First of all you cant take pictures of atoms. Light of the wavelengths we see cannot give us a clear enough picture. Once you start putting enough energy into light to get the waves small enough to see whats going on the Heisenburg uncertainty theorum kicks and and its all useless info.
Who said that a picture has to use light? Anyway, we have taken pictures of individual atoms using optical photography.
Now, I don't know about you, but isn't one of the most useful abilities of the brain its tendency to grade info from useful to useless and quietly discard the useless stuff by simply forgetting it.
You mean like the way we get trivia lists and stupid songs stuck in our heads, but can't remember the answers to a final exam?
No, this is not a duplicate story, it's an update on their projects. It is a story about the same people that we wrote about back in July, but what if we cried out "duplicate story!" every time a story about Microsoft or Linux was posted?
It is a duplicate story. I haven't read the page since July, but I remember reading their explanation for the "Descending/Ascending" tower from back in July. The Escher material was on the page in July. I'm sorry if all you people missed it back then.
Before you try to point out Slashdot repeats and feel cool, why don't you actually read the old article you linked to, where you would see it is about mathematical sculptures. Then go on to notice that this article is about MC Escher artwork in Legos. Then go to the guy's website and see how the MC Escher stuff was added recently. Then apologize for being a jackass.
How about if I proclaim myself a psychic? I haven't read the Escher material from the current post, but I can tell you what it contains. It explains, in the illustration of the people walking around the square tower, how there is actually a gap in the tower, and the photograph has to be taken from a certain angle to see the illusion of the Escher painting. How is it possible that I would know that, when I haven't read that page since July? Am I psychic? Or, is this really a repost of the exact same material?
I think the wide-eyed claims of AI are pathetic, and I wish the people involved in this sort of work would get a grip on reality. Alice (like all the others of her sort) does little more than repeat back whatever it was the human gave her. That is the one unchanging situation in every generation of AI bot I've tried (what is it now? Three generations? They all sound alike to me).
I'm guessing that not many of you wonder if my post was generated by a computer. You may not like what I've written, but you know there is no way that any AI bot could be as fluid--to say nothing of coherent--in its language as I am.
The question is not about how similar Linux is to UNIX; the question is, How odd is your statement that you think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as Linux? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better all along?
Where the hell did I ever say that I think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as linux?
Your statement on Friday, November 15, @ 09:31PM was:
"while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software, which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues."
(emphasis mine)
I interpret the phrase, "starting to rival Linux" to mean that Windows is not as good as Linux.
How in the hell did you get a five year head start for microsoft? I'm saying that Unix had a full 20 year headstart over windows, or linux had a full 8 year headstart over Windows XP.
Ah, yes, I misread your statement. Please forgive me.
I must, then, point out that you have a most peculiar way of looking at things. You would have us believe that Linux had a head start on Windows XP, even though Microsoft was founded in 1975, and even though Microsoft produced XENIX (a UNIX clone) in 1980, both of which were long before Linus Torvald began writing code for Linux. Again, Linux is not UNIX, and was written completely from scratch, beginning in 1991. It looks to me like Microsoft had a lot more time to develop their code leading up to Windows XP than Linus had for his code.
You are highly intent on arguing, but you are wandering from point-to-point in your efforts. You lack coherency. The original statement was,
"What _new_ technology has M$ made? They only steal technology from others, bastardize it, then pass it off as there own."
You haven't done anything to show that Microsoft develops its own technology, rather than copying it from others.
Fujitsu makes a lot of Point-of-Sales systems for many large corporations.
"New York , N.Y. - 01/15/2001 -- Fujitsu-ICL Systems Inc. announced today the Liberator, a new Linux-based point-of-sale software solution that supports and enhances existing IBM 4690 point-of-sale (POS) supermarket applications. The combination of Liberator and the Fujitsu TeamPoS(r) 2000 POS terminal gives supermarket retailers using IBM 4690 systems a low-risk POS hardware alternative that reduces costs, adds power and graphics, and provides an open systems environment. Liberator, available in March, is the first Linux offering from Fujitsu-ICL."
You refuse to admit that many parts of linux are incredibly similar (even identical in some respects) to Unix.
The question is not about how similar Linux is to UNIX; the question is, How odd is your statement that you think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as Linux? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better all along?
As a matter of a fact, since it was only roughly based on Unix (read minix for the hopelessly anal) your argument that it was actually started around 1991 (the first public announcement and availability) then obviously Windows XP (which uses only small parts of the previous software)
That's not what Microsoft claims--they claim that Windows XP is based on the Windows NT core. BTW, Windows NT is POSIX-complient, meaning that it should be possible to run UNIX software on Windows NT with a simple recompile. Of course, there actually is not such thing as perfect portability, so some code twiddling would still be necessary.
was started in 1999, therefore linux still has a full eight year head start, not the fifteen year gap favoring Microsoft that you would prefer to have us believe.
Why quibble? Let's say that Microsoft has only a 5-year head start! Does that change the question I posed earlier? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better than Linux all along? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Here is a company with $100 billion in assets, several hundreds of full-time, highly-paid programers working under the guidance of a man who has been programming since 1968, bested by another man who wasn't even born until 1969.
You refuse to admit that micrsoft does actually make good software.
That wasn't the question; the question was, Who invents the technology that Microsoft sells?
Let me ask you this, do you really think marketing is the sole reason for Microsoft's success?
No, of course not; suing competitors into bankruptcy, stealing code, forcing retailers to agree to illegal resale agreements and just general dirty tricks, as well as more legitimate forms of craftiness, are at least as important as marketing for Microsoft's success. Oddly, the Conservatives are completely silent when Microsoft sues competitors into bankruptcy, but highly vocal with claims that competitors are trying to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy.
If you do then you should take a marketing class, then you will realize that it takes much more than good marketing to get to the point that Microsoft has.
I never claimed otherwise.
How many developers does Microsoft employ? I'm not really sure how many they have, but I am sure that it is a far smaller number than the OSS community has working on Linux alone... So using this argument why is it that many more developers working on a project can't make something far superior to Windows?
