"superior" type checking doesn't let me use malloc() without a cast. That's a disadvantage.
To you its a disadvantage, to me it's not. If the compiler tells me about one single error that I don't have to debug because of that, it's worth it to me.
Then again, I'm probably a shitty coder. I don't trust myself doing things right 100% of the time, so I like to get any automated help that I can.
C++ is an OK idea, but a horrible implementation. It's huge, ugly and bloated.
huge - this is simply a myth. Yes, if you pull in the standard library stuff with operator overloading and the works, sure. I write code for embedded systems, so I've done many tests, and I keep a close eye on my binary size. I can create a binary that has the exact same size as the C counter part. ugly - well, that's subjective. If you feel that way, fine. bloated - how is that? My original comment was a complaint about not justifying overly broad statements, so I don't see how this is going to make me say 'ah, yes, my bad, you are right C is better!'.
It'd be nice to have an argument about it with real points.
Okay. However, if it is true for g++, then that's enough to keep C++ out of the kernel right there.
Sure. I'm actually not convinced that g++ has issues, but I don't know. If there are, then Linus should perhaps point them out so that they can be fixed. I _do_ know that there were serious issues in 1992 with g++, so I understand where he's coming from. But you can hardly base any argument on the state of software 12 years ago.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that compiling the Linux kernel be made dependent on the Microsoft compiler . . ..
No, I'm suggesting that Linus should not make overly broad statements that he doesn't back up. But, there are alternatives to g++, like Watcom.
Please people, I know Linus is God, and I have a lot of respect for the man. But I don't care who it is, if people make statements like this, I'd like to see some back up.
It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.
When someone says 'trust me' it either means "I'm too lazy to explain" or "I haven't really got something to prove it".
The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in 1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed:
Well, I don't want to start a flamewar here, but while this may be true for the GNU compiler, it certainly is NOT true for, for example, the Microsoft compiler. (I know, how dare I say that...) It has produced code from C++ source for a _very_ long time and even the optimizer works very well.
* the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken.
Why?
It's _especially_ broken for kernels.
Why? Maybe for the Linux kernel, because it wasn't designed with C++ exceptions in mind. And I'm not even say that that's bad, but why is it in gerenal broken for kernels?
* any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel.
Well, that's really implementation and as such is your choice, it's not the language. Furthermore, no-one forces you to use _all_ possible language features. I personally stay away from many C++ language features such as overloaded operators.
* you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++.
But why would you if you can do it cleaner in C++ and have the compiler generate the same quality code? What is crap about C++?
What Linus needs to do is go back to the old days where he looked at assembly output. I still do that and have compared C++ with C many times and I can't see why anyone would not use C++.
You don't have to use all the bells and whistles, shit, you can write plain ANSI-C and still use a C++ compiler for it's superior type checking etc.
oh dear, again someone who doesnt; understand that exceptiosn are designed never to be thrown.
It's ridiculous that this comment is modded up to +5 Insightful.
Would you care to back up this claim with something tangible?
Of course the word 'never' is totally inappropriate since by definition exceptions _are_ designed to be thrown.
The only valid thing in your comment is that certain programmers over-use exceptions. Then again, certain programmers also do stuff like #define forever for(;;). That to me is over-using #define. So should we rip the pre-processor out of the compiler because certain programmers use #define in a way that you don't fancy?
Exceptions are extremely useful to write clean code with proper error handling. The truth is that because handing error conditions with return values is cumbersome and ugly, people often just don't implement error handling. Great.
If they were everyday occurrences, then they wouldn't be, well, exceptional.
I think it's perfectly normal and acceptable to have an exception be an everyday occurrence. There's nothing magical about exceptions that would justify saying that they should never be used. Sure, throwing an exception is a lot of overhead. So TF what? If you only do it in exceptional situations...
To me the word 'exception' means to me, anything that happens that's not in the normal code path. The standard software flow should not use exceptions, but anything else is, well, exceptional.
And I'm sure I've missed quite a few. All have slightly different configurations; my goal was to find a box that would play media from the network.
Furthermore, I want the device to play DVD images (I rip ISO images using DVDDecrypter so I don't loose all the extra DVD stuff). I am not sure any of them actually support that. I would even be happy with a device that can play the VOBs directly, I can 'mount' the ISO on the server...
