The BIOS would also allow better control of unauthorised devices connected to a system, Microsoft said.
To Microsoft, Linux is an unauthorized device. If you use one of these devices, you will eventually not be able to boot Linux without going to prison for a DMCA violation.
Most of the significant development on GCC is performed by Red Hat Linux employees.
Or maybe not. I suspect it was IBM employees who put the PowerPC 970 support into GCC. I suspect this is a rather significant enhancement, since it allows 64-bit and mixed 32/64 bit operations. And this is not just an academic development, since gcc is the default compiler supplied with Macintosh.
No one wants campaign finance "reform" more than the major media companies. Because the "reforms" that everyone talks about would turn total control of who gets to use the mass media over to the media. As it is now, even the people who are not popular with the media moguls get to be heard because they can spend money, and the media are forced to sell them ads. Once you put in your "reforms", anyone who is not being supported by either Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch will completely disappear from any coverage at all.
And the best part? They won't have to spend any money to bribe elected officials, all they have to do is give them some attention, and they'll own them. Only it will be from the day they start considering whether to run, not from the day they get elected.
At least two people will be fairly represented. None of the rest of us though.
But they did get a return on their investment. They got rid of the people they shipped off, without taking the political hit they would have suffered by simply putting bullets in the backs of their heads. At that point, it was good enough a return.
They say it couldn't be repaired in space. Why didn't we leave them up there until either it could be repaired, or they could be brought down another way? It just doesn't make any sense. Stupid NASA. There is no excuse.
They say it couldn't be repaired in space because there is nothing that could be used to repair it that would have survived entry any better than the broken tile did. They don't have spare tiles to replace each individually machined piece, and they don't have the kiln and machining tools necessary to replace them. They don't have a caulk to just squirt over the crack because there is no caulk that would work. Moreover, if it were a liquid or gel, it would boil in the vacuum, making holes in it that would negate any possible value of the caulk. Plus, it would mess up the airfoil in unpredictable ways, making it somewhat difficult to control the vehicle.
Why not leave them up there until you can get them the material they need to make the repairs? Because they are in space. They have to carry along their own air, and their own water, and their own food. They do not have an infinite supply of any of those things. If you store them in space until you get them the stuff they need to make the fix, it had better be damn quick.
And where are you going to find a spare rocket laying around ready to make the delivery, and the targetting you need to make the rendezvous with the shuttle? How about training the astronauts to make the necessary EVA to apply the fix? Without training, they are far more likely to more damage to the skin than they are to make a successful repair.
So here's the scenario: 1. Launch. Suspect the problem. 2. Spacewalk 1, inspect the damage. Downlink description and pictures. Question: is a visual inspection enough to detect all the damage? The inspectors on the ground use other machines to look behind the surface to detect the damage. 3. Shut down the shuttle to basic life preserver mode. With available supplies, they have maybe a month. That is the time limit for the rest of the following events to be completed. 4.Using the downlinked video and photos, determine which tiles are damaged. 5. Several parallel processes: a. Fabricate replacements. This is not an overnight process - it may take more than a month just for this step. b. Develop procedures and invent tools for the crew to use to make the repairs. Fabricate tools, test and revise them and procedures in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. Uplink the procedures to the orbiting shuttle so they can start whatever training they can do without the tools or material, and without using too much extra consumables - ie, no practice spacewalks. c. Acquire and prepare a rocket with adequate payload mass and space to carry the repair material and tools. Invent an adhesive that works in space (it has been tried, but so far, there aren't any.) Fabricate a container to hold and protect these. It won't do much good to send up a repair kit with broken tiles. d. Generate targets and procedures for the launch of the repair kit and for the rendezvous. These are a series of non-trivial tasks. e. Generate targets and timelines for powering up orbiter, deorbit, and landing. 6. Put everything together and on the launch pad. 7. Launch. This is not a man-rated vehicle. Hope it works. 8. Rendezvous. No docking, however, since the shuttle has no provision for such a thing. One problem to solve is getting the stuff from the repair kit to the shuttle. 9. Open the repair kit, set up the repair scaffolding and tools. 10. Remove the damaged sections, and replace them with the new material. Do all this without causing any damage to the adjacent areas. 11. Remove and restow the repair scaffolding and tools. 12. Stow removed, damaged material for return and analysis. 13. Maneuver away from repair kit. 14. Deorbit and land.