In time, I'm sure they could. The question is, why would you say that Microsoft already has fallen behind? There weren't always thousands of programmers working on Linux; at the start (in 1991), there was just Linus working by himself. Microsoft was already 16 years old when Linus began his project. Now, a mere 11 years later, you tell me that a group of informal, part-time programmers have cobbled together an OS that is better than Microsoft's full-time efforts.
You see, I would gladly accept Linux as my only operating system if it had four things that it really needs:
1: Better development tools
2: Easier configuration
3: Superior graphical user interface
4: More compatibility with native windows applications.
Fine, those are sufficient reasons. I'm glad that you have now chosen to address the question posed in the leading post of this thread.
In short you refuse to accept what normal people would call the rules of debate. It is much like trying to argue religion, when you see things so one-sidedly that you will never even consider other facts or make certain concessions there is no reason to even try to have a reasonable debate with you.
What most people call debate is really nothing more than spin and propaganda, and I won't accept it.
one more cheapshot, get a real ISP....... I have a hard time really respecting someone so vocal about the evils of big corporations when they choose to use AOL for their internet service.
Who said that AOL is my ISP? It isn't. I only use them for one of my e-mail addresses and a Web site. I bring my own Internet access, and I have many other connections to the Internet. But, you don't expect me to publish my more valuable e-mail addresses in a public forum, do you? I expect most of my junk mail to go to my AOL address, and that is the one I use most in public. I maintain my AOL connection because it has been active for several years, and people know where to find it.
BTW, I never said anything about "the evils of big corporations." I only discussed the evils of Microsoft. Is Strawman argumentation part of your approved method of debate?
sounds like they need a new standard for buses... where's intel to push a new one.
Here's a recent (November 13, 2002) news story:
"The PCI Special Interest Group (PCI-SIG), an industry consortium that includes representatives from Intel, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and other PC giants, said it has begun initial work to develop specifications for PCI-X 1066, the successor to the recent PCI-X 266 and PCI-X 533 specifications.
"The newest standard will allow PC components to exchange data at bandwidths of up to 8.5 gigabytes per second, compared with less than 1 gigabyte per second for current versions."
Yea, not to mention: Internet Explorer (netscape, opera)
I thought about including MS Internet Explorer, because it is such a great example of so much that is wrong with the business and society.
Microsoft Internet Explorer is based on the free-but-copyrighted code of Mosaic. If you go up to the "Help" button in IE and click on "About Internet Explorer," you will get the following blurb:
"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."
Now, at the time that Microsoft copied this code, Netscape had almost all the market share for Web browsers. But, what most people don't realize, a Web browser is only one side of the equation. There has to be a Web server on the other side, for the browser to work, by plugging into it and passing commands.
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh as this issue came to public attention. He asked what the problem was, when Netscape was also free. Apparently, Rush didn't understand that Netscape's browser was not free--it was shareware, which meant people could use it for a few weeks to see if they liked it, then register it for $75 or so. Netscape didn't worry itself too much whether users actually registered their copy of the browser. The real money was in the Web server software that Netscape sold.
Microsoft initially downplayed the importance of the Internet, completely ignoring it in public. It wasn't until it suddenly released its free Web browser (based on the copyrighted code it took from NCSA) that it acknowledged the Internet had a future. All the Lim-zombies cheered that Microsoft deserved market dominance, that if the local gas station were to give away gas, they would be right there to fill their tank, and so what if the competitors went bankrupt. To these people, the battle was entirely between Netscape's Web browser and Microsoft's Web browser. What the Limbaughites neglected was the Web server, where the real money was made.
Microsoft did its thing in the Web browser area, putting in proprietary codes that only its free browser could understand. More and more people began using Microsoft's Web browser, which wouldn't work very well with Netscape's servers. Of course, Netscape's browsers wouldn't work very well with Microsoft's Web server, either. The solution to resolving this stalemate was getting people to use Microsoft's browser, instead of Netscape's, and the key was, of course, illegal bundling of Microsoft's browser with Microsoft's OS. Long before the courts ever reached a verdict, Netscape went bankrupt, and all those Libertarians and talk show hosts were too ignorant to know what happened. Microsoft's lawsuit was trimmed back to little more than a promise not to do it again, and the Conservatives (most of them, anyway, for I am a Conservative) cheered the success of the free market system and its level playing field. What a bunch of morons!
That's a cop-out. If your argument has merit, you need to support it. Your statement looks like you simply refuse to acknowledge the weakness of your own argument, and the strength of mine.
First off, I'm not arguing where their ideas / peices of source code come from, I'm only saying that they almost never take something without making significant changes to it (and these are generally very self serving, ie. make it work the way we want it to and the users want it to)
Why do you differentiate between "we" and "users" in your statement?
I would appreciate it if you would provide an example, because I am at a loss for one. In the examples I provided, Microsoft did not change the way the user interacts with the programs. Many of the changes that Microsoft makes to software is not to improve functionality, but to break compatibility (i.e., make the code proprietary).
This entire thread is entitled "What's keeping you on Windows?" From reading the comments below, it seems that quality is a major player here.
Quality has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft is "leveraging" other people's work.
Wow! I never knew that Microsoft was started around 1954! Because you do know that Linux is just another Unix [www.cnam.fr] (ohhhhh, gonna get flamed for that one) varient,
You should be flamed, because Linux is not a UNIX variant. Linux is POSIX-compliant, and all POSIX-compliant OSes can interchange software (after recompiling). Coincidentally, most versions of UNIX are also POSIX-compliant. However, it is possible to make any OS POSIX-compliant (including Microsoft Windows). That doesn't mean those OSes are variations of UNIX. None of the code in Linux came from UNIX. Linux was written from scratch.