Parts designers should avoid symmetrical designs where things fit, or semi-fit, if misoriented. Design them with things sticking out so that it would not fit *at all* if put in wrong.
This is not meant as a troll at all, but as a European in California, I feel sad sometimes that we just can't do that sort of stuff in California. It's a great place to live, but you know if you tried anything like that over here everyone would end up in jail.
Sure, the roads are not really appropriate here and everything, but when I see a thing like that it makes me homesick. (just a bit though, until mom tells my about the weather back in Europe:-))
btw. the original article seems a rip-off from the earlier segway article where someone already posted a link to the non-keg (and thus lame) bike.
Dude, this was in Weekly Playboy. It wouldn't have been significant but Weekly Playboy ran the story and since it was in Weekly Playboy it's gotta bet good.
Before calling somebody an idiot, at least make sure to check your sentence for grammatical error, otherwise it may give the impression that you are the idiot.
Or perhaps not a native English speaker?;) But thanks for the hint, will update ASAP.
For some reason I somehow doubt that you will get a free iPod in exchange for just an email address. Think I'll leave the rest of the message intact.
The idea of wireless streaming means the storage device can be kept off-site or in a very discreet location within the premises.
Of course it also means that the edjumicated thief can easily disable your cameras while still being relatively far from the premises. Jamming 802.11 is not terribly hard. (unfortunately my phone is the ultimate proof; it destroys any 802.11 connection while it's in use, regardless of channel)
But none of that means that you can force the seller to let you use their software for free: the software is still copyrighted and you can still only use it under some sort of agreement.
Sure thing. I'm not at all trying to advocate copyright infringement. I just think the restrictions put upon us by EULAs are beyond reasonable.
If nothing else, I think it's insane to expect people to agree to multiple page contracts for a $100 piece of software. Normally for a contract of that size (and especially one that is worded like most EULAs) it would take a significant amount of money to get legal advise.
According to the license you cant run the OS on an emulator because its not "Apple hardware".
Then there are those of us that wonder the legality of such statements in license agreements. For example Apple could also put in the license agreement that you need to give up your first born child.
The real legality of such statements is only known after it has been tried in a court of law, which AFAIK it has not.
On top of that, some argue that the entire license agreement is BS. By law, a contract requires two parties to agree. Some argue that this agreement needs to be in place at the time of purchase. With most shrink-wrapped software you've no idea what you are agreeing to at the time of purchase.
Even if the software vendor would argue that you could return the software if you don't agree, there's a simple way to avoid agreeing to the license.
Basically when you open the package to get the CD out, don't read _anything_. I know the envelope may have some disclaimers about agreeing to a license agreement, well better not read that. You bought the software, you've no obligation to read everything that's being presented.
Same goes for the installation; just blindly hit the highlighted button until the installation is done. If it doesn't work, try the non-highlighted button every once in a while.
The point is, that it's very hard for a software vendor to proof in court that you actually agreed to the license agreement. "You have to hit 'I agree' to install. You got it installed, so you agreed!". I have no idea what you are talking about, I thought 'I agree' meant the color of the button was agreeable.
You could say, well, that sounds like saying that you didn't read a contract that you signed.
The difference is that when you sign a contract, you and the other party specifically sit down for the exact purpose of signing a legal document.
When you buy software, you've no idea that you are about to enter into a legally binding contract. So you simply ignore all the stuff that doesn't make sense to you (like you do with most purchases).
Of course, how well this would hold up in court is just as unproven, but there seem to be some lawyers (which IAN) that think that it will.
I guess I know the answer; in real life only one person can see it at a time.
And that's exactly the biggest mistake people keep making; analogies don't work. The stuff we are dealing with is *new*. A library != Internet. There is no analogy.
I'm not saying that I have a solution to any of this, but I think the first thing people will have to realize is that things have changed in a dramatic way. The traditional way of thinking about IP (or really, information) no longer works.
There is no simple answer to any of this, and it makes no sense to come up with analogies and try to justify or make judgement based on that.
Fact of the matter is, all of a sudden it is possible for people to view/copy information pretty much instantly. What we need to realize is that _we_ are the ones that can/will put together the foundation of how to deal with this. No current laws really are suitable. Look at the mess with P2P networks and the music industry. Surely P2P networks _should_ be perfectly legal, but on the other hand if copying music would become so easy that you could listen to any song you'd like, at any given time without paying for it, it's hard to imagine how artists will be paid (and please don't give me the "they'll have to do live performances to make money" bs).
