What benefits? To say there are better ways to spend the money makes total sense. And there are, but it is folks like you who probably have never been in a lab that only pay attention to the sexy projects such as ISS and have no idea what REAL science is getting done.
How about they spend the money on research that is usefull? No one is argueing about cutting research, but it is idiots like you that equate the ISS with the only research going on. That money could be better spent elsewhere, and anyone paying attention knows that.
And please stop trying to yank the terrorists into this.
"The station program is expected to cost about $25 billion to develop and build"
If you gave me that kind of money I could come up with some research breakthroughs of my own. Realize that even on the scale of large science, and not sure how large a level you work on, that is some SERIOUS money.
And including shuttle costs this stuff approaches $100 billion.
Christ, pick up any science news letter and you'll see folks getting much larger bang for the bug across science, including astronomy and space research.
The articles you linked to undermine you point, include higher cost numbers, and repeat the question of the quality of science that will be done on the ISS going forward.
I'm tired of the $2 billion/year ego project that the ISS is. I'd go back to really good 100 million buck science projects, and fund 20 of em a year, or 5 bigger and 12 smaller ones. I suspect a few scientists would agree. And that's basically what the report comes down to. No good science looks like it'll be getting done any time soon.
People forget that it takes foundational science to do sexy science, and there are TONS of really worthy and interesting projects that get sidelined by sex appeal.
Even the dreamers should realize that ISS does much less to get folks on mars for example than real good focused R&D here on earth. NASA has a horrendous record in cost control, timeline estimates, and it is about time they paid the price. Redirect all that money to folks who'll use it well untill NASA get's its house back in order.
Man on mars (one way trip to start) is definatly cool, but let's take a pause to do some real science for a while, say 5 years, then see where we are.
Sure, this'll get modded down by all the NASA lovers but all these blind science geeks need to realize something. Unless you allow stuff to fail you never will evolve. Basic evolution in action.
That's something the miliary for example, which refuses to admit huge procurment mistakes time and again, has never has got. They can't admit a mistake and end up chasing down dumb roads to the tunes of billions.
I found the CGI and montion of everything MUCH more beleivable in this then in Shrek. Seeing it in a good theatre the audio was spectacular. Not a clip in sight.
Pixar really comes out with some incredible stuff. Folks need to remember that EVERY one of their movies has been good, they keep on hitting stuff on the head.
They managed to sign a terrible deal with Disney but when that's over who knows what's going to happen, if Disney isn't nice about the sequel issue I imagine they will come back and hammer them into the dust.
And a fun movie. Take a kid to see it and you'll realize how anything "edgier" would have been a total loss. I liked it a lot, and am a jaded college kid.
I can't beleive this actually happened. I mean, their entire.NET initiative is riding on this passport business and showing they can secure your information.
What folks need to do is hold off on publishing these exploits (as Microsoft requests) until they've got a lot more riding on it. When a couple of banks lose a couple of million bucks on this, not to mention the confidence of their customers, well, then you might get some real coverage.
Remember, Microsoft wants to build houses of straw, and likes to call anyone who points out they are made of straw terrorists. Of course, as soon as I see that attitude from someone I'm supposed to trust I run as far and as fast as I can just as I'd run from a used car salesmen who wouldn't let my mechanic check out the car.
Ahh, the usual moderator insanity...
Offtopic? I can't think of anything more ON topic than getting us some access to these files so we can at least talk about them.
The more constructive criticism we get about the drawbacks of Open Source, the better we can address and fix them. Compare that to Microsoft which likes to claim that pointing out the gaping huge flaws in their products should be criminal.
I'm tired of the $2 billion/year ego project that the ISS is. I'd go back to really good 100 million buck science projects, and fund 20 of em a year, or 5 bigger and 12 smaller ones. I suspect a few scientists would agree.
People forget that it takes foundational science to do sexy science, and there are TONS of really worthy and interesting projects that get sidelined by sex appeal.
Even the dreamers should realize that ISS does much less to get folks on mars for example than real good focused R&D here on earth.
Man on mars (one way trip to start) is definatly cool, but let's take a pause to do some real science for a while, say 5 years, then see where we are.