"Linux is not Unix! Unix is a proprietary OS, and its code can only be licensed by large companies. Linux is close to Unix in terms of architecture, because the same concepts were used to design both OS's. Linux is POSIX* compatible, so it is able to run the same software as the other Unix variants (HP-UX from Hewlett-Packard, AIX from IBM or Solaris from Sun for example); you just have to recompile your source code on a Linux machine."
and Unix was first created in 1969 by Ken Thompson.... Or maybe you did'nt know that and you really did think all this started in 1995......
Actually, Linus began working on his OS in 1991:
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
"Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things). I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work....
"PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs."
I wouldn't take such a shitty tone, but you're attacking my intelligence and creditability here and I don't take that so very lightly.
I am not intending to attack you personally, but I am sensitive to the mis-portrayal of the computer industry by certain political segments. My own sister, who otherwise knew virtually nothing about computers, dogmatically asserted to me that the only reason that Microsoft was being sued was its competitors were jealous. The reason she took that position is her conservative leadership told her these things, and she believed them. This is the same line that Rush Limbaugh and Libertarian commentators take-- and it's all political hysteria, spread by people who don't know and usually don't care about the accuracy of their statements.
: 1) Is it just the 'vocal minority' that favors alternate OSes over Linux
Probably only a minority of people favor alternate OSes over Linux. I am one of that number, but I am highly aware of the those other people. My observation of them leads me to believe that they favor Microsoft Windows either out of ignorance (maybe they don't know what an OS is) or job security (administering a Windows box requires specialized skill, which means the Windows-certified professional has a secure job in the Windows world), with most people having little concern beyond not having to buy and learn a whole new way of doing things.
2) if not, what's keeping you from 'putting your money where your mouth is' - why are you using Windows?
I have always been a fan of alternate systems. I ran my old computer on Novell's DR-DOS for several years, before finally breaking down and buying Windows 95. The processors that run my computers have been either Cyrix or AMD. About two years ago, I became so disgusted with Windows crashes that I vowed I would move to another OS, no matter what it took. Yet, I just bought a copy of Windows XP. Why?
The main reason I still use Microsoft Windows is that I am highly familiar with both the product and the design philosophy of the product. I have been using PC-compatible computers since 1988, and it is difficult for me to get used to Linux. I have tried. I own over a half-dozen distributions of Linux, starting with RedHat 5.1 and going up to SuSE 7.2 Pro. I also have a copy of BeOS... for that matter, I have a copy of OS/2 Warp 3. I have never been able to get any alternate OS to function as it is supposed to function. I have spent several evenings trying to get simple things (like connection to the Internet) working, knowing the entire time that I could get it to work in a half-hour with Windows. It's not that Windows is that much better; it's just that I know it that much better.
Recently, I decided to back up all of my pictures and home movies to a bootable hard drive. I tried using a few distributions of Linux, besides BeOS (and OS/2 Warp), but I could not get them to work correctly. SuSE installed OK, but I am not comfortable partitioning drives under it, and it does not correctly play most of the movies I've collected. If it has anything as functional as ACDSee, I don't know about it (no, The Gimp is not it). Meanwhile, I have about 2 Gig of photographs that I took that are waiting on a portable drive, with another Meg or 2 added each week. After a few weeks of experimenting, I finally broke down and ordered the cheapest copy of Windows XP Home I could find.
I am required to use Windows in my workplace. I recently asked the head of the IT Department which version of Windows they planned to use for the near future, as I am considering certification (or, at least, training). He told me to get Windows XP, as the company would be moving to that in the near future.
Many of my friends at work have Windows XP on their home machine. Only a few try alternate OSes. One is a Linux guru; another is an Amiga fan. Both also use Windows.
Assertion: "What _new_ technology has M$ made? They only steal technology from others, bastardize it, then pass it off as there own."
Rebuttal: If by bastardize it you mean change it to suit their needs, the needs of their users, and make several big improvements - you are very right...
I am not certain where you are coming from, but it is an indisputable fact that Microsoft rarely (if ever) invents the technology that it markets. Back in the mid-90s, industry pundits used the term, "leveraging" to describe this behavior. Examples are, of necessity, numerous. Here are a few examples off the top of my head, that every computer hobbiest should know:
1) DOS and Windows both contain code originally written by Digital Research for CP/M. In fact, DOS is a CP/M clone, re-compiled for the 16-bit microcomputer.
"on July 24, 1996, Caldera Inc. filed a private Federal Antitrust Lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for alleged illegal activities and unfair practices in the marketing of MS-DOS and its successors, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, both of which are still Digital Research CP/M at their essential core. The lawsuit was settled out of court in January 2000 at which time Microsoft Corporation agreed to certain terms and paid certain funds to Caldera Inc."
2) Visual Basic was derived from the work of Alan Cooper (aka, "The Father of Visual Basic"), who had created a new Windows shell he called, "Tripod." Microsoft bought Tripod from Alan Cooper and code named it, "Ruby."
3) File compression had a rough birth into Microsoft's official OS distribution. Originally, Microsoft did not offer any data compression utilities, but several other companies did. One company, named, "Stac," lent their disk compression utility for Microsoft to evaluate. Microsoft included Stac's code in MS-DOS 6.0, but Stac sued, claiming that there was no licensing agreement for distribution (IBM also included Stac's code in PC-DOS, but they had a distribution license, and so were not sued). The two companies settled out of court. Microsoft initially pulled its disk compression software off the market, but then returned it after the settlement.
You see, the problem with your comment is that it's way too left-wing to ever be completely true
Left Wing or not, he is reasonably accurate.
while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software,
Stating that Microsoft has not invented the technology it markets is not the same thing as claiming that the quality of their product is poor.
which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues.
Considering that Microsoft had about a 15-year head start over Linux, you make a sad statement.
Then why do you have a picture of the ISS on your home page?
Technically, that's not a picture of the ISS; it is a picture of Space Station "Freedom."
Leaving the technicality aside, I have the picture for the ideals it connotes. I have always supported space exploration, and I even favor a space station. What bothers me is the uselessness of the current station, and the severe cost over-runs that likely will render the station useless for several years. Even before the station launched, many scientists questioned its usefulness, but now that such things as the centrifuge and enlarged crew compartments have been cut, even the station's proponents have largely stopped talking about meaningful science from the project.