The people that will be able to figure out what the _real_ answers are to these issues are the ones that will do really well. Think about it./rant
Of course, if it was free, or could be easily pirated, and it worked as well on my computer as Linux currently does, I would switch. But thats not accurate.
First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now.
Well, here you hit a pet peeve of mine. We went to the Apple store in Palo Alto and got us a nice iMac. Nice machine and all, but really we are PC people and since we have about 6 PCs running at any given time, the Mac doesn't get that much time. As much as people like to hype it, it's not _that_ great. (for example, the main reason we got it was to deal with our DV camera stuff, and you run into limitations of the software within about half a minute)
Anyways, Apple starts releasing upgrades. Sounds great, but then let's look at the price: about $130 each. So we are going from the original to Jaguar and before we know it, there's Panther, at another steep charge. Perhaps we bought the machine at the wrong time, but these upgrades seem to be fucking expensive and at short intervals.
Now, if Microsoft would come out with upgrades that swiftly and at those price points, people would cry bloody murder. What I don't understand is how Apple can get away with this. The upgrades that they present are really more in the roam of 'fixing stuff that really was not as advertised' at best, yet they still get to charge a hefty price without any complaints.
Am I totally delusional here or what? Quite honestly I don't think that I should be charged for OS upgrades for a couple of years if I buy an $1800.- computer.
It's stupid to fire someone for running this on company/institutional computers (whatever happened to warnings?), but it's also stupid to just decide to run it on the assumption that your boss isn't stupid.
A lot of naive-ness on slashdot today. He got fired for this because they wanted to get rid him. Don't you guys have any experience with an HR department that wants to get rid of someone? They are just waiting for you to fuck up so they have a reason to fire you. It's a lot cheaper.
So, yeah, you can say he was stupid, but he would have gotten fired anyway, sooner or later.
Does it implement a new local drive, from which files can be accessed using any existing program?
No, it's a virtual filesystem that only explorer (and perhaps some other programs) can use. I use command-line apps a lot and can't find a way to access the drive.
Or does it implement a new network drive, so that at least UNC-aware programs will work?
Nope, it doesn't.
Or is it really restricted to force the use of explorer (or other shell-api-using tools) for file manipulation?
From my swift testing, it seems that it is (really restricted).
This is not a surprise, Microsoft has always kept it very hard to add a new filesystem to their OS. If I remember correctly only relatively recently (like 3 years ago or so) they started releasing official information on how to write a new filesystem driver, and you had to sign a hefty NDA. (at least that's how I remember it).
Still a neat program though, but as I've said in another post, I'm planning to check out xdrive.com. Their new (beta) driver sound very interesting. (no affiliation btw, and it's certainly possible that I'd be very dissapointed by the product)
I'm planning to try it out and see how well their new driver works (which actually _does_ create an additional drive) when putting one giant encrypted file on there (like PGPDisk, but then probably BestCrypt)
Because of the cost, it's far from a huge success, but not exactly a failure.
This is an interesting issue. People continue to perpetuate this 'fact', but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it wasn't a success.
I've been involved both with BA and Air France to outfit their Concordes with an In-Flight Entertainment system and both airlines (independently) claimed that the airplane had been doing quite alright, financially. This was before the Air France crash, after which everything fell in the heap, but before that the people that we spoke with insisted that the airplane was actually quite profitable.
I don't have any hard evidence, appart from this anecdotal stuff, but at least I quantify it as such.
Slashdot Mirror
"superior" type checking doesn't let me use malloc() without a cast. That's a disadvantage.
To you its a disadvantage, to me it's not. If the compiler tells me about one single error that I don't have to debug because of that, it's worth it to me.
Then again, I'm probably a shitty coder. I don't trust myself doing things right 100% of the time, so I like to get any automated help that I can.
