Considering standard commercial aircraft don't even travel at 100% of their rated cruising speed (to save on fuel), I wouldn't wait with any anticipation of super-sonic travel. Carriers aren't even willing to spend the fuel to get their subsonic aircrafts traveling at their maximum rated speed, you think they are going to be interested in spending fuel on supersonic?
As others have said, it's the business plan. It took the Europeans 26 years to realize it wasn't a viable business plan. The Americans realized it before it was built.
that still doesn't change the fact that the 2000 election was rigged, and as a direct result the country is in the shittiest shape in decades.
Prove it. Prove ANY of what you said above is true.
The election wasn't rigged. Laws were followed despite Democratic party attempts to ignore Florida law and timetables established by that law. Recounts by the media and other organizations have shown that Bush DID win Florida. They both got 48% of the popular vote, but Bush won 30 states to Gore's 21. If Gore had simply won his HOME STATE then the close race in Florida wouldn't have mattered. While many people misunderstand the electoral college, it is actually a more accurate representation of the desire of the nation then just counting those who actually voted nationwide. And it isn't the first time a president was elected without winning the popular vote. It's the fourth time. Just the first time you've been around to see it.
I don't know which I'd prefer... Keep a Republican president and have to listen to these idiots go on about the election, or just give them a damn Democratic president so they'll shut up.
Really, Gore suppors should heed his advice from his concessions speech: "I call on all Americans--I particularly urge all who stood with us--to unite behind our next president."
I agree with the idea of a hardcopy of your vote with some random ID# that is linked to your ballot, but only you know it's yours. They should then post a list of all the votes on the polling place after voting is done where you can only see the random ID# and how it voted but the general public has no way of knowing which vote belongs to who. Yet, each individual can go to the posted results and verify that his ballot was reported correctly.
There should also be a separate list of those who voted. Obviously it would not be linked to the ballot, but the total number of names should be the same as the total number of ballots.
In such a situation the only voting fraud that can take place is:
1. Extra votes. You check your own ballot to make sure it was counted correctly, but if they make up additional names and create votes for them you have no way to know it. This would depend on those people seeing their name and saying, "Wait, I didn't vote!"
2. Pay for play. Politicans or parties could make a deal "Bring me your ballot showing you voted for us and we'll pay you $20." I think that's the main problem with a printed ballot. It's too easy for it to be something that organizations will pay you for when you vote "correctly."
I'm just sick of having the tools specified for me as part of the job, when I know I could do it faster,cheaper and better if I were allowed to choose my own platform. Repeat this a couple of times and you get mad at the tools.
Then start your own company, or become an independent consultant and take the contracts you are interested in.
There is more at stake in any given project then what YOU can do faster since there are probably other people that can do it faster with the tools they want to use. If you are in a company and have an opportunity to promote the technology or language you think is best, do it--but don't make "because I can do it faster" one of your arguments. Unless you *ARE* the development team it really doesn't matter what you can do faster. Maybe you're not the right person for this job.
I'm an independent consultant and I often peruse job sites to see if there are any interesting consulting jobs out there. I've actually never found one using those sites, but I often see lots of entries for ASP work, etc. I obviously don't bother contacting them and try to convince them, "No, I don't do ASP. But what you REALLY want to do is..." That won't work. I just move on and find a company that coincides with what I agree is the better solution. Fighting the powers-that-be to use a different language is a high-stress, tiring proposition and what I want to do is develop, not campaign.
Only that it doesn't work. Including non-spam words is not enough to get passed a tuned Bayesian filter. You have to use words that are significantly common in their good email but NOT common in spam. I understand why they think including non-spam words will work, but it just doesn't. If you do the math you'll see why.
The words that spammers would need to insert are words that are truly innocent... words such as the town you live in, your parents' names, your friends' names, what you most commonly talk about in email, etc. It's not going to be the "non-spam" words these idiots put in there. I've seen a section of the Constitution inserted into a spam... that's only going to have a chance of getting through if I generally receive email written in the style of 18th century American English and/or tend to receive a lot of email about that particular section of the Constitution. I don't. And that particular spam received a 98% spam score.
