I was at IBM printing systems when they transistioned over to Ricoh. One universal item that cheered everyone up was the possibility of getting rid of Notes.. then, we found out that Ricoh used Notes.. was just cruel..
You have to know the details of your strategy. You don't have to know all the details of implementation.
When i delegate to the people implementing here, I give scope of the project. How it fits in with everything. Resources available. Criteria it has to meet. I honestly don't care if when I delegate a monitoring system if the response comes back Nagios, or Zenoss, or something else. If I delegate a CRM system, I honestly don't care between Chef, or puppet. (I do however have an opinion about OCSInventory).
No technology is going to me all the needs, or it will do stuff in slightly different ways favoring one over the other in various categories. It is nuanced. And, unless you dig into this stuff every day, you won't know every single way it can bite you.. and *every* decision will bite you as nothing is cookie cutter. Get the scope. Pick the ones that match it, then hammer the details.
The real kicker is that this was sent *after* Duffy was referred to the US Attorney's Office on possible RICO violations.
Blackmail is often the tactic used in racketeering operations to acquire money. I really don't like these guys and they have made zero effort to establish the identity of the downloader.. which is the issue here..
The real question here is whether this falls into line of reasonable conduct and due diligence. I can see Duffy's defense to blackmail claims. If the IP address is not enough to establish the identity of the person who did the download, then yes.. the interviews with neighbors is, in fact, an appropriate action to take prior to filing a lawsuit.
There have been a lot of legal responses in their previous lawsuits saying that they lacked sufficient evidence of the specific person who did the downloads. Exactly what steps would people think are reasonable to establish the identity of the downloader? I suspect that they do overlap with the steps outlined in that letter.
They could be part of an overall organization. As such, there would have been a working relationship prior. Or, it could be that they did a run in December to prove the concept, then just sold the cards upfront to people for that second run.
I am reminded of what happened with digg. Nice free website and news site, like slashdot. They monkeyed with their interface and alienated a core group of supporters.
The very next day, usage on digg dropped and increased on reddit.
If UI changes can drive people away from a free service, what happens to people making decisions about expensive purchases?
Microsoft was not built on brand loyalty. It was built on vendor lock-in. It simply must take into account how the user community views its products because it can't count on people stick out of loyalty. I have to use it for my job. I don't have to use it in my personal life.
Well.. They have webcams on Mount Everest now, so I could see why no one climbs it any more..
I am going to have to disagree with the author. Fundamentally, you can not advance your technology, or pretty much anything, without a drive for exploration in one form, or another.
Linus Torvalds Lynne Jolitz and William Jolitz Andrew S. Tanenbaum Keith Bostic Richard Stallman
What do they all have in common?
Whenever I see someone say "We need a Linus", they aren't talking about a central design brain behind a product. They are talking about someone who successfully negotiated a field full of landmines while getting bombed from the air and sniped at from the wings.
OpenStack is exactly where Unix-like OS's were in 1991 as they were trying to break free from Vendor lock-in. We have a mesh of Linux, Minix, 386BSD, BSD386, netNSD, GNU Hurd, and any number of assorted equivalent projects going on right now. While the basic framework is very similar, there are so many specific technical variations and multiple approaches that it is kinda silly thinking everyone is going to fall in line behind a single developer or architect. It is even sillier when you realize this isn't being driven by hobbyists, but large commercial interests - who generally like vendor lock-in and have billions of dollars on the line.
There is no Linus type figure right now. There isn't even a Stallman out there right now. Or Jolitz. It is a standards body fight. And, the only thing they need to do is define open API's and enforce a certification and revoke certifications for people who try to implement undocumented API's.
The Latin term for this is Pons Asinorum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pons_asinorum
Essentially, there is a weed-out mark in most higher abstract thought processes where people are either capable of getting it, or not. It inherently develops a us/them dichotomy.
If the nearby frequencies were not 19 orders of magnitude more powerful, this would not be a problem..
Seriously, to make a filter that would work here would render any receiver unusable.. Even Lightsquared cutting off 99.999% of their signal in the GPS ranges meant the GPS receiver would have needed to pull their signal out of another signal that was 13 orders of magnitude more powerful. It would be like trying to pick out a whisper from 40 feet away in a rock concert while standing in front of the speakers..