C++ is an OK idea, but a horrible implementation. It's huge, ugly and bloated.
huge - this is simply a myth. Yes, if you pull in the standard library stuff with operator overloading and the works, sure. I write code for embedded systems, so I've done many tests, and I keep a close eye on my binary size. I can create a binary that has the exact same size as the C counter part.
ugly - well, that's subjective. If you feel that way, fine.
bloated - how is that? My original comment was a complaint about not justifying overly broad statements, so I don't see how this is going to make me say 'ah, yes, my bad, you are right C is better!'.
It'd be nice to have an argument about it with real points.
Okay. However, if it is true for g++, then that's enough to keep C++ out of the kernel right there.
.
Sure. I'm actually not convinced that g++ has issues, but I don't know. If there are, then Linus should perhaps point them out so that they can be fixed. I _do_ know that there were serious issues in 1992 with g++, so I understand where he's coming from. But you can hardly base any argument on the state of software 12 years ago.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that compiling the Linux kernel be made dependent on the Microsoft compiler . . .
No, I'm suggesting that Linus should not make overly broad statements that he doesn't back up. But, there are alternatives to g++, like Watcom.
Boy oh boy, where do we start.
Please people, I know Linus is God, and I have a lot of respect for the man. But I don't care who it is, if people make statements like this, I'd like to see some back up.
It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.
When someone says 'trust me' it either means "I'm too lazy to explain" or "I haven't really got something to prove it".
The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in 1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed:
Well, I don't want to start a flamewar here, but while this may be true for the GNU compiler, it certainly is NOT true for, for example, the Microsoft compiler. (I know, how dare I say that...) It has produced code from C++ source for a _very_ long time and even the optimizer works very well.
* the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken.
Why?
It's _especially_ broken for kernels.
Why? Maybe for the Linux kernel, because it wasn't designed with C++ exceptions in mind. And I'm not even say that that's bad, but why is it in gerenal broken for kernels?
* any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel.
Well, that's really implementation and as such is your choice, it's not the language. Furthermore, no-one forces you to use _all_ possible language features. I personally stay away from many C++ language features such as overloaded operators.
* you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++.
But why would you if you can do it cleaner in C++ and have the compiler generate the same quality code? What is crap about C++?
What Linus needs to do is go back to the old days where he looked at assembly output. I still do that and have compared C++ with C many times and I can't see why anyone would not use C++.
You don't have to use all the bells and whistles, shit, you can write plain ANSI-C and still use a C++ compiler for it's superior type checking etc.
Anyways, to each his own, I guess...
oh dear, again someone who doesnt; understand that exceptiosn are designed never to be thrown.
It's ridiculous that this comment is modded up to +5 Insightful.
Would you care to back up this claim with something tangible?
Of course the word 'never' is totally inappropriate since by definition exceptions _are_ designed to be thrown.
The only valid thing in your comment is that certain programmers over-use exceptions. Then again, certain programmers also do stuff like #define forever for(;;). That to me is over-using #define. So should we rip the pre-processor out of the compiler because certain programmers use #define in a way that you don't fancy?
Exceptions are extremely useful to write clean code with proper error handling. The truth is that because handing error conditions with return values is cumbersome and ugly, people often just don't implement error handling. Great.
If they were everyday occurrences, then they wouldn't be, well, exceptional.
I think it's perfectly normal and acceptable to have an exception be an everyday occurrence. There's nothing magical about exceptions that would justify saying that they should never be used. Sure, throwing an exception is a lot of overhead. So TF what? If you only do it in exceptional situations...
To me the word 'exception' means to me, anything that happens that's not in the normal code path. The standard software flow should not use exceptions, but anything else is, well, exceptional.
Excellent, thanks!
Was just checking these out yesterday:
Go Video
KISS (runs Linux)
Supposedly Gateway has one too, but perhaps they discontinued it. Could only find this Google cache link.
D-Link
And I'm sure I've missed quite a few. All have slightly different configurations; my goal was to find a box that would play media from the network.
Furthermore, I want the device to play DVD images (I rip ISO images using DVDDecrypter so I don't loose all the extra DVD stuff). I am not sure any of them actually support that. I would even be happy with a device that can play the VOBs directly, I can 'mount' the ISO on the server...
Hold your finger about 3-4 inches away from your nose. Now focus on it for a couple of minutes.
'nuf said.
Parts designers should avoid symmetrical designs where things fit, or semi-fit, if misoriented. Design them with things sticking out so that it would not fit *at all* if put in wrong.