I do enjoy watching the spammers trying to get through Bayesian filters, but I've seen nothing to suggest that they can succeed except for an occasional lucky shot that might get through to me, but won't get through to the next million people that have a different Bayesian corpus. As Paul Graham said in his articles, the spams of the future will be short concise spams like "Try this site. http://somesite.com". But I'm finding that my Bayesian filter is catching even those.
40 grand LESS. The lawyers dropped their fee by $40k when they didn't have to do anything more. I agree with grandparent, the amount of money that has been raised was not published nor was it clear how much more they need.
And each user--whether using their client or not--is one more reason for other users to use MSN Messenger. I'm "paying" Microsoft by using their network which increases their userbase by 1 which makes their network more valuable since more people will use it so they can talk to me.
If they block me then I'll just choose to make Yahoo or, probably, ICQ more valuable instead.
Upgrade to 0.71. That's what my wife and I did and we are able to logon and use MSN just fine.
Nevertheless, start prepping your contacts to install Yahoo or ICQ or Jabber so that if/when Microsoft decides that it they don't want 3rd party apps on the network that you have something to fall back on. All my contacts and I are slowly migrating to ICQ as our standard. I'd go to Yahoo (because creating an account is just a matter of creating a Yahoo email address) but since Yahoo basically did the same thing a couple weeks ago we decided ICQ would be a safer long-term bet.
Game.70 cannot,.71 can. Upgrade. My wife (on Windows) and I (on Linux) both upgraded to Gaim.71 yesterday and we're on MSN Messenger fine. Of course I also got my wife going on Yahoo and ICQ in case MSN gets mean and really shuts us down.
It seems that for now they are only insisting on their new protocol. It remains to be seen whether they later truly boot unwanted clients.
What disturbs me is that SCO stock climbed by 32% to close at $20.50 today! WTF? I don't know whether to ignore it, cash in for awhile as it goes up, play it short, or just watch in amazement. Heck, I figured when it hit $12 a month or two ago that was as high as it was going. If I had bought then I'd have almost doubled my money in a few months.
Just goes to show you'll never lose money by banking on the stupidity of investors. You'd think after the dot com bubble they'd have learned.
SCO's plan has been carefully unveiled, piece by piece, Weiss added. "This is not to me ad hoc or random. It is carefully designed to ratchet up the pressure on users to knuckle under," he said.
"
"Ratcheting up the pressure on users to knuckle under?" They're backing off invoicing and that's ratcheting up the pressure? Nice to see the SCO cheerleading section in full swing.:)
There's so much garbage and propaganda out there, unless you can show me otherwise.
A lot of it is true. We are based in the U.S. and do business all over the world. Not too long ago we received a purchase order from the United Arab Emirates. At the bottom of the P.O. was the standard stuff about terms of shipment, payment, etc. But what struck me was the first term was "No product may be built, partially or entirely, in Israel." I've lived in the U.S., I've lived in Mexico and I've worked with more races and nationalities than I can remember--but that took the cake for blatant discrimination and, if you will, racism. I was tempted to reject their purchase order and not do business with them--but I went ahead and took the order since I figured it would be wrong to just discriminate againt them in retaliation.
Those that piss and moan about Israel haven't got a clue. I'm not Jewish, I don't even know anyone who is a Jew. But all you have to do is look at the history of the area since 1945 to know that Israel is defending itself against a real threat--or at least they were in 1967 and 1973. They took some land (that happens in many wars!) mostly to buffer themselves against future aggression and now the aggressors are complaining to the U.N. and sending in waves of suicide bombers against civilian targets?
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the Palestinians and every suicide bomber that blows themself up and takes civilians with them just gets me itching to have the U.S. go in there and clean things up--politically correct or not.
If Mexicans had been walking into our country and blowing themselves up on busses in New York City for the last couple of decades do you think we'd be acting as restrained as Israel?? No, we'd be building the Great Wall of the Rio Grande with armed guards patrolling it 24/7. And we'd have every right to do so.
The United States has built miles and miles of fence on the border to prevent Mexicans from crossing illegally. And all Mexicans want are jobs. Imagine if they came packing bombs to blow up next to random Americans? I think we'd be building a wall too! I would *hope* we'd be building a wall!
The Palestinians are guilty of a lot of bad things and the Israelis aren't innocent either. But building a wall to keep out a wave of suicide bombers hardly seems racist or radical. I'd do exactly the same thing.