It takes more than a month to prepare a shuttle for launch. That would cover step 5a in my original list. Everything else
I agree, it does, and will, suck for the first few versions. But enough people will still use it because it is the default, and MS will make enough money selling ads to support their continuing to develop it.
But I don't think the analogy with Netscape is a good comparison. What allowed IE to seize the market share was that Netscape went dormant for a year while MS continued to advance. By the time Netscape woke up, they were far behind. That will not happen with Google. Google has a big head start, and I'm sure they will not just lay down and let themselves be run over like Netscape did.
I hope you are right about MS not being able to pull this off. They have failed quite a few times.
One more thing - watch for the next version of IE to lock out the Google Toolbar, probably in the name of security. Then I wouldn't be surprised if they use the DMCA club to keep it locked out.
Here's your mistake. Microsoft does not want to compete, they want to exploit the power of their monopoly to expand into a new market without competing. That's why they make their browser default to their search engine, and they make their internet service default to their search engine. They may allow users to set another search engine, but I would bet that their preferences get reset back to MSN defaults whenever they update their browser, and maybe even at random other times.
Microsoft has been proven in court to be a monopoly, and this is how monopolies work.
[...I'm thinking of getting myself a copy of one of the C++ specs to help me answer the really obscure questions. Does someone recommend a particular spec (e.g., ANSI, ISO)?]
There is only one C++ spec. You can get it from the ISO store.
The only way SCO can distribute Linux is under the GPL.
What makes anyone think they care? They aren't selling anything anyway. SCO's business plan does not include actually distributing products, it consists entirely of suing for violations of its IP claims.
That really doesn't give you more information than a good bug report. It tells you precisely *what* was changed, but gives no indication about *why* it was changed, unless there are good comments, that provide the why, which would appear in the bug report.
The patent being defended in this case was filed November 7, 1995. (see the patent application)
eBay went into business in September 1995. (see company overview)
Yet, somehow, the jury found no evidence of prior art, and that the company that was in business before the patent was filed violated the patent?
Moreover, eBay "does not allow an avenue to allow participants to speculate on the price of collectable[sic] or used goods in an electronic market place." This was one of the items that establishes the process being patented; thus, by not providing this avenue, the patent application itself states that eBay's system is covered by prior art. Where are the barcodes that the patent demands that eBay affix to each item being offered for sale?
Further, the patent describes the system as providing a "trusted network of consignment nodes that act as brokers." The system described is for a network of consignment stores. It does not describe nor provide for any use by individuals as sellers.
This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit and lawyers run amok.
This is almost exactly the same thing that happened to John Glenn, except they intentionally kept the retro-pack attached until it burned away. His Mercury spacecraft was correctly aligned, though, because he had the extra margins that the Soyuz doesn't. The reason the Soyuz has survived all these narrow escapes is that it doesn't have the right stuff to avoid them in the first place. The reason you don't hear about close scrapes on the shuttle is that it has enough redundancy, and missions are so well planned that it just looks easy.
The shuttle takes every bit of the punishment that Volynov's capsule took on every flight. And then it goes back and does it again. The used Soyuz is scrap, and a new one is built for each flight.
The shuttle has had several major failures that no one ever even hears about, because nothing terrible happened.
You are not their customer. There customers are the ones who publish the content. The player exists only because it is necesary to make the proprietary format worth something. The player only has to impress who ever is considering publishing content with their streaming software and not the people who actualy use it.
Very perceptive. And that is why we should not only not use Real - I don't, but it was something else even more unacceptable in their EULA that I refused to sign - but let all the content providers who pay Real know that we are not reading their pages because they are dealing an unethical company.
There is no existing AI technology that can filter pornography. Even bright, motivated people can't consistently filter it. There is no legal definition, and different courts can't agree on what is art and what is pornography even when they look at the same things. Until people can agree on this, which will be three weeks after hell freezes over, there can never be any filtering software.