But I'd say in all honesty that folks can distribute InstantDB free of charge. If someone tells you something in a form that can be verified somehow, and you base decisions on that in good faith, then there it's not as easy for the company to balk out as it might like to think.
That said, a concerted effort should be made to unsupport InstantDB. Contacting their customers directly can be usefull. I've already started with those that I could identify in a few seconds, and will be making the rounds when I get more info.
These are companies doing business with lutris and folks may want to be cautious doing business with them if they are working with what appears to be a con artist:
Lutris is also laying off employee's, sending the following email:
I am disappointed to inform you that you will be in the group of 35 employees being laid off
tomorrow. Sometime in the next half hour, a company executive will bring you a packet of
information for you to read this evening. Once you have received this packet, please take
the remainder of the day off. You must leave your computer here in your cubicle at Lutris.
--
Great to see someone pull together some pretty weasily threads, in the real world these folks would be scum. If someone could list the names of the folks on these threads that were in the weasel dept I'd appreciate that for future reference, you never know where they will turn up again, these scum have a nasty tendency to jump the ships they sink.
Please rember that the above is a rather uninformed opinion based on the information I read on the net, Do your own DD before basing decisions on it of course...
Looking at the impact on 7.2... the big changes in VM say something about the older VM that will no doubt be packaged with redhat. Hope they can get any issue with it nailed down, because their.2 series has always been rock solid stable. Ahh well, there is always.3
In a medium which in some cases defines co-operation, why allow companies to hijack that medium? I feel safe creating products which rely on standards because I know no one will come after me for using them, or take over a project that I work on.
As a business, the risk of using patented standards is very real, even with RAND terms, because RAND is open to debate (aka litigation), and the cost of litigation often means it's better to settle for not quite RAND than full RAND. Open source recognizes that, and is unlikey to EVER start encumbering software with even RAND terms.
Why does the W3C feel so powerless to simply require companies to disclose and allow full and free use of any patented technologies they have? Is it because these groups are mainly made UP of companies, who can't see the forest for the individual money trees they all are hoping to grow? Is there so little recongition in the idea of the common good, we all sacrifice a little to win a lot?
And what quality are these patents? BT has patented hyperlinks after all, Altavista claims almost all search technology. Symantic auto-updates from web and the list goes on. Do we want to reward this crap?
How strongly will the W3C enforce terms? It's easy to squash litigation at the root by dis-allowing RAND. No muss no fuss. But once the barn door is open and companies are stampeding for the cash, is the W3C going to stand up for developers to insure full RAND?
Finally, as a solution to endless discusion over patents, RAND seems like a poor choice. A strong patent free record, and a commitment to future full and free standards would seem to eliminate that area of debate more than opening the door to the cash jackpot would. Why is there not more of a focus on reducing the time spent on the legal BS angle rather than encouraging it with RAND?
Consider linking instead to mozillazine.com instead, which has discussed this in great depth as well, and is not simply a site for trolls. And what is wrong with the idiot moderators moderating this point down? I suspect a majority of them have no clue what they are moderating and moderate on tone alone. pathetic.
There marketing material pointing out holes in Apache mostly focused on Tomcat the java app server, PHP etc. But these don't come installed by default, where was with IIS, you install just about everything by default.
You only ever buy a license, never a product. That's always buried in the fine print somewhere, and is the difference that let's them restrict use 6 ways to sunday.
That Microsoft has been saying up until Wednesday that they will absolutly ship on time.
They have also repeatedly denied any production problems.
Assuming that they are not all simply lying scum:
My questions is how can a company wake up one morning and discover that they will have no where near the number of units on hand they said they would and will need to push a launch date back. It's been a two day span between nothing is wrong, everthing will ship to, "We are delaying and have 'moved past' talking about specific launch numbers." What this would seem to indicate is a truly SPECTACULAR level of ingorance or incompetence.
This follows of course on the Mhz reductions in their GPU and spec reductions across the board.