I do not like our politicians, I do not like many of our laws (I especially do not like the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world), and I do not like our corporations who are tied to our politicians who create the laws that benefit the corporations...
The only thing I see you have a problem with is some laws--although every country has its set of idiot laws. Not liking politicians or corporations has nothing to do with whether or not you can like our country. You'll find even dirtier politicians and even more greedy corporations in other countries.
I do intend to leave when I am done with school.
Great! I've lived outside of the U.S. for the last 8 years. I think it's one of the best things that people that don't appreciate the United States can do (not that I didn't appreciate the U.S., I had personal reasons for moving to another country). I'm sure that if you live outside the U.S. for a decade you'll appreciate what we have in the U.S. No, it's not perfect. But most places in the world are even less perfect.
If you want to say the pledge that's fine, I'm just glad that not every person in America is willing to pledge their allegience to a government that seems to have no allegience with it's citizens.
Our government can change every 4 years. I'm not happy with everything our government does but, again, once you've lived outside the U.S. for any significant amount of time I think you'll understand why so many people in the world want to move TO the United States.
When I moved from the U.S. back in 1996 I said to myself, "Ahh... This is great. I'm not going to pay attention to all the BS going on in the U.S. and I couldn't care less about local politics in the county I live in now." That lasts for about two years. Then local politics start bothering you again because, well, you LIVE there and it affects you. Now, having lived here for 6 years there is nothing I'd like more than to move back to the United States. Compared to most other countries in the world--and certainly the country I live in--the U.S., its companies, and its politicians are as pure as the wind-driven snow.
But I'll let you realize that as you grow older and spend some time living in another country. It appears you are still in school so I suspect you have a lot to learn academically as well as practically in the real world.
all their own equipment ain't free, but it sure as hell is less than $500,000 for the year.
Especially since the article mentioned their MONTHLY bill going from $500k to $6000.
That's cool and I salute them--I just wonder how they were spending $500,000 a month on (apparently) local service? What exactly was costing $500,000 a month? I couldn't find that in the article and it's what I was most interested in.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes VOIP over consumer-grade 802.11 wireless will constitute broadcasting all your phone conversations to the public, free for anyone with the right equipment near your antennas to intercept it all.
You mean kind of like cordless phones and cell phones that have been entirely rejected by the public for those reasons?:)
Maybe to you. I however find it refreshing as it shows me that I'm not the only person in this country who doesn't like it.
You don't like the country and/or its Constitution? If not, why do you stay?
If you are complaining about our government and/or those who run it at any given time then you misunderstand the Pledge. You are not pledging allegiance to the government or to Bush or whoever may head it at any given time. You are pledging allegiance to our COUNTRY--that transcends whoever happens to be in power.
I've loved our country since I have memory. Even more now that I've lived almost 8 years outside of it. And even though I hated and disagreed with the president 1993-2000 I still would have recited the Pledge without hesitation, when appropriate (didn't come up since I didn't live in the U.S. for most of his presidency).
Perhaps it instills patriotism, but patriotism of an unquestioning and unimaginative sort. Personally, I'd rather see kids being taught to love their country, and to pin the bastards in Washington to the wall if they do anything to undermine it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence and whatnot.
Agreed. But you can say the Pledge AND MEAN IT and still pin the bastards in Washington to the wall. In fact, I'd say that removing patriotism from the schools would increase the probablity of people in Washington "getting away with it." If no-one is patriotic and no-one cares you can hardly expect people to get worked up when some idiots in Washington do something that is not consistent with our patriotic values.
I'm sick of people saying "Freedom of religion" vs "freedom from religion". Nowhere does that sentence say you have freedom of religion, it says congress can't force anybody to be a specific relition, or even a religion in general.
And last I checked Congress had passed no law requiring you to be religion or belong to any specific religion, much less forced you to. If I've missed anything please let me know.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently 1 out of 15 went down. And because of a flat tire? When a "flat tire" can cause a catostrophic failure, something is wrong.
As others have said, it's the business plan. It took the Europeans 26 years to realize it wasn't a viable business plan. The Americans realized it before it was built.
I know, I know. It's just tiring, isn't it?
But, as they say... if we give in to their whining and crying... THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. :)
Prove it. Prove ANY of what you said above is true.
