Yeah, but even still I'd hate to be the guy who got it stuck right now. Talk about awkward
Not really an issue, I don't think. There's no one "driving" the rovers per se. There's probably a planning committee that decides where the rover should go next, and they choose a destination. Instructions on how to get there are compiled and sent to the rover. The rover then follows the directions, hopefully not running into anything unexpected. In this case, it ran into some deep sand. Hazard of the process. It's not like there's a couple guys sitting in repurposed Pole Position sit-down games hot rodding the rovers in real-time. You think 500ms lag is bad, try 10 minutes...
There are plenty of other nit picks I could make: midichlorians
The damn midichlorians ruined the magic that was Star Wars for me forever. I remember being 8-11 years old, playing various Star Wars based cowboys and indians type games with my friends. The cool part was that you could actually almost believe in the Force. All you needed was to believe in it the right way and it would work. It was available to anyone with the proper training. Fast forward to the release of Ep I. The Force comes from midichlorians. FLUSH! there goes that magical bit of childhood imagination. We were just fooling ourselves. The Force isn't something just anyone can develop, it's some sort of bizarre inherited magic bugs in your blood. Jedi are born, not made. Just like royalty, curly hair, or skin color. Sorry, no egalitarian unifying power-- it's only the priveleged chosen ones who get to be the heroes. The rest of us are just plebes. Lucas fucking sucks.
And another thing: why a god damned little kid? It totally buggers the timeline. Amidala is like TEN FRICKIN' YEARS older than Annikin in Ep1, but then (mysteriously) in Ep2 HE ages ten years and EVERYONE ELSE ages perhaps TWO. I don't know if it was Lucas' doing, or if some marketing clown convinced him it'd "broaden audience appeal" or something, but this was a mistake, and a stupid one at that. The things Ep1 had an EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD doing were totally age-implausible. If they'd made him a rebelious, angry teenager right off the bat then it would have made a whole lot more sense, not only for Ep2 where he got even MORE angry and rebellious, but in Ep1 where they had a LITTLE KID doing stuff so incredibly age-inappropriate that it boggled the mind. Pod racing? Droid building? "Accidentally" flying a fighter craft into combat and destroying an enemy flagship? Oh for god's sake, GIVE ME A BREAK!
Assuming you meant "500 people", as the A380 doesn't carry 800
The A380 is perfectly capable of carrying 800 people and is advertised as such; the decision rests with the airlines themselves, and customers who probably will not want to be crammed in like sardines.
Exactly. Show me one airline running nothing but coach seats on a long-haul flight and I'll concede the 800 passenger thing. In reality, they'll likely all be the 555 seat three-class arrangement.
800 people need to get from point A to point B. They can take: A) two 777 or b) one A380 Which is the most fuel efficient method?
You're missing the point. Assuming you meant "500 people", as the A380 doesn't carry 800: what happens the next day, when only 250 people want to go from A to B? You can fly just one of those 777's, or a half-empty A380. The real issue is whether they can consistently fill those 500-odd seats on the A380. "Dollars per seat-mile" assumes that there is a paying butt planted in each of those seats.
But 2 engine planes have some restrictions on flights paths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
Yeah, but if you actually read the wiki, you see that newer planes like the 777 which are rated at ETOPS-180 (180 minutes or less from nearest airfield), the only areas they can't fly are some middle-of nowhere areas in the south pacific and at the poles. Trans-atlantic and -pacific flights are perfectly feasible.
We'll never be able to deny IP rights as long as we call them rights. After all, denying someone their rights is wrong by definition.
We have to recognize, and incorporate into our dialogue, that these concepts are better termed IP conventions; ie, things which are adopted because they are convenient in practice.
Unfortunately, I think that fight was lost some time in the 19th century when the term "Intellectual Property" was coined in a successful move to extend copyright terms. The fact that every type of "Intellectual Property" completely fails the actual definition of "property" has been conveniently ignored...
