As a Mac user, I have to say that both Office v.X and NeoOffice/J are excellent options. Microsoft gave Office v.X the full Aqua treatment, and even made certain that the interface was more consistent with the OS X desktop than with the Windows Desktop.
That said, NeoOffice/J is my personal favorite. While it hasn't looked very "lickable" up until recently, I've found it to be far more user friendly, and overall quite stable. (With one of the best document rescue implementations I've ever seen! If something bad happens, it still usually manages to stop, save the file to disk, then dump its core. Amazing.) IMHO, I couldn't do articles without it.
Here's a chart. The surface of the moon to LEO is 5.5 km/s (and visa versa). Transfer between LEO and Moon orbit is 3.9 km/s. Transfer from LEO to Mars Orbit is 4.7 km/s. Transfer from LEO to Mars Surface is 10.2 km/s (and, again, visa versa).
Sooo... the lunar surface is about 1/2 of the cost of going to Mars. However, to go to the surface of Mars' moon Deimos, you only need 5.6 km/s! How weird is that?
No, looks like you're right. (Or closer to right, anyway.) I was using this chart, but somehow ended up with 3.9 km/s. According to the chart, the correct Delta-V is 2.5+0.7+0.6+0.9 = 4.7 km/s, That being said, there are "cheaper" ways of getting to Mars, but not such that the trip would be suitable for humans.
Not that it matters too much for this discussion. With a 25% gas tank, the maximum Delta-V attainable at 11,000 Isp is 24 km/s. (24,000 m/s) For a 500 tonne craft, one gas tank would look approximately something like this (at 4700 m/s per trip):
That's 5 full trips, or two and a half round trips on one fuel tank! And that's considering that I gave each trip about 100 m/s more delta-V than necessary due to rounding! Engines like these would forever change the face of space travel if they went into common usage.:-)
this also explains why 2 & 3's plot was so different and poor.
That's probably only part of it. The other part of it was that the Wachowski Brothers originally wanted to make only one movie. When they couldn't fit all the material into a single movie, they decided to stretch it out into three. The results are quite obvious as the first one got the bulk of the intrigue, while the remaining movies were required to be less story dense and packed with more filler.
A similar situation can be seen with the new Star Wars Trilogy. Lucas obviously tried to plan things a bit on the fly, and ended up with 60-70% of the story packed into the last movie. Some estimate that as much as 15-20% of the material intended for the trilogy got cut from the movies. That's what left such a large gap for the "Clone Wars" animated series, and the new up-coming television show.
How can something like the GPL violate the U.S. Constitution?
It doesn't. This is just posturing on SCO's part. The Constitution merely provides for something along the lines of copyright. The actual implementation is left up to Congress.
That's not my conclusion, that's their conclusion. It was the nonsense they were spouting some few months ago. As I said, they're wrong, but (joke)at least they're consistent(/joke).:-)
P.S. Don't use Isp in the calculator I posted. It only gives the correct result for Exhaust Velocity. To correct this, switch to Isp, type the value in, then click on Exhaust Velocity. The number should be automatically converted for you. Then enter the figures for start mass and end mass to get the proper results. I emailed the author about this issue back in November, but it seems he hasn't had a chance to fix it.
FWIW, here's the rocket formula:
DeltaV = EV * ln(M0 / M1)
Where EV = Exhaust Velocity, M0 is starting mass, and M1 is ending mass.
Converting between Isp and Exhaust Velocity is as easy as:
I'm not sure if it's compatible with Safari. I know FireFox/Mozilla works. Basically, it's a complete Web Desktop/Remote Management tool. You can download a copy for your own system here. Note that I'm unaffiliated with the product. I'm just happy to finally have a replacement for the long-defunct WebOS.com Desktop.:-)
Slightly offtopic, but not too far considering the Russian's work in this area. The other day I was poking around to provide some references for the M2P2 technology when I ran across this little beauty. This electric thruster makes Ion engines look downright primitive. According to the various articles, this engine would provide a specific impluse as high as 11,000 (one of the most efficient designs ever created!), but with a relatively high thrust ratio. According to NASA's webpage, they have been testing a workbench model at powers of up to 30 Mw (!), and they believe that such engines could be used for both deep space missions to Mars, as well as providing more efficient second stage engines for ground launched vehicles.