That's why parents looking over their kids' shoulders is, and for the forseeable future will be, the only filtering system that works.
Why is this considered to affect anyone's rights? It is a private company setting conditions for use of its resources, same as if they were writing a license for people to use their software. They have an indisputable right to do this.
As the blurb says, find another server to play on. This is not like the government forcing everyone to submit to their dictates.
Not quite. To gain extra altitude on some flights, the OMS are activated in tandem with the SSMEs during orbital injection.
I do not know, however, if the OMS were ever used after MECO and before ET SEP.
Not quite. The OMS can be used during second stage for an abort. They could, but would not, be used during a non-abort, since their fuel is needed for orbital maneuvers and deorbit. Moreover, during a nominal mission, it is more efficient to use the OMS for Holman transfer to a higher orbit than to use it to push the extra mass of the tank and fuel in parallel with the SSMEs.
There is no reason that the OMS would ever be used between MECO and ET Sep. That is only a few seconds. Also, as mentioned before, they do not have the control authority required with the ET attached.
The SSMEs cannot be used after ET Sep. There is no fuel for them except a few pounds trapped in the lines, and even that is vented and purged to prevent ice damage.
one of the biggest threats to Internet security today is the inability to learn from history. That is, after all, at the core of the engineering arts and sciences.
I think you mean the ability to learn from history is the core of engineering and science. The inability to learn from history is the core of legislating solutions to technical problems. The result of this inability is almost always something that is determined by the law of unintended consequences.
Sending these people corn won't solve their problems (corrupt governments), there needs to be a long term solution, which the U.S. won't commit to.
Several others point out that the farmers know how to farm; that's not the problem. The problem is that they will be dead of starvation before planting season without the short term aid. A long-term solution doesn't mean anything to the people who will be dead if they don't get food now.
Somehow, it seems that this paper missed its own point. It states the real problem:
Students can begin to assume they can't get their work done without the computer helping them.
That has nothing to do with how easy the computer makes doing their work. The real problem is that they do not have a real understanding of what it is they are doing. As the paper, and most of the comments on/., does, they focus on the mechanics of getting something done and fail to gain the understanding of what it is they are doing.
In fact, the original problem which motivated the paper is that instructors are asking their students to create hypertext projects to complement traditional essays. So they focus on creating essays, which is the actual work that needs to be done. Then they bring in an alternate way to do the work, using the computer, which is supposed to be a way to illustrate what is the actual work (the organization and expression of ideas) and what is the technology (pen and paper, typewriter, word processor, or powerpoint) that is used, so that they can learn to focus on the work, regardless of the technology. That should be the real point of a writing class.
That may be very difficult, since she was killed in the season finale. Besides, Krycek appears to have teamed up with the UNblonde. (Why didn't they check CSM pulse?)
How about teaming Scully up with whiz-kid agent Doogie played by Haley Joel Osmont. He sees dead people.
If you have nothing to hide, please post your complete address book; all of your credit card numbers, with expiration dates; your income tax return and all of your bank statements for the last year in your reply to this. Trust us, no one who reads/. would do anything that is not in your best interest.
3) The bad aliens start the invasion and the future of humanity looks bleak.
This looks a lot like "The First Wave" that is running on Sci-Fi opposite "The X-Files." So wouldn't you have real problems being original with your new series?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. That's the ones I'm talking about. Because they are not going to just give that to just anybody that asks.
No one wants campaign finance "reform" more than the major media companies. Because the "reforms" that everyone talks about would turn total control of who gets to use the mass media over to the media. As it is now, even the people who are not popular with the media moguls get to be heard because they can spend money, and the media are forced to sell them ads. Once you put in your "reforms", anyone who is not being supported by either Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch will completely disappear from any coverage at all.
And the best part? They won't have to spend any money to bribe elected officials, all they have to do is give them some attention, and they'll own them. Only it will be from the day they start considering whether to run, not from the day they get elected.
At least two people will be fairly represented. None of the rest of us though.
"If you're wondering how they eat and drink, and other science facts, keep telling yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax!"
But they did get a return on their investment. They got rid of the people they shipped off, without taking the political hit they would have suffered by simply putting bullets in the backs of their heads. At that point, it was good enough a return.