How are things, Mr. Murphy?
Sweet sweet sweet!
:-))
This is not meant as a troll at all, but as a European in California, I feel sad sometimes that we just can't do that sort of stuff in California. It's a great place to live, but you know if you tried anything like that over here everyone would end up in jail.
Sure, the roads are not really appropriate here and everything, but when I see a thing like that it makes me homesick. (just a bit though, until mom tells my about the weather back in Europe
btw. the original article seems a rip-off from the earlier segway article where someone already posted a link to the non-keg (and thus lame) bike.
Dude, this was in Weekly Playboy. It wouldn't have been significant but Weekly Playboy ran the story and since it was in Weekly Playboy it's gotta bet good.
Before calling somebody an idiot, at least make sure to check your sentence for grammatical error, otherwise it may give the impression that you are the idiot.
;) But thanks for the hint, will update ASAP.
Or perhaps not a native English speaker?
For some reason I somehow doubt that you will get a free iPod in exchange for just an email address. Think I'll leave the rest of the message intact.
The idea of wireless streaming means the storage device can be kept off-site or in a very discreet location within the premises.
Of course it also means that the edjumicated thief can easily disable your cameras while still being relatively far from the premises. Jamming 802.11 is not terribly hard. (unfortunately my phone is the ultimate proof; it destroys any 802.11 connection while it's in use, regardless of channel)
But none of that means that you can force the seller to let you use their software for free: the software is still copyrighted and you can still only use it under some sort of agreement.
Sure thing. I'm not at all trying to advocate copyright infringement. I just think the restrictions put upon us by EULAs are beyond reasonable.
If nothing else, I think it's insane to expect people to agree to multiple page contracts for a $100 piece of software. Normally for a contract of that size (and especially one that is worded like most EULAs) it would take a significant amount of money to get legal advise.
Maybe it hasn't been tried for Apple software, but at least one EULA was declared enforceable in an U.S. court. Sad, isn't it?
;)
Oops, missed that one. I guess that's what you get when you move and skip slashdot for a few days!
Thanks for pointing it out. That's an infuriating ruling.
According to the license you cant run the OS on an emulator because its not "Apple hardware".
Then there are those of us that wonder the legality of such statements in license agreements. For example Apple could also put in the license agreement that you need to give up your first born child.
The real legality of such statements is only known after it has been tried in a court of law, which AFAIK it has not.
On top of that, some argue that the entire license agreement is BS. By law, a contract requires two parties to agree. Some argue that this agreement needs to be in place at the time of purchase. With most shrink-wrapped software you've no idea what you are agreeing to at the time of purchase.
Even if the software vendor would argue that you could return the software if you don't agree, there's a simple way to avoid agreeing to the license.
Basically when you open the package to get the CD out, don't read _anything_. I know the envelope may have some disclaimers about agreeing to a license agreement, well better not read that. You bought the software, you've no obligation to read everything that's being presented.
Same goes for the installation; just blindly hit the highlighted button until the installation is done. If it doesn't work, try the non-highlighted button every once in a while.
The point is, that it's very hard for a software vendor to proof in court that you actually agreed to the license agreement. "You have to hit 'I agree' to install. You got it installed, so you agreed!". I have no idea what you are talking about, I thought 'I agree' meant the color of the button was agreeable.
You could say, well, that sounds like saying that you didn't read a contract that you signed.
The difference is that when you sign a contract, you and the other party specifically sit down for the exact purpose of signing a legal document.
When you buy software, you've no idea that you are about to enter into a legally binding contract. So you simply ignore all the stuff that doesn't make sense to you (like you do with most purchases).
Of course, how well this would hold up in court is just as unproven, but there seem to be some lawyers (which IAN) that think that it will.
I guess I know the answer; in real life only one person can see it at a time.
/rant
And that's exactly the biggest mistake people keep making; analogies don't work. The stuff we are dealing with is *new*. A library != Internet. There is no analogy.
I'm not saying that I have a solution to any of this, but I think the first thing people will have to realize is that things have changed in a dramatic way. The traditional way of thinking about IP (or really, information) no longer works.
There is no simple answer to any of this, and it makes no sense to come up with analogies and try to justify or make judgement based on that.