Really, I can not belive the ignorance and downright stupidity of your posts.
Those who couldn't hear the music thought those who danced were crazy.
Equating socialism with terrorism??? Really, give me a break.
Why do you find the idea so difficult to believe? The Arab world is entirely Socialistic, despite its religious orientation. Iraq, itself, its ruled by the Ba`th Arab Socialist Party, of which Saddam Hussein is the Party Leader. Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, Socialists were the primary instigators of civil unrest, and, even today, it is likely that any group that encourages civil unrest or hostility has Socialistic leanings.
Saying that the US is better than any other country in the world based on vacations to a handful of countries which lasted two weeks or less??? Again, give me a break.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that I have no other exposure to the dimensions of other countries than just my own brief visits.
If you can name a greater nation than the US, please make your case for it. Otherwise, your sneering is nothing more than your own shock at meeting a different idea.
Spending 2 weeks in a country and having the nerve to pass such judgement on it's people reveals how desperately hollow your perception of the world really is.
Have you ever even left the town in which you were born? How many countries outside of Europe have *you* visited?
(Europe counts as one, because it is close to impossible to travel 1000 miles in a straight line path and remain inside a single European country, unless you count Russia as a European country, or you travel from tip-to-tip of Sweden.)
Your complaint is empty, because the fact remains that I *have* gotten out and seen a lot more of the world than 98% of either Europeans or Americans ever will, much less the rest of the world, and you still throw stones and me.
in the last 300 years Denmark produced way much culture, art, ecologism and care for the common people than US
How conveniant for you that the items you listed do not lend themselves to objective measure, and so you can feel safe in your opinion, no matter how absurd your opinion might be.
you have some incredibly ignorant, right-wing views, my friend. i suggest travelling outside the US and reading some books instead of swallowing CNN and US propaganda.
I spent 2 years in Guam, 3 months in Italy, 2 weeks in France, 2 weeks in Israel, 2 weeks in Spain, 2 weeks in Mexico and about a day in Canada. None of those places are even half as good as the US.
i lived in denmark for 6 months - it describes itself as a "socialist democracy", which could be best paraphrased as "we look after the people first". seriously, you do not see the poverty and crummy state of civil infrastructure that are commonplace in certain parts of the states, you just don't. everyone has automatic access to health care, noone starves on the streets, violent crime is incredibly low. how is that bad?
You want to compare Denmark to the US, fine, let's compare them:
Denmark - Total area: 43k square kilometers
US - Total area: 9629k square kilometers
Denmark - GDP: $128 billion
US - GDP: $9255 billion
Denmark - Unemployment (1999): 5.7%
US - Unemployment (1999): 4.2%
You have chosen to compare the worst areas of the US with the few areas of Denmark you saw. Can you tell me why your comparison might not be reasonable?
Tell me; what has Denmark done in, say, the last 300 years that is of world-wide significance? Ask the same question of the US, then compare the two lists. The US easily overwhelms anything that Denmark has done. Denmark could fall off the face of the Earth today, and it wouldn't make any difference to almost anyone outside Europe. If the US disappeared, however, the world's largest economy would disappear with it, along with the world's primary source of invention and innovation. Frankly, the world would be plunged into another Dark Ages without the US.
the US spends more money on defense than the next 9 in the top ten list combined.
Whose planes are patrolling the UN no-fly zones in Iraq? Which nation had the largest military in Bosnia during the war? Whose military protected Kuwait when Iraq invaded? Whose military restored a free society to Afghanistan? Whose military provides the primary protection of the UN Headquarters?
i would think that equitable access to healthcare is more important than having the most bombs, wouldn't you agree?
That is not the role of government. The US Constitution spells out that one role of government is to provide for national defense. There is not a word about health care.
GW Bush's propsed 2003 military budget is US$378bn, which is something like US$43bn more than last year.
And what do we have to show for our military spending? We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time.
FYI, Bush had nothing to do with the US bombing Serbia, and Bush's proposed 2003 budget certainly had nothing to do with it.
The Pentagon couldn't even protect itself from relatively slow-moving passenger aircraft, even when given a 30 minute warning.
If Bill Clinton had done his job as President, the attacks on the US would not have happened (at least not in 2001). Bill Clinton drastically cut the US military budget. It will take years for the military to recover from that. Thus, it is outrageous for you to blame Bush's 2003 budget for the 2001 attack.
We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, including first aid warehouses and wedding parties, and it appears that terrorist organizations still have the upper hand.
The Taliban is out of power and the US has full access to any part of Afghanistan it desires to explore. OBL hasn't been seen or heard from in months, and is presumed dead.
As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).
At least with the space station there are many nations *talking* and *cooperating* to at least some extent.
You seem to think the ISS is the reason, instead of just one product. The nations building ISS have been talking and cooperating long before ISS came together.
That is, ISS does much more to make friends than the B2 stealth bomber does.
ISS isn't making friends. It isn't converting enemies. It is just a waste of money and a serious burden on everyone's economy. Even the idiot Socialists know that when an economy gets dragged under by boondoggle programs, it makes the world less friendly. In that way, ISS is hurting friendships.
Why do we spend so much money to protect ourselves from enemies when making friends is so cheap?
Iraq doesn't care about ISS. The Taliban would not care about the ISS. Al Quada does not care about ISS. Your argument is senseless.
It's good that you said in general, because Items 1 through 6 you listed are only true of *other* space projects, not the ISS.
1) Research Investements
It looks increasingly unlikely that any significant research will ever be performed on the ISS; extremely unlikely that $100 billion dollars-worth of research will be. What research is done probably could have been done more cheaply by other means.
2) Engineering Investments
OK, we have a works program, which is actually corporate welfare.
3) Inspirational Exploration
I think we need to get our inspiration along more practical lines.