They say it couldn't be repaired in space because there is nothing that could be used to repair it that would have survived entry any better than the broken tile did. They don't have spare tiles to replace each individually machined piece, and they don't have the kiln and machining tools necessary to replace them. They don't have a caulk to just squirt over the crack because there is no caulk that would work. Moreover, if it were a liquid or gel, it would boil in the vacuum, making holes in it that would negate any possible value of the caulk. Plus, it would mess up the airfoil in unpredictable ways, making it somewhat difficult to control the vehicle.
Why not leave them up there until you can get them the material they need to make the repairs? Because they are in space. They have to carry along their own air, and their own water, and their own food. They do not have an infinite supply of any of those things. If you store them in space until you get them the stuff they need to make the fix, it had better be damn quick.
And where are you going to find a spare rocket laying around ready to make the delivery, and the targetting you need to make the rendezvous with the shuttle? How about training the astronauts to make the necessary EVA to apply the fix? Without training, they are far more likely to more damage to the skin than they are to make a successful repair.
So here's the scenario:
1. Launch. Suspect the problem.
2. Spacewalk 1, inspect the damage. Downlink description and pictures. Question: is a visual inspection enough to detect all the damage? The inspectors on the ground use other machines to look behind the surface to detect the damage.
3. Shut down the shuttle to basic life preserver mode. With available supplies, they have maybe a month. That is the time limit for the rest of the following events to be completed.
4.Using the downlinked video and photos, determine which tiles are damaged.
5. Several parallel processes:
a. Fabricate replacements. This is not an overnight process - it may take more than a month just for this step.
b. Develop procedures and invent tools for the crew to use to make the repairs. Fabricate tools, test and revise them and procedures in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. Uplink the procedures to the orbiting shuttle so they can start whatever training they can do without the tools or material, and without using too much extra consumables - ie, no practice spacewalks.
c. Acquire and prepare a rocket with adequate payload mass and space to carry the repair material and tools. Invent an adhesive that works in space (it has been tried, but so far, there aren't any.) Fabricate a container to hold and protect these. It won't do much good to send up a repair kit with broken tiles.
d. Generate targets and procedures for the launch of the repair kit and for the rendezvous. These are a series of non-trivial tasks.
e. Generate targets and timelines for powering up orbiter, deorbit, and landing.
6. Put everything together and on the launch pad.
7. Launch. This is not a man-rated vehicle. Hope it works.
8. Rendezvous. No docking, however, since the shuttle has no provision for such a thing. One problem to solve is getting the stuff from the repair kit to the shuttle.
9. Open the repair kit, set up the repair scaffolding and tools.
10. Remove the damaged sections, and replace them with the new material. Do all this without causing any damage to the adjacent areas.
11. Remove and restow the repair scaffolding and tools.
12. Stow removed, damaged material for return and analysis.
13. Maneuver away from repair kit.
14. Deorbit and land.
It takes more than a month to prepare a shuttle for launch. That would cover step 5a in my original list. Everything else
I agree, it does, and will, suck for the first few versions. But enough people will still use it because it is the default, and MS will make enough money selling ads to support their continuing to develop it.
But I don't think the analogy with Netscape is a good comparison. What allowed IE to seize the market share was that Netscape went dormant for a year while MS continued to advance. By the time Netscape woke up, they were far behind. That will not happen with Google. Google has a big head start, and I'm sure they will not just lay down and let themselves be run over like Netscape did.
I hope you are right about MS not being able to pull this off. They have failed quite a few times.
One more thing - watch for the next version of IE to lock out the Google Toolbar, probably in the name of security. Then I wouldn't be surprised if they use the DMCA club to keep it locked out.
Microsoft has been proven in court to be a monopoly, and this is how monopolies work.
That really doesn't give you more information than a good bug report. It tells you precisely *what* was changed, but gives no indication about *why* it was changed, unless there are good comments, that provide the why, which would appear in the bug report.
Here are a couple of facts to check:
The patent being defended in this case was filed November 7, 1995. (see the patent application)
eBay went into business in September 1995. (see company overview)
Yet, somehow, the jury found no evidence of prior art, and that the company that was in business before the patent was filed violated the patent?
