As long at they don't switch to Intel's annoying "ding-ding-dong-dong" chime your hear in the commercial as an Intel-based new Mac's new startup chime, I'll be fine!
I thing they'd really just end up with the RedHat name, and nothing else.
I don't think the community at large would really accept this buyout, and both companies' philosophies are quite different (at least the way I perceive it).
"And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? "
Well, one consideration is cost. The Apollo program basically cost something like 10% of the yearly national bugdet for 10 years.
Naah!, I'm kidding. It's also rerun on other channels too. What I meant was that TSS was *the* show worth getting the channel for; the others were just icing on the cake. Not sure I would've gotten it if TSS hadn't been there.
Ever since G4, I've basically stopped watching "TechTV" since it's no longer, well, 'TechTV'. TSS was just about the only info show I watched on it (besides battlebots etc), and pretty much the only raison d'être of the station. Glad to see they're back in this format.
US stations have such a knack for taking great channels (or TV shows), and totally foobar them in a vain attempt to 'improve' them.
" My question is, why shove everyone into the ISS?"
Because this is exactly what they might need to do; remember, this is a contingency plan.
Much like there's a 'lifeboat' for the ISS, the ISS sort of becomes the lifeboat for the shuttle since it doesn't have its own. If a meteorite breaks one of the windows (happened before) and compromises the shuttle's cabin pressure (but not that), the shuttle will be useless.
But you're right in that it should be able to take advantage of the shuttle's system when docked, and I'm sure that's part of 'the plan' as well, and I'm sure it's been done in previous dockings with the station.
From our own experiences, and as you'll see by the few reviews on Amazon, as well as just googling for it, you'll see this registrar is not to be trusted either.
Yes, that's become quite obvious at this point; he's obviously has nothing better to do all weekend long...
It's clearly pointless to answer him again (not that I haven't already), since he'll just twist the meaning of my words again like he's done all along, just to keep this going.
I won't give him the satisfaction of letting him do that again.....
Oh, I see, if someone doesn't answer quite the way you like or to your satisfaction, you simply imply they said something they didn't. I can only imagine what you imply politicians say.
"If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point"
What, "No, I didn't" wasn't clear enough for you??! Fine, here's the answer you wanted to hear: "Yes, you were wrong". And in case you try to spin this in another way, that one is specifically for you, not the original poster.
"All you have to do is give a yes or no. Why don't you?"
I have, many times, including in my last response! R-E-A-D it!
If companies have to pay, they might think again before deploying a system/service and use OS to do it.
OK they already do with the MS tax if they use MS, but people/companies are trying to get away from any "tax".
Slapping on a fee means other 'free' (BSD, MIT licensed) options will be looked at, and adoption of the new licence (and any code under it) might become less and less common; along with possibly less and less code release under it.
I can't see that helping the OS movement in a positive way.
I have, here's what you said (well, asked): "Actually, he called them, "serious failures". Are you saying they weren't?"
Then you state: "He implied that these weren't "serious failures".
So you went from asking something to implying I said something. I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement. You are the one that implied that I did. As I clearly stated in reply, 'fukcups' is what I chose to describe them as IMO, given the facts I stated that are common to both. I'm not to blame if you read more into it than what I actually wrote!
....and then you say: "Yes, in the form of a correction"
There's that word-stuffing again! You speak of people playing games, but you sure seem to be the master of putting words in someone's mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem suprised that a submitted story wasn't checked for accuracy....
"Man. Them crackers cut my mouth up somthin' bad." - Enus Fry
I don't think the community at large would really accept this buyout, and both companies' philosophies are quite different (at least the way I perceive it).
Because before MS would look like the big guy hitting on the little guy that couldn't defend himself.
Now the little guy can defend himself.
Any why not? Afterall, the records speak for themselves anyways. Doesn't matter who points out the facts in those records.
this site was pretty useful for information. So was AOL webmaster resources info.
make it a PS2 instead and then it will be worth my time!
Well, one consideration is cost. The Apollo program basically cost something like 10% of the yearly national bugdet for 10 years.
That kind of money doesn't come that easily now.
Of course you are!
Naah!, I'm kidding. It's also rerun on other channels too. What I meant was that TSS was *the* show worth getting the channel for; the others were just icing on the cake. Not sure I would've gotten it if TSS hadn't been there.
Pretty much the only interesting information show TechTV had, and G4 wished it had.
US stations have such a knack for taking great channels (or TV shows), and totally foobar them in a vain attempt to 'improve' them.
Correction: slashdot editors are accepting randomly generated false statements from industry leaders
Hmmm.. you sound just like one of those glowing amazon reviews...
Because this is exactly what they might need to do; remember, this is a contingency plan.
Much like there's a 'lifeboat' for the ISS, the ISS sort of becomes the lifeboat for the shuttle since it doesn't have its own. If a meteorite breaks one of the windows (happened before) and compromises the shuttle's cabin pressure (but not that), the shuttle will be useless.
But you're right in that it should be able to take advantage of the shuttle's system when docked, and I'm sure that's part of 'the plan' as well, and I'm sure it's been done in previous dockings with the station.
It's clearly pointless to answer him again (not that I haven't already), since he'll just twist the meaning of my words again like he's done all along, just to keep this going.
I won't give him the satisfaction of letting him do that again.....
Lol! Now that would be a Nixon coin worth collecting!
Oh, I see, if someone doesn't answer quite the way you like or to your satisfaction, you simply imply they said something they didn't. I can only imagine what you imply politicians say.
"If I'm wrong, all you have to do is say that that wasn't your point"
What, "No, I didn't" wasn't clear enough for you??! Fine, here's the answer you wanted to hear: "Yes, you were wrong". And in case you try to spin this in another way, that one is specifically for you, not the original poster.
"All you have to do is give a yes or no. Why don't you?"
I have, many times, including in my last response! R-E-A-D it!
OK they already do with the MS tax if they use MS, but people/companies are trying to get away from any "tax".
Slapping on a fee means other 'free' (BSD, MIT licensed) options will be looked at, and adoption of the new licence (and any code under it) might become less and less common; along with possibly less and less code release under it.
I can't see that helping the OS movement in a positive way.
I have, here's what you said (well, asked): "Actually, he called them, "serious failures". Are you saying they weren't?"
Then you state: "He implied that these weren't "serious failures".
So you went from asking something to implying I said something. I never, ever, said these weren't "serious failures" (or disasters, or tragedies, or whatver one might choose to call them) or that the original poster was incorrect in any way, or trivialize his statement. You are the one that implied that I did. As I clearly stated in reply, 'fukcups' is what I chose to describe them as IMO, given the facts I stated that are common to both. I'm not to blame if you read more into it than what I actually wrote!
There's that word-stuffing again! You speak of people playing games, but you sure seem to be the master of putting words in someone's mouth.