4) Inspirational Art
5) Occasionally Profitable
ISS is never going to be profitable.
and for the space station in particular,
6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".
That could be a reason that the project is such a gross waste of money, time and effort.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- USA Today's Web page was hacked Thursday night in what a spokesman for the newspaper described as a 'prankish and immaturish' act.
"The site, which went online in 1995, had never before been hacked, Anderson said.
"The newspaper is investigating but has no clues to who might have done it, he added."
Wow! What a mystery! I wonder who could possible have done it? Aren't all the hackers listening to lectures right now?
Slashdot Mirror
Who said that a picture has to use light? Anyway, we have taken pictures of individual atoms using optical photography.
Writing With Atoms
Imaging Atoms at Sub-Angstrom Resolution with a Corrected Electron Microscope
Bell Labs researchers invent technique for imaging single impurity atoms within silicon
Imaging Bose-Einstein Condensates
Trapped Atoms Photo
Single Atoms in a MOT
You mean like the way we get trivia lists and stupid songs stuck in our heads, but can't remember the answers to a final exam?
It is a duplicate story. I haven't read the page since July, but I remember reading their explanation for the "Descending/Ascending" tower from back in July. The Escher material was on the page in July. I'm sorry if all you people missed it back then.
How about if I proclaim myself a psychic? I haven't read the Escher material from the current post, but I can tell you what it contains. It explains, in the illustration of the people walking around the square tower, how there is actually a gap in the tower, and the photograph has to be taken from a certain angle to see the illusion of the Escher painting. How is it possible that I would know that, when I haven't read that page since July? Am I psychic? Or, is this really a repost of the exact same material?
This is a repost of a /. article from July 2:
Mathematical Lego Sculptures
Open Mind Commonsense: Teaching computers the stuff we all know
I'm guessing that not many of you wonder if my post was generated by a computer. You may not like what I've written, but you know there is no way that any AI bot could be as fluid--to say nothing of coherent--in its language as I am.
The "Policeman's Beard," was largely prefab
Where the hell did I ever say that I think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as linux?
Your statement on Friday, November 15, @ 09:31PM was:
"while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software, which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues."
(emphasis mine)
I interpret the phrase, "starting to rival Linux" to mean that Windows is not as good as Linux.
How in the hell did you get a five year head start for microsoft? I'm saying that Unix had a full 20 year headstart over windows, or linux had a full 8 year headstart over Windows XP.
Ah, yes, I misread your statement. Please forgive me.
I must, then, point out that you have a most peculiar way of looking at things. You would have us believe that Linux had a head start on Windows XP, even though Microsoft was founded in 1975, and even though Microsoft produced XENIX (a UNIX clone) in 1980, both of which were long before Linus Torvald began writing code for Linux. Again, Linux is not UNIX, and was written completely from scratch, beginning in 1991. It looks to me like Microsoft had a lot more time to develop their code leading up to Windows XP than Linus had for his code.
You are highly intent on arguing, but you are wandering from point-to-point in your efforts. You lack coherency. The original statement was,
"What _new_ technology has M$ made? They only steal technology from others, bastardize it, then pass it off as there own."
You haven't done anything to show that Microsoft develops its own technology, rather than copying it from others.
"New York , N.Y. - 01/15/2001 -- Fujitsu-ICL Systems Inc. announced today the Liberator, a new Linux-based point-of-sale software solution that supports and enhances existing IBM 4690 point-of-sale (POS) supermarket applications. The combination of Liberator and the Fujitsu TeamPoS(r) 2000 POS terminal gives supermarket retailers using IBM 4690 systems a low-risk POS hardware alternative that reduces costs, adds power and graphics, and provides an open systems environment. Liberator, available in March, is the first Linux offering from Fujitsu-ICL."
Fujitsu Liberator gives retailers open-systems options for IBM 4690 POS systems
The question is not about how similar Linux is to UNIX; the question is, How odd is your statement that you think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as Linux? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better all along?
As a matter of a fact, since it was only roughly based on Unix (read minix for the hopelessly anal) your argument that it was actually started around 1991 (the first public announcement and availability) then obviously Windows XP (which uses only small parts of the previous software)
That's not what Microsoft claims--they claim that Windows XP is based on the Windows NT core. BTW, Windows NT is POSIX-complient, meaning that it should be possible to run UNIX software on Windows NT with a simple recompile. Of course, there actually is not such thing as perfect portability, so some code twiddling would still be necessary.
was started in 1999, therefore linux still has a full eight year head start, not the fifteen year gap favoring Microsoft that you would prefer to have us believe.
Why quibble? Let's say that Microsoft has only a 5-year head start! Does that change the question I posed earlier? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better than Linux all along? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Here is a company with $100 billion in assets, several hundreds of full-time, highly-paid programers working under the guidance of a man who has been programming since 1968, bested by another man who wasn't even born until 1969.
You refuse to admit that micrsoft does actually make good software.
That wasn't the question; the question was, Who invents the technology that Microsoft sells?
Let me ask you this, do you really think marketing is the sole reason for Microsoft's success?
No, of course not; suing competitors into bankruptcy, stealing code, forcing retailers to agree to illegal resale agreements and just general dirty tricks, as well as more legitimate forms of craftiness, are at least as important as marketing for Microsoft's success. Oddly, the Conservatives are completely silent when Microsoft sues competitors into bankruptcy, but highly vocal with claims that competitors are trying to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy.
If you do then you should take a marketing class, then you will realize that it takes much more than good marketing to get to the point that Microsoft has.
I never claimed otherwise.
How many developers does Microsoft employ? I'm not really sure how many they have, but I am sure that it is a far smaller number than the OSS community has working on Linux alone... So using this argument why is it that many more developers working on a project can't make something far superior to Windows?
In time, I'm sure they could. The question is, why would you say that Microsoft already has fallen behind? There weren't always thousands of programmers working on Linux; at the start (in 1991), there was just Linus working by himself. Microsoft was already 16 years old when Linus began his project. Now, a mere 11 years later, you tell me that a group of informal, part-time programmers have cobbled together an OS that is better than Microsoft's full-time efforts.