Concurrent with closing the source code for SunOS, they also starting charging for software that had been previously free. (Specifically, the C compiler went from being shipped for free on SunOS 4 to being a separate commercial product with SunOS 5). Developing on SunOS was either A) expensive or B) migrated to GNU products.
He can claim the lockdown of source might be because of AT&T, but Sun also took steps on their own to make native development a lot more expensive.
Then, there was the issue of Solaris 2.0 to 2.2 being horribly unstable.
They could have survived the closing of the source code had they really thrown effort into developing the software development environment and not tried to lock down the platform.
While Sun was king for a few years in the dotcom boom, you'd actually be hard pressed to place it on their feet. The dotcom era was fueled by http servers and databases. Sun had a large install base and market share going in, but what exactly did it do afterwards? Java is about the only native Sun contribution to the dotcom era. With everything else, their share of the market was from people porting to their platform. They were just another port for Apache and just another port for Oracle. Sun's move into its own http server was from a joint project with Netscape well after Apache was on the scene.
Sun was always fighting over who got to be the monopoly. What moves they made into the opensource was to directly undercut their main competition. They did not buy StarOffice and change it to OpenOffice out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to undercut Microsoft's income.
(Minor pet peeve: Solaris was not the brand name of the OS until much later. Originally, Solaris was the brand name for the bundled SunOS with X Windows to differentiate it from the earlier SunOS that shipped with their proprietary windowing system.)
Each country is legally responsible for its own vehicles. By international treaty, they have to provide basic telemetry to other countries. The FAA is the United States' designated body for this. Other countries use their own. You still need US approval from the FAA to re-enter in other countries as this is roughly equivalent to the Certificate of Airworthiness required to fly aircraft. There has to be legal documents showing you are allowed to fly, at all.
(ie, the FAA is not just about flight plans, but also about certification. This is a certification to allow them to fly. They would still need to file a flight plan and acquire whatever waivers are needed for their actual flight. If that is to another country, then they would file through that other country).
Umm. Not with the Shuttle. The engines are badly designed for zero-G. They have never been fired in orbit for a reason. (Also, the Shuttle could not have survived re-entry from a lunar return. It gets real ugly trying to cut the velocity from a vehicle returning from that far out.)
But, you could have done with with some basic assembly. The technology has been there for years. The last real innovation was the TransHab module.
There are some real technical issues to deal with when discussing ISS though. It is in a very bad orbital plane for lunar missions. There are much better orbits. I am cynical here. I think the reality is that ISS really does not have much of a purpose outside of justifying Shuttle budgets.
Well, yes.. of course. How many companies can you contact that will give you the answer you are looking for without you have to spell it out?
The NSF is restricted legally from putting the result right into the RFQ. So, you have to have a company that is savvy enough to puzzle out the answer you are looking for by reading between the lines. That takes skill and experience. Something that Gartner has spent a lot of time and effort developing.
If NASA does not buy, who cares? Dragon is aimed right at Virgin and other commercial tourist groups. NASA is not the only customer in town either. Falcon and Dragon are looking like they have a price point that might actually allow other commercial development.
The FAA is *the* legal body to authorize launch vehicles. NASA is a research and development body and has no regulatory authority in any area, at all. Any company wishing to fly *has* to meet the FAA requirements. (The FAA regs are actually quite liberal and pro-commercial development). If you wish to sell to NASA, you have to also meet their requirements. What you describe as a huge knock against this is actually already the current practice.
In theory, it could be launched on another platform. Right now, there is a lot of development in capsules and the like from various companies. Boeing has its capsule under development. There are a few others in various levels of development.
Ares is mostly toast now. It will rise or fall under a political fight, but honestly, whether Constellation flies, or not, the Orion capsule is no longer is the only game in town. The problem with a lot of this positioning of such-and-such program as THE next step rather ignores the simple fact that we are no longer in a single path of development. Its no accident that this article was released on PRWire a day after a flurry of articles about Boeing being ready in 2014 with an article claiming that Orion will be ready in 2013.
