide.
Other than not recreating Apollo, we aren't backsliding. We didn't have anything like the ISS (which thanks to Constellation funds being freed up now has an extended lease on life).
Er, yeah. Now maybe you could tell us what benefits are accruing to us from the ISS. If I have to choose between ISS and another Apollo, I'll take the Apollo. At least Apollo had a goal and a point to it, which are qualities that seem to be seriously lacking in the ISS.
No, if you want to see a Mars colony, then you need the R&D the new plan is going to do. We'll need large structures and habitats, larger than are economical to lift from Earth in one shot. In-space assembly, check. We'll need, ideally, a lot of materials already built when humans arrive. Automated mineral excavation and factories, check. Well need a way to supply our astronauts on Mars with a steady stream of supplies, meaning we'll need cheaper ways to ship mass from earth to mars. New propulsion systems, check. It goes on.
And how did we accrue those kinds of advances in cars, airplanes, computers, etc... by yanking the nascent technologies off of the market until somebody in a laboratory had a eureka moment?
I wonder where air travel would be if the Wright bros. had grounded their plane until someone developed a jet engine?
This new budget will give NASA a leg up on real cutting edge R & D in new technologies. All the billions of dollars going towards getting men to the Moon will be spent on next generation rocket tech and many other exciting fields.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge on the moon to sell you. How many years do you suppose this "next generation rocket tech" is going to be in development before it produces a tangible result? And what are the milestones? What's an acceptable time frame for the development of these new, enabling technologies? 50, 100 years?
Indeed. The ultimate fate of Itanium is to wind up as HP's upgrade to PA-RISC. You have to wonder how much further interest Intel is going to have in it's development. I suspect it will end up getting tossed back into HP's lap.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, if we're such a rotten bunch of fucks, why do you want to live here anyway? Hearing from people who immigrate to this country for the privilege of telling us what a bunch of assholes we are is getting really old. It's not like you were shanghaied... we aren't exactly begging people to come here. If you don't like this country, there are over a hundred others you could go to. Please.
Maybe we should treat Americans the way Americans treat Mexicans?
Considering a lot more Canadians immigrate to the US than the other way around, I find that rather amusing. And I don't mean as a percentage of the population, the literal number of Canadians immigrating to the US exceeds the number of Americans immigrating to Canada.
Considering Canada has a smaller population than California, that doesn't say much about Canada.
So go right ahead - something tells me there will be a lot more unhappy Canadians than Americans when reciprocate.
You might consider reading the constitution that you swore to uphold and protect before you go get fucked, especially the fourth amendment. Then you would understand how egregiously unconstitutional this new law is.
You might want to read it yourself:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Notice the criteria is "unreasonable". Obviously, "unreasonable" is situationally dependent. Given the circumstances in Arizona, I submit the law is quite reasonable, indeed.
Damn, I wish I had mod points! You got that absolutely right! As you pointed out, why do we need more immigrants when we already have double-digit unemployment? I'm getting sick of my country getting used for an international public toilet.
Perhaps this is the real story behind IBM's alleged relaunch of OS2?
Name me one company who has used a monopoly to lower their prices.
Standard Oil
You know, there's a porn store for Android, you can download nothing but porn. You can download porn, your kids can download porn.
How does he know?
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens."
— Adam Smith
Recently? There is only one: William Jefferson Clinton.
Not quite. You forgot Richard Nixon.
Seriously. He has no goal set, no time-line for achieving it, just some vague promise that he's going to be spending the money on research that will enable future missions.
I wonder where air travel would be today if the Wright brothers had grounded their plane until some research facility designed the jet engine?
Given the signal to noise ratio for most tweets, I'm not convinced this is a particularly good use of resources...
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to!
Or are you one of those people who think Canada is the 51st state?
No, not yet. But we're patient. ;)
Well, there was that, too. I remember the silly commercial with the nuns. But the point is, they made a number of bad marketing decisions, and yes, they did drop it within a year of Windows 95 coming. I was also running it at the time.
But now that I think of it, there may be some sense to resurrecting OS/2. IBM's 5-year no-compete agreement with Lenovo ended in April of this year, so maybe they're giving some thought about re-entering the desktop market. Given that they don't want to play in the commodity space, perhaps they're looking at some kind of proprietary platform, which, considering the success of the Mac, isn't an entirely outrageous idea.
Of course, that's idle speculation on my part. IBM isn't a consumer-focused company, so it's not clear where such a thing would fit into their product line. But other than that, I have no idea why they'd be interested in resurrecting it at this late date.