Apparently the Russians have done significant work on this area, and continues to perform experiements on behalf of JPL. It's quite possible that the development of this engine could have an even greater effect on space travel than the Ion engine did!
The only downside to this engine is that it will be likely to require a nuclear reactor for power. This increases weight and adds the danger of a nuclear reactor. The upshot to this is that it is inherently safer than the Orion or NERVA engines, doesn't polute, and can go to Mars and back several times on the same tank of lithium! (Delta-V from LEO to Mars Orbit is about 3900 m/s. Do your own calcs on what that means for an engine with an ISP of 11,000 and a craft that is a mere 25% gas tank.)
Once again, I'm amazed at the technology already in our posession, or close to being so. Now more than ever, I really feel that we're on the cusp of a true space age.
Thanks, I figured it probably was something like that. I put the [sic] in there just to make sure that it was understood that it was in the original document and not a typo I introduced.:-)
If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO,
That would be playing right into their hands. SCO *wants* to get OSS producers upset so that they'll do something stupid. SCO can then point to the event and say "See? They are being juvenile while we negotiate in good faith!"
Ignoring SCO (except for direct legal defense) has been, and will continue to be, the best defense. The only one who gets worked up in that situation is SCO. So guess who starts looking pretty stupid to the public?;-)
If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted.
That's why I said they're wrong. They're logic in the court case was extremely twisted, in that they claimed that an invalid GPL would still allow the source to be redistributable. They had to realize that they were spouting nonsense, but I think they hoped that most consumers wouldn't call them on it.
Agreed. But the SCO "consitency" issues raised in the article are related to the GPL in specific. Thus my response.
Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.
It's interesting that they decided to bundle MySQL. Had they bundled PostGreSQL, they could have gotten away with a continued anti-GPL stance. (Although I imagine that they still distribute a lot of tools and utilities that are GPLed. Esp. GCC.)
It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments against them doesn't help.
It is important to note that I was mostly joking. SCO's position has *never* been consistent. My post merely makes levity of their latest attempt to claim such consistency.
SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.
FWIW, OpenServer used to be a very serious product. You see, Microsoft did the original development back in the 80's under the name "Xenix". That product was considered by Microsoft to be to DOS what NT was to 9x. Unfortunately, the market shifted to focus on early GUIs such as VisOn and the Macintosh, resulting in a decision by Microsoft to sell OpenServer to the original SCO.
SCO found themselves in the position of having the most advanced Unix ever developed for the x86 processor. (386BSD still needed work when it showed up, and the later Solaris/x86 partly gained its reputation as "Slowaris" on x86 hardware.) The result was that SCO was able to capture the early market for low end Unix boxes, below the market that even Sun targetted.
The later increase in x86 power, and the entry of Linux into the market brought more traditional Unix systems on a convergent path with SCO, thus causing their marketshare to evaporate. The original SCO moved on to greener pastures and sold OpenServer to Caldera. Caldera continued to market the product, but also inherited a large base of SCO salesmen. Guess who became the most troublesome individuals when OpenServer's sales tanked after the Linux suit?;-)
SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. "We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't,"
"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:
"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped[sic] or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."
The Eighth adds:
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law. They're wrong, but at least they're consistent. (In a twisted, "believe what I want you to believe," sort of way.);-)
P.S. Shouldn't this be under YRO or general articles instead of Apache?
People should stop developing with JavaScript. It's nothing but trouble.
Poppycock. This is nothing more than a typical knee-jerk reaction to a minor security flaw. Should we all stop using email because phisers can craft ones that look like someone elses?