The collorary to the first question is when will the fan sites covering the xbox stop just eating up what they are told. I have yet to see a fan site use an iota of intelligence in reporting on the xbox, but blindy eat up overhyped stats. What type of control does Microsoft exert over these numbskulls.
It makes for great reading however... the fan sites are truly a bunch of nitwits who can't seem to critically evaluate a thing. I'd love to get the customer list for xbox buyers and call them selling the brooklyn bridge.
Right, so what they did is prop up their books in past years with artifically high numbers, and then rather being called on those numbers, they issue PR which basically sweeps that stuff under the carpet.
Damn lameness filter made me take out a lot of other points...
Red Hat's second-quarter net loss was $55.3 million, on revenues of $21 million.
Granted, they've got PR speak down, and slashdot falls over itself reporting these "breakevens". But they've systematically excluded items in almost every quarter they have reported results, and the number slashdot reports are pretty bogus. Most other sites AT LEAST report generally accepted number (GAAP) along with the PR numbers which exclude all losses.
So let's hope they do well, but please for the love of god lets stick to numbers that are not simply pulled from a hat. And despite what folks like to say about how this gives insight into their business, these numbers are by and large bogus.
And in the screw users over for short-term gain and long term harm department... I mean, where are all the damn pop-ups/pop-unders and rich media ads that will crash my broswer, make the page jerk around like a fat football center, and offer me a "new and improved" experience while they show the same damn add so many times that I twich when I see it.
People forget that Google has not only managed to put together an excellent search engine, but to add value to it through some really great features (and no I do not mean altavista portal garbage and patent lawsuit value).
Site slashdotted? Hit the cache
Want to see a dmoz.org directory? See it page ranked.
Doing science research? Find the answers in indexed PDF files.
And the list goes on...
Not to mention they do the right thing advertising wise, run on linux. Bring on the upstarts, but they'd better be prepared for a good bit of starting to knock down google.
Slashdot Mirror
What benefits? To say there are better ways to spend the money makes total sense. And there are, but it is folks like you who probably have never been in a lab that only pay attention to the sexy projects such as ISS and have no idea what REAL science is getting done.
Um... Informative?
How about they spend the money on research that is usefull? No one is argueing about cutting research, but it is idiots like you that equate the ISS with the only research going on. That money could be better spent elsewhere, and anyone paying attention knows that.
And please stop trying to yank the terrorists into this.
Excellent excellent point.
If you don't allow things to fail you don't evolve, and the costs NASA is ringing up are staggering.
The amount of good science not getting done because of this is tragic.
Point me to these research breakthroughs.
"The station program is expected to cost about $25 billion to develop and build"
If you gave me that kind of money I could come up with some research breakthroughs of my own. Realize that even on the scale of large science, and not sure how large a level you work on, that is some SERIOUS money.
And including shuttle costs this stuff approaches $100 billion.
Christ, pick up any science news letter and you'll see folks getting much larger bang for the bug across science, including astronomy and space research.
The articles you linked to undermine you point, include higher cost numbers, and repeat the question of the quality of science that will be done on the ISS going forward.
I'm tired of the $2 billion/year ego project that the ISS is. I'd go back to really good 100 million buck science projects, and fund 20 of em a year, or 5 bigger and 12 smaller ones. I suspect a few scientists would agree. And that's basically what the report comes down to. No good science looks like it'll be getting done any time soon.
People forget that it takes foundational science to do sexy science, and there are TONS of really worthy and interesting projects that get sidelined by sex appeal.
Even the dreamers should realize that ISS does much less to get folks on mars for example than real good focused R&D here on earth. NASA has a horrendous record in cost control, timeline estimates, and it is about time they paid the price. Redirect all that money to folks who'll use it well untill NASA get's its house back in order.
Man on mars (one way trip to start) is definatly cool, but let's take a pause to do some real science for a while, say 5 years, then see where we are.
Sure, this'll get modded down by all the NASA lovers but all these blind science geeks need to realize something. Unless you allow stuff to fail you never will evolve. Basic evolution in action.
That's something the miliary for example, which refuses to admit huge procurment mistakes time and again, has never has got. They can't admit a mistake and end up chasing down dumb roads to the tunes of billions.