You see, I would gladly accept Linux as my only operating system if it had four things that it really needs:
1: Better development tools
2: Easier configuration
3: Superior graphical user interface
4: More compatibility with native windows applications.
Fine, those are sufficient reasons. I'm glad that you have now chosen to address the question posed in the leading post of this thread.
In short you refuse to accept what normal people would call the rules of debate. It is much like trying to argue religion, when you see things so one-sidedly that you will never even consider other facts or make certain concessions there is no reason to even try to have a reasonable debate with you.
What most people call debate is really nothing more than spin and propaganda, and I won't accept it.
one more cheapshot, get a real ISP....... I have a hard time really respecting someone so vocal about the evils of big corporations when they choose to use AOL for their internet service.
Who said that AOL is my ISP? It isn't. I only use them for one of my e-mail addresses and a Web site. I bring my own Internet access, and I have many other connections to the Internet. But, you don't expect me to publish my more valuable e-mail addresses in a public forum, do you? I expect most of my junk mail to go to my AOL address, and that is the one I use most in public. I maintain my AOL connection because it has been active for several years, and people know where to find it.
BTW, I never said anything about "the evils of big corporations." I only discussed the evils of Microsoft. Is Strawman argumentation part of your approved method of debate?
Here's a recent (November 13, 2002) news story:
"The PCI Special Interest Group (PCI-SIG), an industry consortium that includes representatives from Intel, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and other PC giants, said it has begun initial work to develop specifications for PCI-X 1066, the successor to the recent PCI-X 266 and PCI-X 533 specifications.
"The newest standard will allow PC components to exchange data at bandwidths of up to 8.5 gigabytes per second, compared with less than 1 gigabyte per second for current versions."
PCI connections to put in double duty
I thought about including MS Internet Explorer, because it is such a great example of so much that is wrong with the business and society.
Microsoft Internet Explorer is based on the free-but-copyrighted code of Mosaic. If you go up to the "Help" button in IE and click on "About Internet Explorer," you will get the following blurb:
"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."
Now, at the time that Microsoft copied this code, Netscape had almost all the market share for Web browsers. But, what most people don't realize, a Web browser is only one side of the equation. There has to be a Web server on the other side, for the browser to work, by plugging into it and passing commands.
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh as this issue came to public attention. He asked what the problem was, when Netscape was also free. Apparently, Rush didn't understand that Netscape's browser was not free--it was shareware, which meant people could use it for a few weeks to see if they liked it, then register it for $75 or so. Netscape didn't worry itself too much whether users actually registered their copy of the browser. The real money was in the Web server software that Netscape sold.
Microsoft initially downplayed the importance of the Internet, completely ignoring it in public. It wasn't until it suddenly released its free Web browser (based on the copyrighted code it took from NCSA) that it acknowledged the Internet had a future. All the Lim-zombies cheered that Microsoft deserved market dominance, that if the local gas station were to give away gas, they would be right there to fill their tank, and so what if the competitors went bankrupt. To these people, the battle was entirely between Netscape's Web browser and Microsoft's Web browser. What the Limbaughites neglected was the Web server, where the real money was made.
Microsoft did its thing in the Web browser area, putting in proprietary codes that only its free browser could understand. More and more people began using Microsoft's Web browser, which wouldn't work very well with Netscape's servers. Of course, Netscape's browsers wouldn't work very well with Microsoft's Web server, either. The solution to resolving this stalemate was getting people to use Microsoft's browser, instead of Netscape's, and the key was, of course, illegal bundling of Microsoft's browser with Microsoft's OS. Long before the courts ever reached a verdict, Netscape went bankrupt, and all those Libertarians and talk show hosts were too ignorant to know what happened. Microsoft's lawsuit was trimmed back to little more than a promise not to do it again, and the Conservatives (most of them, anyway, for I am a Conservative) cheered the success of the free market system and its level playing field. What a bunch of morons!
That's a cop-out. If your argument has merit, you need to support it. Your statement looks like you simply refuse to acknowledge the weakness of your own argument, and the strength of mine.
Why do you differentiate between "we" and "users" in your statement?
I would appreciate it if you would provide an example, because I am at a loss for one. In the examples I provided, Microsoft did not change the way the user interacts with the programs. Many of the changes that Microsoft makes to software is not to improve functionality, but to break compatibility (i.e., make the code proprietary).
This entire thread is entitled "What's keeping you on Windows?" From reading the comments below, it seems that quality is a major player here.
Quality has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft is "leveraging" other people's work.
Wow! I never knew that Microsoft was started around 1954! Because you do know that Linux is just another Unix [www.cnam.fr] (ohhhhh, gonna get flamed for that one) varient,
You should be flamed, because Linux is not a UNIX variant. Linux is POSIX-compliant, and all POSIX-compliant OSes can interchange software (after recompiling). Coincidentally, most versions of UNIX are also POSIX-compliant. However, it is possible to make any OS POSIX-compliant (including Microsoft Windows). That doesn't mean those OSes are variations of UNIX. None of the code in Linux came from UNIX. Linux was written from scratch.
"Linux is not Unix! Unix is a proprietary OS, and its code can only be licensed by large companies. Linux is close to Unix in terms of architecture, because the same concepts were used to design both OS's. Linux is POSIX* compatible, so it is able to run the same software as the other Unix variants (HP-UX from Hewlett-Packard, AIX from IBM or Solaris from Sun for example); you just have to recompile your source code on a Linux machine."
Linux Pages for Beginners
and Unix was first created in 1969 by Ken Thompson.... Or maybe you did'nt know that and you really did think all this started in 1995......
Actually, Linus began working on his OS in 1991:
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
"Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things). I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work....
"PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs."
History of Linux
I wouldn't take such a shitty tone, but you're attacking my intelligence and creditability here and I don't take that so very lightly.