Lots of sites use JavaScript very effectively. So many in fact, that it's rather difficult to make such a wild statement as "JAvascript is nothing but trouble." Google is a perfect example of a highly useful site with JS. For example, Maps and GMail both rely heavily on JS. In fact, most webmail sites contain JS. And without JS, you couldn't have neat stuff like this. (Login is test, test)
Try parsing URL variables and adding them up sometime. Unless you're paying attention and cast them, JavaScript will happily give you and answer of "11".:-)
A joke I invented as a kid is along the same lines. It went something like this:
Whatever you do, never cram for your Computer Science and Spanish classes on the same night. I once knew this guy who came into Spanish class the next day and started counting: Uno, Dos, Windows, Unix...
Yes, I know. Quite lame. But what do you expect out of a kid?;-)
According to Wikipedia, you have to have an existing enlistment or have graduated college to be eligable for the OCS program. They can alternatively earn a commission through a staff appointment, ROTC training (which supplements existing college), or by going to a military academy (which is really just college and OCS rolled into one).
So I suppose it is possible to become an officer without a college education (assuming you're already enlisted), but I've never heard of any cases. This discussion, of course, exempts Chief Warrant Officers who are stuck in limbo between enlisted and commissioned officers.
And how many rich kids officers are dying in Iraq right now?
Can't tell you. That sort of thing is considered security information by the US Military. A few years down the road, however, I'm sure we'll be hearing from them.
The military is welfare painted as glorious.
Don't be stupid. Military officers have to come from *somewhere*. Someone who's effectively on welfare certainly is not going to have the required college education to become an officer. Some of the officers do come from enlisted personnel who use their government tuition money to get their degree and become officers, but not nearly enough. (I have a hard time believing that even you think that kids earning money for college is a *bad* thing.)
What nonsense. Rich kids join the military all the time (although usually as officers). Military experience is seen as an asset if you're planning to become politically active. Notice how much of a hot-button the issue was in Clinton, Bush, and Kerry's respective campaigns. While it's difficult to project the value of a military career out into the next generation of politicians, it has certainly helped both past and present office-runners.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, it wasn't *that* funny. But I'm glad you like it. ;-)
As a Mac user, I have to say that both Office v.X and NeoOffice/J are excellent options. Microsoft gave Office v.X the full Aqua treatment, and even made certain that the interface was more consistent with the OS X desktop than with the Windows Desktop.
That said, NeoOffice/J is my personal favorite. While it hasn't looked very "lickable" up until recently, I've found it to be far more user friendly, and overall quite stable. (With one of the best document rescue implementations I've ever seen! If something bad happens, it still usually manages to stop, save the file to disk, then dump its core. Amazing.) IMHO, I couldn't do articles without it.
Here's a chart. The surface of the moon to LEO is 5.5 km/s (and visa versa). Transfer between LEO and Moon orbit is 3.9 km/s. Transfer from LEO to Mars Orbit is 4.7 km/s. Transfer from LEO to Mars Surface is 10.2 km/s (and, again, visa versa).
Sooo... the lunar surface is about 1/2 of the cost of going to Mars. However, to go to the surface of Mars' moon Deimos, you only need 5.6 km/s! How weird is that?
No, looks like you're right. (Or closer to right, anyway.) I was using this chart, but somehow ended up with 3.9 km/s. According to the chart, the correct Delta-V is 2.5+0.7+0.6+0.9 = 4.7 km/s, That being said, there are "cheaper" ways of getting to Mars, but not such that the trip would be suitable for humans.
:-)
Not that it matters too much for this discussion. With a 25% gas tank, the maximum Delta-V attainable at 11,000 Isp is 24 km/s. (24,000 m/s) For a 500 tonne craft, one gas tank would look approximately something like this (at 4700 m/s per trip):
Trip 1: 500tn -> 478tn
Trip 2: 478tn -> 457tn
Trip 3: 457tn -> 437tn
Trip 4: 437tn -> 418tn
Trip 5: 418tn -> 400tn
EMPTY
That's 5 full trips, or two and a half round trips on one fuel tank! And that's considering that I gave each trip about 100 m/s more delta-V than necessary due to rounding! Engines like these would forever change the face of space travel if they went into common usage.
this also explains why 2 & 3's plot was so different and poor.