Longhorn will run fine on a 1GHz computer with 256 MB of RAM
Following on from what you said, considering that the system requirements for XP Pro state a 300MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM, the real requirements for this thing could be huge. I'm sure many of you would strongly disagree with the idea that XP can run acceptably with 128MB of RAM.
I'm running XP on a 1GHz laptop with 256MB RAM, and I barely consider THAT acceptable.
Typos are one thing, particularly in a comment. Thinking one knows how to spell a word in a front page article and therefore not running spellcheck, that's just stupid.
"I you're going to post a article for publication"...and a grammar check wouldn't kill you either.
Therein lies the difference between posting an article, even as an amateur journalist, and merely posting commentary. The peanut gallery is allowed-- nay, expected-- to make errors. If I was submitting my comments to go on the front page, I'd have had the presence of mind to spellcheck it.
I you're going to post a article for publication, you should really run a spellcheck on it. Mischievous, not mischevious. Comes from the word mischief.
Re:Take Your Corporate Apoglism Nonsense Elsewhere
on
SCO Missing 16,209 Files?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
poverty in the western world is virtually non-existant.
Do you live in a small town or something? I welcome you to visit practically any major US city and see the multitude of homeless for yourself.
To be fair, homelessness isn't a poverty issue so much as it is a mental health issue. The vast majority of the homeless aren't there simply because they can't find work. It's a shameful situation, to be sure, particularly when such a large portion of the homeless are veterans; but it's not about poverty. Poverty is what you see in rural central america or africa.
I'm a little surprised the original poster's comment was moderated completely down while this one is standing at +5... If my interpretation of the original statement is correct, then a more sensible way to put it is "They should be free to sell their product however they want, but not to prevent you from circumventing any copy-protection schemes they have in place".
Indeed, that line of reasoning is more akin to the "[x] wants to be free" argument. I don't think the original poster intended that meaning, though. The clue is the statement of "like it or not, those companies OWN that content". This is diametrically opposite the philosophy of "they are free to encrypt; we are free to crack". It's the philosophy of "they are free to encrypt; you can bugger off and enjoy those pre-1923 works if you're so big on public domain".
Anyone who infringes a patent is liable, even if he bought an infringing item or method from a vendor. The vendor is liable for contributory infringement. In practice, the inventor usually prefers to sue the vendor rather than pursue a huge number of customers whose liability will be quite small.
For an example of the patent holder pursuing the end user, look up the Solaia case.
How about an example that amounts to more than extortion? Solaia has only threatened legal action and received out of court settlments so far. You do have a point in that, in a legal sense, customers can be found liable for infringement, but in cases like Polaroid v. Kodak or Eolas v. Microsoft, there isn't a court in the world that would award damages from people who, in good faith, bought cameras or us IE.
To make an analogy, in most states you need to have your car inspected (and some require emissions inspection, too). PUBLIC roadways means you share it with other people
Here is an additional error in your analogy. PUBLIC does not simply mean you share it with other people. Rather, it means "Maintained for or used by the people or community". Internet access is not a public utility (to wit. ISP's vs. municipal broadband), it's more like a toll road. There's nobody on the internet who doesn't directly pay to connect someone else. If I were able to build a network of roads on my own private property, I could allow rocket powered bicycles and require all people on my roads have cracked windshields and no license plates. Take a look at NASCAR races. Are those cars inspected and licensed? Internet? Same thing.
but who the hell is the French government to say what kind of copy protection companies can and cannot put on their own damn products? Like it or not, those companies OWN that content, and they are selling it to you. If they don't want you to copy it, they have every right to put a copy protection scheme on it beforehand.
Your interpretation of the basic premise of copyright law is in error. They don't own the content, they own the copyright. This right to copy is a government granted limited monopoly of producing copies of a given work. It is not up to the copyright owner to determine the legal reach of this monopoly, it is up to the courts and the legislatures. If the French courts decide that this government-granted monopoly does not extend to limiting personal copying for the purpose of transfering to a different media format, then that's just tough nuts.
perhaps instead of small ip hoarding companies such as eolas suing microsoft, they should go after their customers - the US government.