The election wasn't rigged. Laws were followed despite Democratic party attempts to ignore Florida law and timetables established by that law. Recounts by the media and other organizations have shown that Bush DID win Florida. They both got 48% of the popular vote, but Bush won 30 states to Gore's 21. If Gore had simply won his HOME STATE then the close race in Florida wouldn't have mattered. While many people misunderstand the electoral college, it is actually a more accurate representation of the desire of the nation then just counting those who actually voted nationwide. And it isn't the first time a president was elected without winning the popular vote. It's the fourth time. Just the first time you've been around to see it.
I don't know which I'd prefer... Keep a Republican president and have to listen to these idiots go on about the election, or just give them a damn Democratic president so they'll shut up.
Really, Gore suppors should heed his advice from his concessions speech: "I call on all Americans--I particularly urge all who stood with us--to unite behind our next president."
There should also be a separate list of those who voted. Obviously it would not be linked to the ballot, but the total number of names should be the same as the total number of ballots.
In such a situation the only voting fraud that can take place is:
1. Extra votes. You check your own ballot to make sure it was counted correctly, but if they make up additional names and create votes for them you have no way to know it. This would depend on those people seeing their name and saying, "Wait, I didn't vote!"
2. Pay for play. Politicans or parties could make a deal "Bring me your ballot showing you voted for us and we'll pay you $20." I think that's the main problem with a printed ballot. It's too easy for it to be something that organizations will pay you for when you vote "correctly."
Then start your own company, or become an independent consultant and take the contracts you are interested in.
There is more at stake in any given project then what YOU can do faster since there are probably other people that can do it faster with the tools they want to use. If you are in a company and have an opportunity to promote the technology or language you think is best, do it--but don't make "because I can do it faster" one of your arguments. Unless you *ARE* the development team it really doesn't matter what you can do faster. Maybe you're not the right person for this job.
I'm an independent consultant and I often peruse job sites to see if there are any interesting consulting jobs out there. I've actually never found one using those sites, but I often see lots of entries for ASP work, etc. I obviously don't bother contacting them and try to convince them, "No, I don't do ASP. But what you REALLY want to do is..." That won't work. I just move on and find a company that coincides with what I agree is the better solution. Fighting the powers-that-be to use a different language is a high-stress, tiring proposition and what I want to do is develop, not campaign.
That's the case in any language, not just PHP.
The words that spammers would need to insert are words that are truly innocent... words such as the town you live in, your parents' names, your friends' names, what you most commonly talk about in email, etc. It's not going to be the "non-spam" words these idiots put in there. I've seen a section of the Constitution inserted into a spam... that's only going to have a chance of getting through if I generally receive email written in the style of 18th century American English and/or tend to receive a lot of email about that particular section of the Constitution. I don't. And that particular spam received a 98% spam score.
I do enjoy watching the spammers trying to get through Bayesian filters, but I've seen nothing to suggest that they can succeed except for an occasional lucky shot that might get through to me, but won't get through to the next million people that have a different Bayesian corpus. As Paul Graham said in his articles, the spams of the future will be short concise spams like "Try this site. http://somesite.com". But I'm finding that my Bayesian filter is catching even those.
After the spammers themselves ASKED for the case to be dismissed? I don't think it works that way... :)
If they block me then I'll just choose to make Yahoo or, probably, ICQ more valuable instead.
Nevertheless, start prepping your contacts to install Yahoo or ICQ or Jabber so that if/when Microsoft decides that it they don't want 3rd party apps on the network that you have something to fall back on. All my contacts and I are slowly migrating to ICQ as our standard. I'd go to Yahoo (because creating an account is just a matter of creating a Yahoo email address) but since Yahoo basically did the same thing a couple weeks ago we decided ICQ would be a safer long-term bet.
It seems that for now they are only insisting on their new protocol. It remains to be seen whether they later truly boot unwanted clients.
Just goes to show you'll never lose money by banking on the stupidity of investors. You'd think after the dot com bubble they'd have learned.
"Ratcheting up the pressure on users to knuckle under?" They're backing off invoicing and that's ratcheting up the pressure? Nice to see the SCO cheerleading section in full swing. :)
A lot of it is true. We are based in the U.S. and do business all over the world. Not too long ago we received a purchase order from the United Arab Emirates. At the bottom of the P.O. was the standard stuff about terms of shipment, payment, etc. But what struck me was the first term was "No product may be built, partially or entirely, in Israel." I've lived in the U.S., I've lived in Mexico and I've worked with more races and nationalities than I can remember--but that took the cake for blatant discrimination and, if you will, racism. I was tempted to reject their purchase order and not do business with them--but I went ahead and took the order since I figured it would be wrong to just discriminate againt them in retaliation.