I found the CGI and montion of everything MUCH more beleivable in this then in Shrek. Seeing it in a good theatre the audio was spectacular. Not a clip in sight.
Pixar really comes out with some incredible stuff. Folks need to remember that EVERY one of their movies has been good, they keep on hitting stuff on the head.
They managed to sign a terrible deal with Disney but when that's over who knows what's going to happen, if Disney isn't nice about the sequel issue I imagine they will come back and hammer them into the dust.
And a fun movie. Take a kid to see it and you'll realize how anything "edgier" would have been a total loss. I liked it a lot, and am a jaded college kid.
I can't beleive this actually happened. I mean, their entire .NET initiative is riding on this passport business and showing they can secure your information.
What folks need to do is hold off on publishing these exploits (as Microsoft requests) until they've got a lot more riding on it. When a couple of banks lose a couple of million bucks on this, not to mention the confidence of their customers, well, then you might get some real coverage.
Remember, Microsoft wants to build houses of straw, and likes to call anyone who points out they are made of straw terrorists. Of course, as soon as I see that attitude from someone I'm supposed to trust I run as far and as fast as I can just as I'd run from a used car salesmen who wouldn't let my mechanic check out the car.
Ahh, the usual moderator insanity...
Offtopic? I can't think of anything more ON topic than getting us some access to these files so we can at least talk about them.
I beg of someone, please mirror this stuff. I beg of many people...
The more constructive criticism we get about the drawbacks of Open Source, the better we can address and fix them.
Compare that to Microsoft which likes to claim that pointing out the gaping huge flaws in their products should be criminal.
I'm tired of the $2 billion/year ego project that the ISS is. I'd go back to really good 100 million buck science projects, and fund 20 of em a year, or 5 bigger and 12 smaller ones. I suspect a few scientists would agree.
People forget that it takes foundational science to do sexy science, and there are TONS of really worthy and interesting projects that get sidelined by sex appeal.
Even the dreamers should realize that ISS does much less to get folks on mars for example than real good focused R&D here on earth.
Man on mars (one way trip to start) is definatly cool, but let's take a pause to do some real science for a while, say 5 years, then see where we are.
I agree, let's hear some more about totally passive cooling solutions. I'd trade speed for quiet any day of the year.
But I'd say in all honesty that folks can distribute InstantDB free of charge. If someone tells you something in a form that can be verified somehow, and you base decisions on that in good faith, then there it's not as easy for the company to balk out as it might like to think.
That said, a concerted effort should be made to unsupport InstantDB. Contacting their customers directly can be usefull. I've already started with those that I could identify in a few seconds, and will be making the rounds when I get more info.
These are companies doing business with lutris and folks may want to be cautious doing business with them if they are working with what appears to be a con artist:
room33
indiqu
gravityrock.com
paremus
rarefire technologies
i-engineering.com
inet6/inetsys
mobiltee
eApps
eSavio
Lutris is also laying off employee's, sending the following email:
I am disappointed to inform you that you will be in the group of 35 employees being laid off
tomorrow. Sometime in the next half hour, a company executive will bring you a packet of
information for you to read this evening. Once you have received this packet, please take
the remainder of the day off. You must leave your computer here in your cubicle at Lutris.
--
Great to see someone pull together some pretty weasily threads, in the real world these folks would be scum. If someone could list the names of the folks on these threads that were in the weasel dept I'd appreciate that for future reference, you never know where they will turn up again, these scum have a nasty tendency to jump the ships they sink.
Please rember that the above is a rather uninformed opinion based on the information I read on the net, Do your own DD before basing decisions on it of course...
Virtual Machine
Looking at the impact on 7.2... the big changes in VM say something about the older VM that will no doubt be packaged with redhat. Hope they can get any issue with it nailed down, because their .2 series has always been rock solid stable. Ahh well, there is always .3
In a medium which in some cases defines co-operation, why allow companies to hijack that medium? I feel safe creating products which rely on standards because I know no one will come after me for using them, or take over a project that I work on.