Fact of the matter is, all of a sudden it is possible for people to view/copy information pretty much instantly. What we need to realize is that _we_ are the ones that can/will put together the foundation of how to deal with this. No current laws really are suitable. Look at the mess with P2P networks and the music industry. Surely P2P networks _should_ be perfectly legal, but on the other hand if copying music would become so easy that you could listen to any song you'd like, at any given time without paying for it, it's hard to imagine how artists will be paid (and please don't give me the "they'll have to do live performances to make money" bs).
The people that will be able to figure out what the _real_ answers are to these issues are the ones that will do really well. Think about it.
Of course, if it was free, or could be easily pirated, and it worked as well on my computer as Linux currently does, I would switch. But thats not accurate.
First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now.
Well, here you hit a pet peeve of mine. We went to the Apple store in Palo Alto and got us a nice iMac. Nice machine and all, but really we are PC people and since we have about 6 PCs running at any given time, the Mac doesn't get that much time. As much as people like to hype it, it's not _that_ great. (for example, the main reason we got it was to deal with our DV camera stuff, and you run into limitations of the software within about half a minute)
Anyways, Apple starts releasing upgrades. Sounds great, but then let's look at the price: about $130 each. So we are going from the original to Jaguar and before we know it, there's Panther, at another steep charge. Perhaps we bought the machine at the wrong time, but these upgrades seem to be fucking expensive and at short intervals.
Now, if Microsoft would come out with upgrades that swiftly and at those price points, people would cry bloody murder. What I don't understand is how Apple can get away with this. The upgrades that they present are really more in the roam of 'fixing stuff that really was not as advertised' at best, yet they still get to charge a hefty price without any complaints.
Am I totally delusional here or what? Quite honestly I don't think that I should be charged for OS upgrades for a couple of years if I buy an $1800.- computer.
It's stupid to fire someone for running this on company/institutional computers (whatever happened to warnings?), but it's also stupid to just decide to run it on the assumption that your boss isn't stupid.
A lot of naive-ness on slashdot today. He got fired for this because they wanted to get rid him. Don't you guys have any experience with an HR department that wants to get rid of someone? They are just waiting for you to fuck up so they have a reason to fire you. It's a lot cheaper.
So, yeah, you can say he was stupid, but he would have gotten fired anyway, sooner or later.
Does it implement a new local drive, from which files can be accessed using any existing program?
No, it's a virtual filesystem that only explorer (and perhaps some other programs) can use. I use command-line apps a lot and can't find a way to access the drive.
Or does it implement a new network drive, so that at least UNC-aware programs will work?
Nope, it doesn't.
Or is it really restricted to force the use of explorer (or other shell-api-using tools) for file manipulation?
From my swift testing, it seems that it is (really restricted).
This is not a surprise, Microsoft has always kept it very hard to add a new filesystem to their OS. If I remember correctly only relatively recently (like 3 years ago or so) they started releasing official information on how to write a new filesystem driver, and you had to sign a hefty NDA. (at least that's how I remember it).
Still a neat program though, but as I've said in another post, I'm planning to check out xdrive.com. Their new (beta) driver sound very interesting. (no affiliation btw, and it's certainly possible that I'd be very dissapointed by the product)
Not withing your price range, but still: http://xdrive.com/.
I'm planning to try it out and see how well their new driver works (which actually _does_ create an additional drive) when putting one giant encrypted file on there (like PGPDisk, but then probably BestCrypt)
Because of the cost, it's far from a huge success, but not exactly a failure.
This is an interesting issue. People continue to perpetuate this 'fact', but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it wasn't a success.
I've been involved both with BA and Air France to outfit their Concordes with an In-Flight Entertainment system and both airlines (independently) claimed that the airplane had been doing quite alright, financially. This was before the Air France crash, after which everything fell in the heap, but before that the people that we spoke with insisted that the airplane was actually quite profitable.
I don't have any hard evidence, appart from this anecdotal stuff, but at least I quantify it as such.
I'm sceptical too. Look at the internal picture: there's no steering wheel!
Actually, with XP SP2, Outlook Express also does NOT load images by default.
My mom complained after installed SP2 on her machine. I was very pleased to see that Microsoft is at least improving _some_ things.
Looks like they are running their server on spinach alright...
Yeah, but the Intel guy made a coy smile! I mean come on, if that's not proof, then what is?!