Having 4.5 years of sea time on two Ticonderoga-class cruisers and one Oliver Hazard Perry-class cruiser, plus flailed my way to an engineering degree, I've seen enough RF equipment interactions to know that
a) The FCC could probably prove the point reasonably conclusively one way or another, were there will, and
b) If the navigation system is really that fragile, they'd harden it more. After all, they manage to funnel you to their seatback handsets without junk falling out of the sky, no?
No, the cheap way to solve the problem is to train the people to be docile and obedient to the aircrew. I'm not even kinda arguing the point. Makes perfect sense from a security vantage. I'm saying that I find this interference claim is one of those "wardrobe malfunctions" that paper over a small mountain of other motives.
It woudl create a fault in the system which would prevent both yours and the clone SIM from working. This is actually one of the main reasons why Cellphones are not usable on Planes (even if it is prooven to be safe to the electronics). The phone woudl try to log onto multiple cells at the same time, causing a lot of strain on the network, or even malfunction.
Thanks for this note.
The traditional "navigation systems interference" has never passed the "smell test" for me.
Why not just let them enter another, in addition to Hotmail? Maybe Google could set you up with infinite invites. I bet losing traffic to Google would get them to whitelist you post-haste.
Are there any components of IE7 that are implemented in.NET managed code? If not, are there any plans to start incorporating more managed code into IE?
No, IE7 remains purely native code throughout. I think as we develop future versions of IE you'll see a larger focus on managed code, most likely to enable great plug-ins of that type for our platform. One thing people shouldn't expect is that IE8 be re-written in managed code. For a variety of reasons, native code is where we'll stay for a while.
I found that their printing of unconfirmed rumors regarding Haditha, for which investigations are still ongoing, on the front page above the fold on 26May to be reprehensible yellow journalism.
To be sure, the issue is grave, and bears full disclosure, without coverups.
The US armed forces deserve to be both accountable, and innocent until proven guilty.
WaPo's wet-blanket read on the subsequent snuffing of Al-Zarqawi was the proverbial straw.
These WaPo Foreign Desk invdividuals should be given a broom and ordered to do something useful, in my opinion.
The First Ammendment is a beautiful thing on all sides, and I thank/. for an opportunity to give the WaPo some feedback on how dimly perceived their marginal, erroneous opinions are.
You're not really supposed to be building your own kernel anymore.
Aw, c'mon.
If using your personal hardware (not that of your employer, mind you) is about doing what you're told, sell your soul to Redmond.
You do your best learning by tearing stuff apart, re-compiling it, and saying "I wonder what all those warnings wer"--kernel panic!
Back up your data and play ball, say I.
This is a great moment to offer props to the fellows behind busybox, and switch_root, in particular: by the time I understood WTF and had my kernel booting, I was quite amazed I hadn't melted down the / partition.
Microsoft executives have recently said they are committed to a greater outreach to the open source community and to make Windows software interoperable with that licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Is that a priority of yours and something you plan to move further forward?
I have been one of the principle people architecting the way we are going to step up to this bigger question around interoperability, and that will certainly be a focus of mine going forward, along with Bob Muglia.
Isn't interoperability more a question of standards compliance than licensing? Or did eWeek's question pertain more to 'general interaction', as if Redmond needs to be more aware of the existence of, say, Ogg.
Some would argue that DRM counts for intellectual starvation, but I'm talking here of a major "Welcome to Your New Patent Suppository Overlords" meltdown, involving vast cash and minimal substantial case.
So, near the point where the system achieves total statis, somebody is sued off the planet for trying to publish a text editor, and you have an Information Age equivalent of the French Revolution. "They have no Operating System? Let them use Emacs." -- R. Marie Stallmanette, shortly before dropping a significant percentage of her height.
Perhaps there is no way to 'fix' the system. Like a madman, it just needs to spiral out of control until everyone, including its benefactors and proponents, realize that it's untenable.
Sadly, despite the support of Google, which raised the count of hands from "both" to "effectively infinite", the US Government could not its booty find.
Comparing sizes of versions of specific system components to earlier versions might be helpful.
Comparing a Linux kernel to a Windows release to a RedHat distribution (to cite some common juxtapositions on ye Olde Internette) says more about the knowledge level of the speaker than the topic.
Redmond's woes (to the extent the blog post reflects reality) seem to fall under the usual heading "Problems with Human Scalability".
At what SLOC count in your SMOP is your "worked around" tantamount to DOS attack on your time? Why are you paying Redmond large denominations to change their diapers?
Point well taken, but do not miss the fact that the greybeards never understood the sheeple, nor how the sheeple could line up for regular fleecings from Redmond.
Does Google have a relatively stronger emphasis on industry standards and open source, relative to Redmond?
Does this make it more likely that Google will compete based on technical merit than monopoly power?
I agree that avoiding becoming that which one despises is at least hard, if not impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
How could you overlook the obvious DukeNukemForeverFS?