Moreover, eBay "does not allow an avenue to allow participants to speculate on the price of collectable[sic] or used goods in an electronic market place." This was one of the items that establishes the process being patented; thus, by not providing this avenue, the patent application itself states that eBay's system is covered by prior art. Where are the barcodes that the patent demands that eBay affix to each item being offered for sale?
Further, the patent describes the system as providing a "trusted network of consignment nodes that act as brokers." The system described is for a network of consignment stores. It does not describe nor provide for any use by individuals as sellers.
This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit and lawyers run amok.
This is almost exactly the same thing that happened to John Glenn, except they intentionally kept the retro-pack attached until it burned away. His Mercury spacecraft was correctly aligned, though, because he had the extra margins that the Soyuz doesn't. The reason the Soyuz has survived all these narrow escapes is that it doesn't have the right stuff to avoid them in the first place. The reason you don't hear about close scrapes on the shuttle is that it has enough redundancy, and missions are so well planned that it just looks easy.
The shuttle takes every bit of the punishment that Volynov's capsule took on every flight. And then it goes back and does it again. The used Soyuz is scrap, and a new one is built for each flight.
The shuttle has had several major failures that no one ever even hears about, because nothing terrible happened.
Very perceptive. And that is why we should not only not use Real - I don't, but it was something else even more unacceptable in their EULA that I refused to sign - but let all the content providers who pay Real know that we are not reading their pages because they are dealing an unethical company.
There is no existing AI technology that can filter pornography. Even bright, motivated people can't consistently filter it. There is no legal definition, and different courts can't agree on what is art and what is pornography even when they look at the same things. Until people can agree on this, which will be three weeks after hell freezes over, there can never be any filtering software.
That's why parents looking over their kids' shoulders is, and for the forseeable future will be, the only filtering system that works.
Why is this considered to affect anyone's rights? It is a private company setting conditions for use of its resources, same as if they were writing a license for people to use their software. They have an indisputable right to do this.
As the blurb says, find another server to play on. This is not like the government forcing everyone to submit to their dictates.
It only harms their business, no one else.
Not quite. The OMS can be used during second stage for an abort. They could, but would not, be used during a non-abort, since their fuel is needed for orbital maneuvers and deorbit. Moreover, during a nominal mission, it is more efficient to use the OMS for Holman transfer to a higher orbit than to use it to push the extra mass of the tank and fuel in parallel with the SSMEs.
There is no reason that the OMS would ever be used between MECO and ET Sep. That is only a few seconds. Also, as mentioned before, they do not have the control authority required with the ET attached.
The SSMEs cannot be used after ET Sep. There is no fuel for them except a few pounds trapped in the lines, and even that is vented and purged to prevent ice damage.
I think you mean the ability to learn from history is the core of engineering and science. The inability to learn from history is the core of legislating solutions to technical problems. The result of this inability is almost always something that is determined by the law of unintended consequences.
A big chunk of what was cut out was Dawn's dance right before Sweet's song. Doesn't hurt the storytelling any, but the story is about dancing.
In fact, nothing that was cut is critical to the story, it's all mood stuff.
Somehow, it seems that this paper missed its own point. It states the real problem:
/., does, they focus on the mechanics of getting something done and fail to gain the understanding of what it is they are doing.
Students can begin to assume they can't get their work done without the computer helping them.
That has nothing to do with how easy the computer makes doing their work. The real problem is that they do not have a real understanding of what it is they are doing. As the paper, and most of the comments on
In fact, the original problem which motivated the paper is that instructors are asking their students to create hypertext projects to complement traditional essays. So they focus on creating essays, which is the actual work that needs to be done. Then they bring in an alternate way to do the work, using the computer, which is supposed to be a way to illustrate what is the actual work (the organization and expression of ideas) and what is the technology (pen and paper, typewriter, word processor, or powerpoint) that is used, so that they can learn to focus on the work, regardless of the technology. That should be the real point of a writing class.
How about teaming Scully up with whiz-kid agent Doogie played by Haley Joel Osmont. He sees dead people.
Or maybe you actually do have something to hide.