They have a fair track record, They also have failures. With a competitive fully commercial program, we can actually begin to answer these questions. Mainly, the current safety record is more dominated by the fact that the Delta and Atlas are mature technologies as far as launch vehicles are concerned and have had time to fix errors in the design. Advances in model design were based off upgrading the previous model rather than new designs from scratch. The major telling difference between SpaceX and the Ares rocket is that SpaceX, as a company, was founded in 2002 and has, to date, developed 2 working launch vehicles. NASA selected the Ares design in 2005-2006, awarded contracts in 2007 and estimates first launch in 2014 (although the Augustine Commission thinks 2017 is more likely). Will it be cheaper and more efficient? Barring systemic flaws, which are unlikely, they should have several design generations to apply engineering fixes for problems prior to Ares ever launching.SpaceX is designed for lower operating costs and is fairly conservative in most of its design selection. Theoretically, that should be more efficient in the long run. The specific engineering choices will determine the real answer and only by flying hardware do you get to actually see. For the design path SpaceX has chosen, higher launch failures at the leading edge of the life of the vehicle is not really a bad thing.
Orbital Sciences has the Pegasus lunch vehicle, which they built on their own funding. It has 40 launches. 3 of those were failures and 2 were partial successes. The failures were all at the beginning of their development line, where you would expect them. To date, they have had over 500 launch missions of various types. Their Taurus rocket is still in its initial development path and has the expected launch failures for that.
The thing most people have to realize now is that NASA does not really own or control most aspects of the launches now. They contract out to private companies. Those expenditures come from locked in contracts. It is hard to get competitive bidding if your only provider is ULA.
Slashdot Mirror
I was at IBM printing systems when they transistioned over to Ricoh. One universal item that cheered everyone up was the possibility of getting rid of Notes.. then, we found out that Ricoh used Notes.. was just cruel..
I think you both might be a bit off.
You have to know the details of your strategy. You don't have to know all the details of implementation.
When i delegate to the people implementing here, I give scope of the project. How it fits in with everything. Resources available. Criteria it has to meet. I honestly don't care if when I delegate a monitoring system if the response comes back Nagios, or Zenoss, or something else. If I delegate a CRM system, I honestly don't care between Chef, or puppet. (I do however have an opinion about OCSInventory).
No technology is going to me all the needs, or it will do stuff in slightly different ways favoring one over the other in various categories. It is nuanced. And, unless you dig into this stuff every day, you won't know every single way it can bite you.. and *every* decision will bite you as nothing is cookie cutter. Get the scope. Pick the ones that match it, then hammer the details.
The real kicker is that this was sent *after* Duffy was referred to the US Attorney's Office on possible RICO violations.
Blackmail is often the tactic used in racketeering operations to acquire money. I really don't like these guys and they have made zero effort to establish the identity of the downloader.. which is the issue here..
The real question here is whether this falls into line of reasonable conduct and due diligence. I can see Duffy's defense to blackmail claims. If the IP address is not enough to establish the identity of the person who did the download, then yes.. the interviews with neighbors is, in fact, an appropriate action to take prior to filing a lawsuit.
There have been a lot of legal responses in their previous lawsuits saying that they lacked sufficient evidence of the specific person who did the downloads. Exactly what steps would people think are reasonable to establish the identity of the downloader? I suspect that they do overlap with the steps outlined in that letter.
They could be part of an overall organization. As such, there would have been a working relationship prior. Or, it could be that they did a run in December to prove the concept, then just sold the cards upfront to people for that second run.
A large number of CNC controllers require the computer to interface via a parallel port and use Real_time kernels.. Impossible in any VM system.
I am reminded of what happened with digg. Nice free website and news site, like slashdot. They monkeyed with their interface and alienated a core group of supporters.
The very next day, usage on digg dropped and increased on reddit.
If UI changes can drive people away from a free service, what happens to people making decisions about expensive purchases?
Microsoft was not built on brand loyalty. It was built on vendor lock-in. It simply must take into account how the user community views its products because it can't count on people stick out of loyalty. I have to use it for my job. I don't have to use it in my personal life.
Yeah, where I work, we are not allowed to run any testing versions. Has to be the supported stable versions.
Well.. They have webcams on Mount Everest now, so I could see why no one climbs it any more..
I am going to have to disagree with the author. Fundamentally, you can not advance your technology, or pretty much anything, without a drive for exploration in one form, or another.