That was a move I just couldn't understand - IBM dropping OS/2 just as Windows 95 came out.
Here's the situation - Microsoft is forcing it's user base to migrate off of DOS and Windows 3.x. Both Windows 95 and OS/2 are backward compatible with DOS/Windows 3.x, and at the time, there were more native applications available for OS/2 than applications that used Windows 95's exclusive features, and OS/2 was far and away acknowledged to be the technically superior OS. Since Microsoft was forcing a migration to an unfamiliar environment in any event, you'd have thought it would have been the perfect opportunity for IBM to swoop in and grab some of Microsoft's user base.
So, given a golden opportunity to capitalize on a disruption in the OS market, what did IBM do? Dropped OS/2 like a hot potato and walked away without looking back. I just couldn't understand their reasoning.
A resurgence of OS/2 at this point might be a cute trick, but I doubt it's going to happen. Given that IBM is currently doing everything it can to cut costs and is laying off people left and right, I can't really see them investing resources into a product that has limited interest in it. It's not even clear that they still have the expertise on the payroll to pull it off. It's a great rumor, but sorry, in the current environment, I'm just not seeing this as happening.
Actually, if you're a space geek, the military taking over the space program is the best news you could wish for. Just take a look at who gets a budget. To the DOD, NASA's budget is a rounding error. If you actually want to see this stuff get funded, the Air Force is the best place for it.
Actually, Armstrong is notorious for shutting up. He's a very private person and generally avoids the limelight. That's what makes his statement so surprising - he's usually gone out of his way to stay out of the political infighting.
If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way. When was the last time you heard a public statement from Neil Armstrong?
I don't know who should win in this one. Perhaps I'll wait till the docs are actually filed and can read the actual arguments and get actual law instead of some journalists opinion on what is.
Exactly what grounds would Adobe sue on? If Apple was offering a competing proprietary product to play Flash media, I could (possibly) see an anti-trust case. But they aren't, they're simply not offering the functionality. This isn't really the same thing as Netscape vs. Microsoft.
Do you have a source for this? I'm curious.
Yes.
Ugh - make that "Oracle originally only made an offer for Sun's software assets.
Oracle originally only made an offer for Sun's hardware assets. They only bought the entire company after IBM made a bid for it. That doesn't sound much like Oracle had much enthusiasm for Sun's hardware. Apparently they bought it only because it came with the dinner.
If that's all I can get, it's better than a perpetual backslide.
Other than not recreating Apollo, we aren't backsliding. We didn't have anything like the ISS (which thanks to Constellation funds being freed up now has an extended lease on life).
Er, yeah. Now maybe you could tell us what benefits are accruing to us from the ISS. If I have to choose between ISS and another Apollo, I'll take the Apollo. At least Apollo had a goal and a point to it, which are qualities that seem to be seriously lacking in the ISS.
No, if you want to see a Mars colony, then you need the R&D the new plan is going to do. We'll need large structures and habitats, larger than are economical to lift from Earth in one shot. In-space assembly, check. We'll need, ideally, a lot of materials already built when humans arrive. Automated mineral excavation and factories, check. Well need a way to supply our astronauts on Mars with a steady stream of supplies, meaning we'll need cheaper ways to ship mass from earth to mars. New propulsion systems, check. It goes on.
And how did we accrue those kinds of advances in cars, airplanes, computers, etc... by yanking the nascent technologies off of the market until somebody in a laboratory had a eureka moment?
I wonder where air travel would be if the Wright bros. had grounded their plane until someone developed a jet engine?
This new budget will give NASA a leg up on real cutting edge R & D in new technologies. All the billions of dollars going towards getting men to the Moon will be spent on next generation rocket tech and many other exciting fields.
And if you believe that, I have a bridge on the moon to sell you. How many years do you suppose this "next generation rocket tech" is going to be in development before it produces a tangible result? And what are the milestones? What's an acceptable time frame for the development of these new, enabling technologies? 50, 100 years?
Given that we now have neither a balanced budget or a space program, what was the point of that question?
Now, what is the point of a return trip? Men on the Moon has been done. No one doubts we could do it again if we really wanted to.
I disagree. I don't think we could do it again. Others feel the same way.
Indeed. The ultimate fate of Itanium is to wind up as HP's upgrade to PA-RISC. You have to wonder how much further interest Intel is going to have in it's development. I suspect it will end up getting tossed back into HP's lap.