Having 4.5 years of sea time on two Ticonderoga-class cruisers and one Oliver Hazard Perry-class cruiser, plus flailed my way to an engineering degree, I've seen enough RF equipment interactions to know that
a) The FCC could probably prove the point reasonably conclusively one way or another, were there will, and
b) If the navigation system is really that fragile, they'd harden it more. After all, they manage to funnel you to their seatback handsets without junk falling out of the sky, no?
No, the cheap way to solve the problem is to train the people to be docile and obedient to the aircrew. I'm not even kinda arguing the point. Makes perfect sense from a security vantage. I'm saying that I find this interference claim is one of those "wardrobe malfunctions" that paper over a small mountain of other motives.
Thanks for this note.
The traditional "navigation systems interference" has never passed the "smell test" for me.
Sonofa...
I was all set to triumphantly play the "Bet you didn't know this acronym" card, and all I got was a lousy "Error parsing XML Data":
http://www.fjax.net/
I am teh s/_/x0rz.
Why not just let them enter another, in addition to Hotmail? Maybe Google could set you up with infinite invites. I bet losing traffic to Google would get them to whitelist you post-haste.
Now, isn't that an interesting point. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft+.n
Even before the invention of the transistor, it was noted
But maybe Redmond is different.
Do not place one of those "thin, mint wafers" on Mr. Creosote's tongue.
You are welcome.
And, in fairness, the rest of the paper besides the Foreign Desk's input is quite a good product.
I just cancelled my print subscription recently.
I found that their printing of unconfirmed rumors regarding Haditha, for which investigations are still ongoing, on the front page above the fold on 26May to be reprehensible yellow journalism.
To be sure, the issue is grave, and bears full disclosure, without coverups.
The US armed forces deserve to be both accountable, and innocent until proven guilty.
WaPo's wet-blanket read on the subsequent snuffing of Al-Zarqawi was the proverbial straw.
These WaPo Foreign Desk invdividuals should be given a broom and ordered to do something useful, in my opinion.
The First Ammendment is a beautiful thing on all sides, and I thank
</rant>
Aw, c'mon.
If using your personal hardware (not that of your employer, mind you) is about doing what you're told, sell your soul to Redmond.
You do your best learning by tearing stuff apart, re-compiling it, and saying "I wonder what all those warnings wer"--kernel panic!
Back up your data and play ball, say I.
This is a great moment to offer props to the fellows behind busybox, and switch_root, in particular: by the time I understood WTF and had my kernel booting, I was quite amazed I hadn't melted down the / partition.
Isn't interoperability more a question of standards compliance than licensing? Or did eWeek's question pertain more to 'general interaction', as if Redmond needs to be more aware of the existence of, say, Ogg.
"This patent system needs a simultaneous visit from every role Jack Nicholson ever played"
</joker face>
>But the masses aren't starving
Some would argue that DRM counts for intellectual starvation, but I'm talking here of a major "Welcome to Your New Patent Suppository Overlords" meltdown, involving vast cash and minimal substantial case.
In some political way, yes.
Holy balls, Eben Moglen is a deep thinker: Visionary Keynote
So, near the point where the system achieves total statis, somebody is sued off the planet for trying to publish a text editor, and you have an Information Age equivalent of the French Revolution.
"They have no Operating System? Let them use Emacs."
-- R. Marie Stallmanette, shortly before dropping a significant percentage of her height.
Perhaps there is no way to 'fix' the system. Like a madman, it just needs to spiral out of control until everyone, including its benefactors and proponents, realize that it's untenable.
Or atheism, for that matter.
Sadly, despite the support of Google, which raised the count of hands from "both" to "effectively infinite", the US Government could not its booty find.
Where are these lines for size comparison drawn?
Kernel?
GUI layer?
Drivers?
Applications?
Comparing sizes of versions of specific system components to earlier versions might be helpful.
Comparing a Linux kernel to a Windows release to a RedHat distribution (to cite some common juxtapositions on ye Olde Internette) says more about the knowledge level of the speaker than the topic.
Redmond's woes (to the extent the blog post reflects reality) seem to fall under the usual heading "Problems with Human Scalability".
At what SLOC count in your SMOP is your "worked around" tantamount to DOS attack on your time? Why are you paying Redmond large denominations to change their diapers?
Ah, but the acme of skill is to couch 'logic' and 'reason' beneath a veneer of jingoistic appeal to fear and hatred.
Prior to Windows3.0, could one say MicroSoft had achieved its current hegemony?
Recall Harvard Graphics, Lotus123, WordPerfect.
The history of MS has been the history of increasingly obscuring details such as the command line.
Point well taken, but do not miss the fact that the greybeards never understood the sheeple, nor how the sheeple could line up for regular fleecings from Redmond.
Does Google have a relatively stronger emphasis on industry standards and open source, relative to Redmond?
Does this make it more likely that Google will compete based on technical merit than monopoly power?
I agree that avoiding becoming that which one despises is at least hard, if not impossible.
What you say is true, and necessary, but not sufficient.
Gates understood his audience, the sheeple, far better than the Unix greybeards.