OK.. What does Linus have to do with Ubuntu's choice of default browser? Or GUI?
Let's see..
Linus Torvalds
Lynne Jolitz and William Jolitz
Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Keith Bostic
Richard Stallman
What do they all have in common?
Whenever I see someone say "We need a Linus", they aren't talking about a central design brain behind a product. They are talking about someone who successfully negotiated a field full of landmines while getting bombed from the air and sniped at from the wings.
OpenStack is exactly where Unix-like OS's were in 1991 as they were trying to break free from Vendor lock-in. We have a mesh of Linux, Minix, 386BSD, BSD386, netNSD, GNU Hurd, and any number of assorted equivalent projects going on right now. While the basic framework is very similar, there are so many specific technical variations and multiple approaches that it is kinda silly thinking everyone is going to fall in line behind a single developer or architect. It is even sillier when you realize this isn't being driven by hobbyists, but large commercial interests - who generally like vendor lock-in and have billions of dollars on the line.
There is no Linus type figure right now. There isn't even a Stallman out there right now. Or Jolitz. It is a standards body fight. And, the only thing they need to do is define open API's and enforce a certification and revoke certifications for people who try to implement undocumented API's.
The Latin term for this is Pons Asinorum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pons_asinorum
Essentially, there is a weed-out mark in most higher abstract thought processes where people are either capable of getting it, or not. It inherently develops a us/them dichotomy.
Would that be the 2GB drives that shipped on Sparc systems in Q2 1994?
Not that that left me with bad memories, or anything..
If the nearby frequencies were not 19 orders of magnitude more powerful, this would not be a problem..
Seriously, to make a filter that would work here would render any receiver unusable.. Even Lightsquared cutting off 99.999% of their signal in the GPS ranges meant the GPS receiver would have needed to pull their signal out of another signal that was 13 orders of magnitude more powerful. It would be like trying to pick out a whisper from 40 feet away in a rock concert while standing in front of the speakers..
Well, Scott was being a bit misleading in places.
Concurrent with closing the source code for SunOS, they also starting charging for software that had been previously free. (Specifically, the C compiler went from being shipped for free on SunOS 4 to being a separate commercial product with SunOS 5). Developing on SunOS was either A) expensive or B) migrated to GNU products.
He can claim the lockdown of source might be because of AT&T, but Sun also took steps on their own to make native development a lot more expensive.
Then, there was the issue of Solaris 2.0 to 2.2 being horribly unstable.
They could have survived the closing of the source code had they really thrown effort into developing the software development environment and not tried to lock down the platform.
While Sun was king for a few years in the dotcom boom, you'd actually be hard pressed to place it on their feet. The dotcom era was fueled by http servers and databases. Sun had a large install base and market share going in, but what exactly did it do afterwards? Java is about the only native Sun contribution to the dotcom era. With everything else, their share of the market was from people porting to their platform. They were just another port for Apache and just another port for Oracle. Sun's move into its own http server was from a joint project with Netscape well after Apache was on the scene.
Sun was always fighting over who got to be the monopoly. What moves they made into the opensource was to directly undercut their main competition. They did not buy StarOffice and change it to OpenOffice out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to undercut Microsoft's income.
(Minor pet peeve: Solaris was not the brand name of the OS until much later. Originally, Solaris was the brand name for the bundled SunOS with X Windows to differentiate it from the earlier SunOS that shipped with their proprietary windowing system.)
suborbital is not re-entry. Different license. This is for a full orbital vehicle.
Each country is legally responsible for its own vehicles. By international treaty, they have to provide basic telemetry to other countries. The FAA is the United States' designated body for this. Other countries use their own. You still need US approval from the FAA to re-enter in other countries as this is roughly equivalent to the Certificate of Airworthiness required to fly aircraft. There has to be legal documents showing you are allowed to fly, at all.
(ie, the FAA is not just about flight plans, but also about certification. This is a certification to allow them to fly. They would still need to file a flight plan and acquire whatever waivers are needed for their actual flight. If that is to another country, then they would file through that other country).
Facebook's business is selling that information. They really, really do not want to lose the monopoly and ability to monetize it any way they can.