I am not intending to attack you personally, but I am sensitive to the mis-portrayal of the computer industry by certain political segments. My own sister, who otherwise knew virtually nothing about computers, dogmatically asserted to me that the only reason that Microsoft was being sued was its competitors were jealous. The reason she took that position is her conservative leadership told her these things, and she believed them. This is the same line that Rush Limbaugh and Libertarian commentators take-- and it's all political hysteria, spread by people who don't know and usually don't care about the accuracy of their statements.
Probably only a minority of people favor alternate OSes over Linux. I am one of that number, but I am highly aware of the those other people. My observation of them leads me to believe that they favor Microsoft Windows either out of ignorance (maybe they don't know what an OS is) or job security (administering a Windows box requires specialized skill, which means the Windows-certified professional has a secure job in the Windows world), with most people having little concern beyond not having to buy and learn a whole new way of doing things.
2) if not, what's keeping you from 'putting your money where your mouth is' - why are you using Windows?
I have always been a fan of alternate systems. I ran my old computer on Novell's DR-DOS for several years, before finally breaking down and buying Windows 95. The processors that run my computers have been either Cyrix or AMD. About two years ago, I became so disgusted with Windows crashes that I vowed I would move to another OS, no matter what it took. Yet, I just bought a copy of Windows XP. Why?
The main reason I still use Microsoft Windows is that I am highly familiar with both the product and the design philosophy of the product. I have been using PC-compatible computers since 1988, and it is difficult for me to get used to Linux. I have tried. I own over a half-dozen distributions of Linux, starting with RedHat 5.1 and going up to SuSE 7.2 Pro. I also have a copy of BeOS... for that matter, I have a copy of OS/2 Warp 3. I have never been able to get any alternate OS to function as it is supposed to function. I have spent several evenings trying to get simple things (like connection to the Internet) working, knowing the entire time that I could get it to work in a half-hour with Windows. It's not that Windows is that much better; it's just that I know it that much better.
Recently, I decided to back up all of my pictures and home movies to a bootable hard drive. I tried using a few distributions of Linux, besides BeOS (and OS/2 Warp), but I could not get them to work correctly. SuSE installed OK, but I am not comfortable partitioning drives under it, and it does not correctly play most of the movies I've collected. If it has anything as functional as ACDSee, I don't know about it (no, The Gimp is not it). Meanwhile, I have about 2 Gig of photographs that I took that are waiting on a portable drive, with another Meg or 2 added each week. After a few weeks of experimenting, I finally broke down and ordered the cheapest copy of Windows XP Home I could find.
I am required to use Windows in my workplace. I recently asked the head of the IT Department which version of Windows they planned to use for the near future, as I am considering certification (or, at least, training). He told me to get Windows XP, as the company would be moving to that in the near future.
Many of my friends at work have Windows XP on their home machine. Only a few try alternate OSes. One is a Linux guru; another is an Amiga fan. Both also use Windows.
Rebuttal: If by bastardize it you mean change it to suit their needs, the needs of their users, and make several big improvements - you are very right...
I am not certain where you are coming from, but it is an indisputable fact that Microsoft rarely (if ever) invents the technology that it markets. Back in the mid-90s, industry pundits used the term, "leveraging" to describe this behavior. Examples are, of necessity, numerous. Here are a few examples off the top of my head, that every computer hobbiest should know:
1) DOS and Windows both contain code originally written by Digital Research for CP/M. In fact, DOS is a CP/M clone, re-compiled for the 16-bit microcomputer.
"on July 24, 1996, Caldera Inc. filed a private Federal Antitrust Lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for alleged illegal activities and unfair practices in the marketing of MS-DOS and its successors, including Windows 95 and Windows 98, both of which are still Digital Research CP/M at their essential core. The lawsuit was settled out of court in January 2000 at which time Microsoft Corporation agreed to certain terms and paid certain funds to Caldera Inc."
CP/M: The First PC Operating System
2) Visual Basic was derived from the work of Alan Cooper (aka, "The Father of Visual Basic"), who had created a new Windows shell he called, "Tripod." Microsoft bought Tripod from Alan Cooper and code named it, "Ruby."
Why I am called "the Father of Visual Basic"
3) File compression had a rough birth into Microsoft's official OS distribution. Originally, Microsoft did not offer any data compression utilities, but several other companies did. One company, named, "Stac," lent their disk compression utility for Microsoft to evaluate. Microsoft included Stac's code in MS-DOS 6.0, but Stac sued, claiming that there was no licensing agreement for distribution (IBM also included Stac's code in PC-DOS, but they had a distribution license, and so were not sued). The two companies settled out of court. Microsoft initially pulled its disk compression software off the market, but then returned it after the settlement.
You see, the problem with your comment is that it's way too left-wing to ever be completely true
Left Wing or not, he is reasonably accurate.
while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software,
Stating that Microsoft has not invented the technology it markets is not the same thing as claiming that the quality of their product is poor.
which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues.
Considering that Microsoft had about a 15-year head start over Linux, you make a sad statement.
Pooua: "I think you are wrong."
Then why do you have a picture of the ISS on your home page?
Technically, that's not a picture of the ISS; it is a picture of Space Station "Freedom."
Leaving the technicality aside, I have the picture for the ideals it connotes. I have always supported space exploration, and I even favor a space station. What bothers me is the uselessness of the current station, and the severe cost over-runs that likely will render the station useless for several years. Even before the station launched, many scientists questioned its usefulness, but now that such things as the centrifuge and enlarged crew compartments have been cut, even the station's proponents have largely stopped talking about meaningful science from the project.
Really, I can not belive the ignorance and downright stupidity of your posts.
Those who couldn't hear the music thought those who danced were crazy.
Equating socialism with terrorism??? Really, give me a break.
Why do you find the idea so difficult to believe? The Arab world is entirely Socialistic, despite its religious orientation. Iraq, itself, its ruled by the Ba`th Arab Socialist Party, of which Saddam Hussein is the Party Leader. Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, Socialists were the primary instigators of civil unrest, and, even today, it is likely that any group that encourages civil unrest or hostility has Socialistic leanings.