Customers aren't liable for a business' violating a patent. To wit, Polaroid v. Kodak: Kodak made an instant camera that violated Polaroid's patent on same. Kodak had to stop making the infringing cameras and their film plus pay Polaroid damages + interest plus had to buy back all the infringing Kodak cameras from people that bought them. Side note: It's often amusing to search ebay for kodamatic instant, kodak instant or kodak colorburst and see just how damn many dumb rubes are trying to sell off a camera for which no film will ever again be available. Even more amusing is seeing one with a bid on it!
I don't think that MS licensed anything from Apple
Think what you like; they did. MS licensed several aspects of the GUI for use in Windows 1.0. Here gives an adequate overview of exactly what Apple v. Microsoft was about, and outlines how the limits of the MS license from Apple was the central issue.
Telling you to not listen to him outright, and to go and find out all of the information yourself for verification? Yeah, me niether...
It's called the installment of critical thought.
Actually, repeatedly telling someone to think for themselves instead of listening to them, but then detailing political views rather than explaining (say) Socratic questioning is more like reverse psychology (though in Chomsky's case, I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say this is probably not the intent). Teaching critical thinking is a fairly complex task and requires more than just shouting "THINK FOR YOURSELF!" I respect Chomsky's work and admire the depth of his convictions-- heck, I even agree with him sometimes-- but while he may be a cheerleader for it, his political works are too invested in his particular conclusions to effectively "[install] critical thought".
You have clearly never worked in the service sector. When I worked in the state of Virginia as a waiter I earned roughly half of minimum wage. The rest was expected to be made up with tips. The federal guvment assumes you will get 8-9% of each check in tips and the IRS taxes you for it. So if you don't tip your server still has to pay the IRS taxes on that tip they didn't receive.
Please tip. If you can't afford to tip then go eat at McDonalds.
I think the original poster's comment was a more general question, as in "Why have we allowed the codifying into law of this system wherein a gratuity payment is expected to be a source of regular income?" We know that tips have been turned into a way for employers to shift employment expenses directly onto the customer, but what government dirtbags have legitimized this disgusting practice?
Do mechanical engineering programs have multiple courses about operating a drill press? Is the ability to operate a drill press an essential part of being a mechanical engineer? Do people who hire drill press operators want them to have a mechanical engineering degree?
Geez, don't take it so literaly. It was a glib one-liner by a CS101 TA who was only interested in getting a general point across. But OK, I'll answer your questions seriously:
1) no, but it's not unusual for a mech eng student to find himself operating a drill press while preparing a final project
2) no, but understanding material construction methods and limitations is essential
3) no, because people who run machine shops aren't idiots like the guys who run IT shops
Nasty site there. Their current news item is fawning all over the fascist dictator of Venezuela, and even lauds him for seeking to get more weaponry. All the better to shoot those who disagree with you.
Yeah, but you see Chavez called Bush43 a "pendejo" and is openly hostile to the US. Therefore, leftists love him and any criticism of him for his banana republic sensibilities is clearly just right wing bias. Never mind that he's as much a thug as the bastard he replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really an issue, I don't think. There's no one "driving" the rovers per se. There's probably a planning committee that decides where the rover should go next, and they choose a destination. Instructions on how to get there are compiled and sent to the rover. The rover then follows the directions, hopefully not running into anything unexpected. In this case, it ran into some deep sand. Hazard of the process. It's not like there's a couple guys sitting in repurposed Pole Position sit-down games hot rodding the rovers in real-time. You think 500ms lag is bad, try 10 minutes...