Those that piss and moan about Israel haven't got a clue. I'm not Jewish, I don't even know anyone who is a Jew. But all you have to do is look at the history of the area since 1945 to know that Israel is defending itself against a real threat--or at least they were in 1967 and 1973. They took some land (that happens in many wars!) mostly to buffer themselves against future aggression and now the aggressors are complaining to the U.N. and sending in waves of suicide bombers against civilian targets?
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the Palestinians and every suicide bomber that blows themself up and takes civilians with them just gets me itching to have the U.S. go in there and clean things up--politically correct or not.
If Mexicans had been walking into our country and blowing themselves up on busses in New York City for the last couple of decades do you think we'd be acting as restrained as Israel?? No, we'd be building the Great Wall of the Rio Grande with armed guards patrolling it 24/7. And we'd have every right to do so.
The Palestinians are guilty of a lot of bad things and the Israelis aren't innocent either. But building a wall to keep out a wave of suicide bombers hardly seems racist or radical. I'd do exactly the same thing.
The only thing I see you have a problem with is some laws--although every country has its set of idiot laws. Not liking politicians or corporations has nothing to do with whether or not you can like our country. You'll find even dirtier politicians and even more greedy corporations in other countries.
I do intend to leave when I am done with school.
Great! I've lived outside of the U.S. for the last 8 years. I think it's one of the best things that people that don't appreciate the United States can do (not that I didn't appreciate the U.S., I had personal reasons for moving to another country). I'm sure that if you live outside the U.S. for a decade you'll appreciate what we have in the U.S. No, it's not perfect. But most places in the world are even less perfect.
If you want to say the pledge that's fine, I'm just glad that not every person in America is willing to pledge their allegience to a government that seems to have no allegience with it's citizens.
Our government can change every 4 years. I'm not happy with everything our government does but, again, once you've lived outside the U.S. for any significant amount of time I think you'll understand why so many people in the world want to move TO the United States.
When I moved from the U.S. back in 1996 I said to myself, "Ahh... This is great. I'm not going to pay attention to all the BS going on in the U.S. and I couldn't care less about local politics in the county I live in now." That lasts for about two years. Then local politics start bothering you again because, well, you LIVE there and it affects you. Now, having lived here for 6 years there is nothing I'd like more than to move back to the United States. Compared to most other countries in the world--and certainly the country I live in--the U.S., its companies, and its politicians are as pure as the wind-driven snow.
But I'll let you realize that as you grow older and spend some time living in another country. It appears you are still in school so I suspect you have a lot to learn academically as well as practically in the real world.
Especially since the article mentioned their MONTHLY bill going from $500k to $6000.
That's cool and I salute them--I just wonder how they were spending $500,000 a month on (apparently) local service? What exactly was costing $500,000 a month? I couldn't find that in the article and it's what I was most interested in.
You mean kind of like cordless phones and cell phones that have been entirely rejected by the public for those reasons? :)
You don't like the country and/or its Constitution? If not, why do you stay?
If you are complaining about our government and/or those who run it at any given time then you misunderstand the Pledge. You are not pledging allegiance to the government or to Bush or whoever may head it at any given time. You are pledging allegiance to our COUNTRY--that transcends whoever happens to be in power.
I've loved our country since I have memory. Even more now that I've lived almost 8 years outside of it. And even though I hated and disagreed with the president 1993-2000 I still would have recited the Pledge without hesitation, when appropriate (didn't come up since I didn't live in the U.S. for most of his presidency).
Agreed. But you can say the Pledge AND MEAN IT and still pin the bastards in Washington to the wall. In fact, I'd say that removing patriotism from the schools would increase the probablity of people in Washington "getting away with it." If no-one is patriotic and no-one cares you can hardly expect people to get worked up when some idiots in Washington do something that is not consistent with our patriotic values.
And last I checked Congress had passed no law requiring you to be religion or belong to any specific religion, much less forced you to. If I've missed anything please let me know. :)