You might want to have a look at:
Arab Socialism. [Al-IshtirakIyah Al-Arabiyah] (Romanized Form): A Documentary Survey
Saying that the US is better than any other country in the world based on vacations to a handful of countries which lasted two weeks or less??? Again, give me a break.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that I have no other exposure to the dimensions of other countries than just my own brief visits.
If you can name a greater nation than the US, please make your case for it. Otherwise, your sneering is nothing more than your own shock at meeting a different idea.
[snip]
Have you ever even left the town in which you were born? How many countries outside of Europe have *you* visited?
(Europe counts as one, because it is close to impossible to travel 1000 miles in a straight line path and remain inside a single European country, unless you count Russia as a European country, or you travel from tip-to-tip of Sweden.)
Your complaint is empty, because the fact remains that I *have* gotten out and seen a lot more of the world than 98% of either Europeans or Americans ever will, much less the rest of the world, and you still throw stones and me.
How conveniant for you that the items you listed do not lend themselves to objective measure, and so you can feel safe in your opinion, no matter how absurd your opinion might be.
I spent 2 years in Guam, 3 months in Italy, 2 weeks in France, 2 weeks in Israel, 2 weeks in Spain, 2 weeks in Mexico and about a day in Canada. None of those places are even half as good as the US.
i lived in denmark for 6 months - it describes itself as a "socialist democracy", which could be best paraphrased as "we look after the people first". seriously, you do not see the poverty and crummy state of civil infrastructure that are commonplace in certain parts of the states, you just don't. everyone has automatic access to health care, noone starves on the streets, violent crime is incredibly low. how is that bad?
You want to compare Denmark to the US, fine, let's compare them:
Denmark - Total area: 43k square kilometers
US - Total area: 9629k square kilometers
Denmark - GDP: $128 billion
US - GDP: $9255 billion
Denmark - Unemployment (1999): 5.7%
US - Unemployment (1999): 4.2%
You have chosen to compare the worst areas of the US with the few areas of Denmark you saw. Can you tell me why your comparison might not be reasonable?
Tell me; what has Denmark done in, say, the last 300 years that is of world-wide significance? Ask the same question of the US, then compare the two lists. The US easily overwhelms anything that Denmark has done. Denmark could fall off the face of the Earth today, and it wouldn't make any difference to almost anyone outside Europe. If the US disappeared, however, the world's largest economy would disappear with it, along with the world's primary source of invention and innovation. Frankly, the world would be plunged into another Dark Ages without the US.
the US spends more money on defense than the next 9 in the top ten list combined.
Whose planes are patrolling the UN no-fly zones in Iraq? Which nation had the largest military in Bosnia during the war? Whose military protected Kuwait when Iraq invaded? Whose military restored a free society to Afghanistan? Whose military provides the primary protection of the UN Headquarters?
i would think that equitable access to healthcare is more important than having the most bombs, wouldn't you agree?
That is not the role of government. The US Constitution spells out that one role of government is to provide for national defense. There is not a word about health care.
And what do we have to show for our military spending? We successfully (?) bombed Serbia during peace-time.
FYI, Bush had nothing to do with the US bombing Serbia, and Bush's proposed 2003 budget certainly had nothing to do with it.
The Pentagon couldn't even protect itself from relatively slow-moving passenger aircraft, even when given a 30 minute warning.
If Bill Clinton had done his job as President, the attacks on the US would not have happened (at least not in 2001). Bill Clinton drastically cut the US military budget. It will take years for the military to recover from that. Thus, it is outrageous for you to blame Bush's 2003 budget for the 2001 attack.
We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan, including first aid warehouses and wedding parties, and it appears that terrorist organizations still have the upper hand.
The Taliban is out of power and the US has full access to any part of Afghanistan it desires to explore. OBL hasn't been seen or heard from in months, and is presumed dead.
As for destroying al Quada and worldwide terrorism, that won't be accomplished until Socialism has been destroyed. The terrorists of the world are Socialists, and that includes Iraq (which is the reason Socialist nations--such as France and Germany--oppose effective action against Iraq).
At least with the space station there are many nations *talking* and *cooperating* to at least some extent.
You seem to think the ISS is the reason, instead of just one product. The nations building ISS have been talking and cooperating long before ISS came together.
That is, ISS does much more to make friends than the B2 stealth bomber does.
ISS isn't making friends. It isn't converting enemies. It is just a waste of money and a serious burden on everyone's economy. Even the idiot Socialists know that when an economy gets dragged under by boondoggle programs, it makes the world less friendly. In that way, ISS is hurting friendships.
Why do we spend so much money to protect ourselves from enemies when making friends is so cheap?
Iraq doesn't care about ISS. The Taliban would not care about the ISS. Al Quada does not care about ISS. Your argument is senseless.
I think the ISS is a damn good investment.
I think you are wrong.
It's good that you said in general, because Items 1 through 6 you listed are only true of *other* space projects, not the ISS.
1) Research Investements It looks increasingly unlikely that any significant research will ever be performed on the ISS; extremely unlikely that $100 billion dollars-worth of research will be. What research is done probably could have been done more cheaply by other means.
2) Engineering Investments
OK, we have a works program, which is actually corporate welfare.
3) Inspirational Exploration
I think we need to get our inspiration along more practical lines.
4) Inspirational Art
5) Occasionally Profitable
ISS is never going to be profitable.
and for the space station in particular,
6) The one place Americans have restrained themselves and not taken "unilateral action".
That could be a reason that the project is such a gross waste of money, time and effort.
So using this, theoretically you can print using your digital camera directly on your printer
Couldn't the camera simply act as the host?
My USB-base Olympus C-3040 already allows for this (though I've never used it).
"The site, which went online in 1995, had never before been hacked, Anderson said.
"The newspaper is investigating but has no clues to who might have done it, he added."
Wow! What a mystery! I wonder who could possible have done it? Aren't all the hackers listening to lectures right now?