The damn midichlorians ruined the magic that was Star Wars for me forever. I remember being 8-11 years old, playing various Star Wars based cowboys and indians type games with my friends. The cool part was that you could actually almost believe in the Force. All you needed was to believe in it the right way and it would work. It was available to anyone with the proper training. Fast forward to the release of Ep I. The Force comes from midichlorians. FLUSH! there goes that magical bit of childhood imagination. We were just fooling ourselves. The Force isn't something just anyone can develop, it's some sort of bizarre inherited magic bugs in your blood. Jedi are born, not made. Just like royalty, curly hair, or skin color. Sorry, no egalitarian unifying power-- it's only the priveleged chosen ones who get to be the heroes. The rest of us are just plebes. Lucas fucking sucks.
And another thing: why a god damned little kid? It totally buggers the timeline. Amidala is like TEN FRICKIN' YEARS older than Annikin in Ep1, but then (mysteriously) in Ep2 HE ages ten years and EVERYONE ELSE ages perhaps TWO. I don't know if it was Lucas' doing, or if some marketing clown convinced him it'd "broaden audience appeal" or something, but this was a mistake, and a stupid one at that. The things Ep1 had an EIGHT YEAR OLD CHILD doing were totally age-implausible. If they'd made him a rebelious, angry teenager right off the bat then it would have made a whole lot more sense, not only for Ep2 where he got even MORE angry and rebellious, but in Ep1 where they had a LITTLE KID doing stuff so incredibly age-inappropriate that it boggled the mind. Pod racing? Droid building? "Accidentally" flying a fighter craft into combat and destroying an enemy flagship? Oh for god's sake, GIVE ME A BREAK!
Sorry. Sore point with me.
The A380 is perfectly capable of carrying 800 people and is advertised as such; the decision rests with the airlines themselves, and customers who probably will not want to be crammed in like sardines.
Exactly. Show me one airline running nothing but coach seats on a long-haul flight and I'll concede the 800 passenger thing. In reality, they'll likely all be the 555 seat three-class arrangement.
You're missing the point. Assuming you meant "500 people", as the A380 doesn't carry 800: what happens the next day, when only 250 people want to go from A to B? You can fly just one of those 777's, or a half-empty A380. The real issue is whether they can consistently fill those 500-odd seats on the A380. "Dollars per seat-mile" assumes that there is a paying butt planted in each of those seats.
Yeah, but if you actually read the wiki, you see that newer planes like the 777 which are rated at ETOPS-180 (180 minutes or less from nearest airfield), the only areas they can't fly are some middle-of nowhere areas in the south pacific and at the poles. Trans-atlantic and -pacific flights are perfectly feasible.
Unfortunately, I think that fight was lost some time in the 19th century when the term "Intellectual Property" was coined in a successful move to extend copyright terms. The fact that every type of "Intellectual Property" completely fails the actual definition of "property" has been conveniently ignored...
Following on from what you said, considering that the system requirements for XP Pro state a 300MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM, the real requirements for this thing could be huge. I'm sure many of you would strongly disagree with the idea that XP can run acceptably with 128MB of RAM.
I'm running XP on a 1GHz laptop with 256MB RAM, and I barely consider THAT acceptable.
Typos are one thing, particularly in a comment. Thinking one knows how to spell a word in a front page article and therefore not running spellcheck, that's just stupid.
Therein lies the difference between posting an article, even as an amateur journalist, and merely posting commentary. The peanut gallery is allowed-- nay, expected-- to make errors. If I was submitting my comments to go on the front page, I'd have had the presence of mind to spellcheck it.
I you're going to post a article for publication, you should really run a spellcheck on it. Mischievous, not mischevious. Comes from the word mischief.
Do you live in a small town or something? I welcome you to visit practically any major US city and see the multitude of homeless for yourself.
To be fair, homelessness isn't a poverty issue so much as it is a mental health issue. The vast majority of the homeless aren't there simply because they can't find work. It's a shameful situation, to be sure, particularly when such a large portion of the homeless are veterans; but it's not about poverty. Poverty is what you see in rural central america or africa.
Indeed, that line of reasoning is more akin to the "[x] wants to be free" argument. I don't think the original poster intended that meaning, though. The clue is the statement of "like it or not, those companies OWN that content". This is diametrically opposite the philosophy of "they are free to encrypt; we are free to crack". It's the philosophy of "they are free to encrypt; you can bugger off and enjoy those pre-1923 works if you're so big on public domain".