As a business, the risk of using patented standards is very real, even with RAND terms, because RAND is open to debate (aka litigation), and the cost of litigation often means it's better to settle for not quite RAND than full RAND. Open source recognizes that, and is unlikey to EVER start encumbering software with even RAND terms.
Why does the W3C feel so powerless to simply require companies to disclose and allow full and free use of any patented technologies they have? Is it because these groups are mainly made UP of companies, who can't see the forest for the individual money trees they all are hoping to grow? Is there so little recongition in the idea of the common good, we all sacrifice a little to win a lot?
And what quality are these patents? BT has patented hyperlinks after all, Altavista claims almost all search technology. Symantic auto-updates from web and the list goes on. Do we want to reward this crap?
How strongly will the W3C enforce terms? It's easy to squash litigation at the root by dis-allowing RAND. No muss no fuss. But once the barn door is open and companies are stampeding for the cash, is the W3C going to stand up for developers to insure full RAND?
Finally, as a solution to endless discusion over patents, RAND seems like a poor choice. A strong patent free record, and a commitment to future full and free standards would seem to eliminate that area of debate more than opening the door to the cash jackpot would. Why is there not more of a focus on reducing the time spent on the legal BS angle rather than encouraging it with RAND?
Consider linking instead to mozillazine.com instead, which has discussed this in great depth as well, and is not simply a site for trolls. And what is wrong with the idiot moderators moderating this point down? I suspect a majority of them have no clue what they are moderating and moderate on tone alone. pathetic.
Sounds like a good thing to me.
There marketing material pointing out holes in Apache mostly focused on Tomcat the java app server, PHP etc. But these don't come installed by default, where was with IIS, you install just about everything by default.
You only ever buy a license, never a product. That's always buried in the fine print somewhere, and is the difference that let's them restrict use 6 ways to sunday.
That Microsoft has been saying up until Wednesday that they will absolutly ship on time.
They have also repeatedly denied any production problems.
Assuming that they are not all simply lying scum:
My questions is how can a company wake up one morning and discover that they will have no where near the number of units on hand they said they would and will need to push a launch date back. It's been a two day span between nothing is wrong, everthing will ship to, "We are delaying and have 'moved past' talking about specific launch numbers." What this would seem to indicate is a truly SPECTACULAR level of ingorance or incompetence.
This follows of course on the Mhz reductions in their GPU and spec reductions across the board.
The collorary to the first question is when will the fan sites covering the xbox stop just eating up what they are told. I have yet to see a fan site use an iota of intelligence in reporting on the xbox, but blindy eat up overhyped stats. What type of control does Microsoft exert over these numbskulls.
It makes for great reading however... the fan sites are truly a bunch of nitwits who can't seem to critically evaluate a thing. I'd love to get the customer list for xbox buyers and call them selling the brooklyn bridge.
Right, so what they did is prop up their books in past years with artifically high numbers, and then rather being called on those numbers, they issue PR which basically sweeps that stuff under the carpet. Damn lameness filter made me take out a lot of other points...
Before getting carried away:
Red Hat's second-quarter net loss was $55.3 million, on revenues of $21 million.
Granted, they've got PR speak down, and slashdot falls over itself reporting these "breakevens". But they've systematically excluded items in almost every quarter they have reported results, and the number slashdot reports are pretty bogus. Most other sites AT LEAST report generally accepted number (GAAP) along with the PR numbers which exclude all losses.
So let's hope they do well, but please for the love of god lets stick to numbers that are not simply pulled from a hat. And despite what folks like to say about how this gives insight into their business, these numbers are by and large bogus.
Where are you hosting and do they have reasonable rates?
And in the screw users over for short-term gain and long term harm department... I mean, where are all the damn pop-ups/pop-unders and rich media ads that will crash my broswer, make the page jerk around like a fat football center, and offer me a "new and improved" experience while they show the same damn add so many times that I twich when I see it.
Site slashdotted? Hit the cache
Want to see a dmoz.org directory? See it page ranked.
Doing science research? Find the answers in indexed PDF files.
And the list goes on...
Not to mention they do the right thing advertising wise, run on linux. Bring on the upstarts, but they'd better be prepared for a good bit of starting to knock down google.