So, of course, they are going to crack down on others selling information that facebook has so carefully accumulated.
Umm. Not with the Shuttle. The engines are badly designed for zero-G. They have never been fired in orbit for a reason. (Also, the Shuttle could not have survived re-entry from a lunar return. It gets real ugly trying to cut the velocity from a vehicle returning from that far out.)
But, you could have done with with some basic assembly. The technology has been there for years. The last real innovation was the TransHab module.
There are some real technical issues to deal with when discussing ISS though. It is in a very bad orbital plane for lunar missions. There are much better orbits. I am cynical here. I think the reality is that ISS really does not have much of a purpose outside of justifying Shuttle budgets.
Well, yes.. of course. How many companies can you contact that will give you the answer you are looking for without you have to spell it out?
The NSF is restricted legally from putting the result right into the RFQ. So, you have to have a company that is savvy enough to puzzle out the answer you are looking for by reading between the lines. That takes skill and experience. Something that Gartner has spent a lot of time and effort developing.
If NASA does not buy, who cares? Dragon is aimed right at Virgin and other commercial tourist groups. NASA is not the only customer in town either. Falcon and Dragon are looking like they have a price point that might actually allow other commercial development.
The FAA is *the* legal body to authorize launch vehicles. NASA is a research and development body and has no regulatory authority in any area, at all. Any company wishing to fly *has* to meet the FAA requirements. (The FAA regs are actually quite liberal and pro-commercial development). If you wish to sell to NASA, you have to also meet their requirements. What you describe as a huge knock against this is actually already the current practice.
In theory, it could be launched on another platform. Right now, there is a lot of development in capsules and the like from various companies. Boeing has its capsule under development. There are a few others in various levels of development.
Ares is mostly toast now. It will rise or fall under a political fight, but honestly, whether Constellation flies, or not, the Orion capsule is no longer is the only game in town. The problem with a lot of this positioning of such-and-such program as THE next step rather ignores the simple fact that we are no longer in a single path of development. Its no accident that this article was released on PRWire a day after a flurry of articles about Boeing being ready in 2014 with an article claiming that Orion will be ready in 2013.
Of course, most IT shops want this for $15 an hour. And you have to fill in for the other slots. And they don't know how to evaluate talent or skills.
It's Gay WV, not Fort Gay. Located in Jackson County near Ripley.
And, you can easily verify... If their last name is not Knopp. Starcher, Parsons, or Carney, they are probably not from there..
They would have to actually build and test the Ares to get it the "manrated" certification, which is at least a decade away.
One of these is flying, the other is not. You have to compare apples to apples to be fair.
They have a fair track record, They also have failures. With a competitive fully commercial program, we can actually begin to answer these questions. Mainly, the current safety record is more dominated by the fact that the Delta and Atlas are mature technologies as far as launch vehicles are concerned and have had time to fix errors in the design. Advances in model design were based off upgrading the previous model rather than new designs from scratch. The major telling difference between SpaceX and the Ares rocket is that SpaceX, as a company, was founded in 2002 and has, to date, developed 2 working launch vehicles. NASA selected the Ares design in 2005-2006, awarded contracts in 2007 and estimates first launch in 2014 (although the Augustine Commission thinks 2017 is more likely). Will it be cheaper and more efficient? Barring systemic flaws, which are unlikely, they should have several design generations to apply engineering fixes for problems prior to Ares ever launching.SpaceX is designed for lower operating costs and is fairly conservative in most of its design selection. Theoretically, that should be more efficient in the long run. The specific engineering choices will determine the real answer and only by flying hardware do you get to actually see. For the design path SpaceX has chosen, higher launch failures at the leading edge of the life of the vehicle is not really a bad thing.
Orbital Sciences has the Pegasus lunch vehicle, which they built on their own funding. It has 40 launches. 3 of those were failures and 2 were partial successes. The failures were all at the beginning of their development line, where you would expect them. To date, they have had over 500 launch missions of various types. Their Taurus rocket is still in its initial development path and has the expected launch failures for that.
The thing most people have to realize now is that NASA does not really own or control most aspects of the launches now. They contract out to private companies. Those expenditures come from locked in contracts. It is hard to get competitive bidding if your only provider is ULA.