That's probably only part of it. The other part of it was that the Wachowski Brothers originally wanted to make only one movie. When they couldn't fit all the material into a single movie, they decided to stretch it out into three. The results are quite obvious as the first one got the bulk of the intrigue, while the remaining movies were required to be less story dense and packed with more filler.
A similar situation can be seen with the new Star Wars Trilogy. Lucas obviously tried to plan things a bit on the fly, and ended up with 60-70% of the story packed into the last movie. Some estimate that as much as 15-20% of the material intended for the trilogy got cut from the movies. That's what left such a large gap for the "Clone Wars" animated series, and the new up-coming television show.
How can something like the GPL violate the U.S. Constitution?
It doesn't. This is just posturing on SCO's part. The Constitution merely provides for something along the lines of copyright. The actual implementation is left up to Congress.
That's not my conclusion, that's their conclusion. It was the nonsense they were spouting some few months ago. As I said, they're wrong, but (joke)at least they're consistent(/joke). :-)
FWIW, here's the rocket formula:Where EV = Exhaust Velocity, M0 is starting mass, and M1 is ending mass.
Converting between Isp and Exhaust Velocity is as easy as:
I'm not sure if it's compatible with Safari. I know FireFox/Mozilla works. Basically, it's a complete Web Desktop/Remote Management tool. You can download a copy for your own system here. Note that I'm unaffiliated with the product. I'm just happy to finally have a replacement for the long-defunct WebOS.com Desktop. :-)
Slightly offtopic, but not too far considering the Russian's work in this area. The other day I was poking around to provide some references for the M2P2 technology when I ran across this little beauty. This electric thruster makes Ion engines look downright primitive. According to the various articles, this engine would provide a specific impluse as high as 11,000 (one of the most efficient designs ever created!), but with a relatively high thrust ratio. According to NASA's webpage, they have been testing a workbench model at powers of up to 30 Mw (!), and they believe that such engines could be used for both deep space missions to Mars, as well as providing more efficient second stage engines for ground launched vehicles.
Apparently the Russians have done significant work on this area, and continues to perform experiements on behalf of JPL. It's quite possible that the development of this engine could have an even greater effect on space travel than the Ion engine did!
The only downside to this engine is that it will be likely to require a nuclear reactor for power. This increases weight and adds the danger of a nuclear reactor. The upshot to this is that it is inherently safer than the Orion or NERVA engines, doesn't polute, and can go to Mars and back several times on the same tank of lithium! (Delta-V from LEO to Mars Orbit is about 3900 m/s. Do your own calcs on what that means for an engine with an ISP of 11,000 and a craft that is a mere 25% gas tank.)
Once again, I'm amazed at the technology already in our posession, or close to being so. Now more than ever, I really feel that we're on the cusp of a true space age.
Thanks, I figured it probably was something like that. I put the [sic] in there just to make sure that it was understood that it was in the original document and not a typo I introduced. :-)
If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO,
;-)
That would be playing right into their hands. SCO *wants* to get OSS producers upset so that they'll do something stupid. SCO can then point to the event and say "See? They are being juvenile while we negotiate in good faith!"
Ignoring SCO (except for direct legal defense) has been, and will continue to be, the best defense. The only one who gets worked up in that situation is SCO. So guess who starts looking pretty stupid to the public?
If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted.
That's why I said they're wrong. They're logic in the court case was extremely twisted, in that they claimed that an invalid GPL would still allow the source to be redistributable. They had to realize that they were spouting nonsense, but I think they hoped that most consumers wouldn't call them on it.
Linux != Open Source/Free Software.
Agreed. But the SCO "consitency" issues raised in the article are related to the GPL in specific. Thus my response.
Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.