How about an example that amounts to more than extortion? Solaia has only threatened legal action and received out of court settlments so far. You do have a point in that, in a legal sense, customers can be found liable for infringement, but in cases like Polaroid v. Kodak or Eolas v. Microsoft, there isn't a court in the world that would award damages from people who, in good faith, bought cameras or us IE.
Here is an additional error in your analogy. PUBLIC does not simply mean you share it with other people. Rather, it means "Maintained for or used by the people or community". Internet access is not a public utility (to wit. ISP's vs. municipal broadband), it's more like a toll road. There's nobody on the internet who doesn't directly pay to connect someone else. If I were able to build a network of roads on my own private property, I could allow rocket powered bicycles and require all people on my roads have cracked windshields and no license plates. Take a look at NASCAR races. Are those cars inspected and licensed? Internet? Same thing.
Mugabes? Didn't we spray for those?
Your interpretation of the basic premise of copyright law is in error. They don't own the content, they own the copyright. This right to copy is a government granted limited monopoly of producing copies of a given work. It is not up to the copyright owner to determine the legal reach of this monopoly, it is up to the courts and the legislatures. If the French courts decide that this government-granted monopoly does not extend to limiting personal copying for the purpose of transfering to a different media format, then that's just tough nuts.
Customers aren't liable for a business' violating a patent. To wit, Polaroid v. Kodak: Kodak made an instant camera that violated Polaroid's patent on same. Kodak had to stop making the infringing cameras and their film plus pay Polaroid damages + interest plus had to buy back all the infringing Kodak cameras from people that bought them. Side note: It's often amusing to search ebay for kodamatic instant, kodak instant or kodak colorburst and see just how damn many dumb rubes are trying to sell off a camera for which no film will ever again be available. Even more amusing is seeing one with a bid on it!
Think what you like; they did. MS licensed several aspects of the GUI for use in Windows 1.0. Here gives an adequate overview of exactly what Apple v. Microsoft was about, and outlines how the limits of the MS license from Apple was the central issue.
Actually, repeatedly telling someone to think for themselves instead of listening to them, but then detailing political views rather than explaining (say) Socratic questioning is more like reverse psychology (though in Chomsky's case, I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say this is probably not the intent). Teaching critical thinking is a fairly complex task and requires more than just shouting "THINK FOR YOURSELF!" I respect Chomsky's work and admire the depth of his convictions-- heck, I even agree with him sometimes-- but while he may be a cheerleader for it, his political works are too invested in his particular conclusions to effectively "[install] critical thought".
Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox, and MS licensed it from Apple. All perfectly legal. Point is, neither of them "stole" it any more than the other.
I think the original poster's comment was a more general question, as in "Why have we allowed the codifying into law of this system wherein a gratuity payment is expected to be a source of regular income?" We know that tips have been turned into a way for employers to shift employment expenses directly onto the customer, but what government dirtbags have legitimized this disgusting practice?
Geez, don't take it so literaly. It was a glib one-liner by a CS101 TA who was only interested in getting a general point across. But OK, I'll answer your questions seriously:
1) no, but it's not unusual for a mech eng student to find himself operating a drill press while preparing a final project
2) no, but understanding material construction methods and limitations is essential
3) no, because people who run machine shops aren't idiots like the guys who run IT shops
Yeah, but you see Chavez called Bush43 a "pendejo" and is openly hostile to the US. Therefore, leftists love him and any criticism of him for his banana republic sensibilities is clearly just right wing bias. Never mind that he's as much a thug as the bastard he replaced.
My first year Intro to CS instructor put it this way:
"Computer Science is to programming as mechanical engineering is to operating a drill press"
Too many people think of a BS in Comp Sci as a degree in programming.
FWIW, Eudora never claims to be a PIM. It's just an email client.