It's interesting that they decided to bundle MySQL. Had they bundled PostGreSQL, they could have gotten away with a continued anti-GPL stance. (Although I imagine that they still distribute a lot of tools and utilities that are GPLed. Esp. GCC.)
It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments against them doesn't help.
It is important to note that I was mostly joking. SCO's position has *never* been consistent. My post merely makes levity of their latest attempt to claim such consistency.
SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.
;-)
FWIW, OpenServer used to be a very serious product. You see, Microsoft did the original development back in the 80's under the name "Xenix". That product was considered by Microsoft to be to DOS what NT was to 9x. Unfortunately, the market shifted to focus on early GUIs such as VisOn and the Macintosh, resulting in a decision by Microsoft to sell OpenServer to the original SCO.
SCO found themselves in the position of having the most advanced Unix ever developed for the x86 processor. (386BSD still needed work when it showed up, and the later Solaris/x86 partly gained its reputation as "Slowaris" on x86 hardware.) The result was that SCO was able to capture the early market for low end Unix boxes, below the market that even Sun targetted.
The later increase in x86 power, and the entry of Linux into the market brought more traditional Unix systems on a convergent path with SCO, thus causing their marketshare to evaporate. The original SCO moved on to greener pastures and sold OpenServer to Caldera. Caldera continued to market the product, but also inherited a large base of SCO salesmen. Guess who became the most troublesome individuals when OpenServer's sales tanked after the Linux suit?
From Groklaw:
So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law. They're wrong, but at least they're consistent. (In a twisted, "believe what I want you to believe," sort of way.)
P.S. Shouldn't this be under YRO or general articles instead of Apache?
I don't get the joke.
It's pretty sad when you don't understand base-8 vs. base-10. Now start encoding in Base-64 immediately or turn in your geek card!
SGVyZVwncyB5b3VyIGdlZWsgY2FyZCBiYWNrLg==
People should stop developing with JavaScript. It's nothing but trouble.
Poppycock. This is nothing more than a typical knee-jerk reaction to a minor security flaw. Should we all stop using email because phisers can craft ones that look like someone elses?
Lots of sites use JavaScript very effectively. So many in fact, that it's rather difficult to make such a wild statement as "JAvascript is nothing but trouble." Google is a perfect example of a highly useful site with JS. For example, Maps and GMail both rely heavily on JS. In fact, most webmail sites contain JS. And without JS, you couldn't have neat stuff like this. (Login is test, test)
Try parsing URL variables and adding them up sometime. Unless you're paying attention and cast them, JavaScript will happily give you and answer of "11". :-)
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Yes, I know. Quite lame. But what do you expect out of a kid?
According to Wikipedia, you have to have an existing enlistment or have graduated college to be eligable for the OCS program. They can alternatively earn a commission through a staff appointment, ROTC training (which supplements existing college), or by going to a military academy (which is really just college and OCS rolled into one).
So I suppose it is possible to become an officer without a college education (assuming you're already enlisted), but I've never heard of any cases. This discussion, of course, exempts Chief Warrant Officers who are stuck in limbo between enlisted and commissioned officers.
I have never seen the word ridiculous spelled wrong so many times in such a short period
;-)
What a rediculous thing to say!
And how many rich kids officers are dying in Iraq right now?
Can't tell you. That sort of thing is considered security information by the US Military. A few years down the road, however, I'm sure we'll be hearing from them.
The military is welfare painted as glorious.
Don't be stupid. Military officers have to come from *somewhere*. Someone who's effectively on welfare certainly is not going to have the required college education to become an officer. Some of the officers do come from enlisted personnel who use their government tuition money to get their degree and become officers, but not nearly enough. (I have a hard time believing that even you think that kids earning money for college is a *bad* thing.)
Student A has a rich family, pass.
What nonsense. Rich kids join the military all the time (although usually as officers). Military experience is seen as an asset if you're planning to become politically active. Notice how much of a hot-button the issue was in Clinton, Bush, and Kerry's respective campaigns. While it's difficult to project the value of a military career out into the next generation of politicians, it has certainly helped both past and present office-runners.