Applying thrust from the side of the missile, akin to the maneuvering jets, would get you an arc, wouldn't it?
One rocket engine which can be pointed in different directions. Thrusters would need liquid fuel, ignitors and other complications. As opposed to using a solid fuel booster and a "thrust vectoring" nozzle.
In the 2hr pilot for the original series (originaly aired Sept 17 1978) they do not develop the plan to go to Earth until the very end of the show. The whole 2hr pilot is about the Colonies and the other Battlestars being wiped out, and the remaining defensless civilian ships huddling around the Galactica for protection....hmmm sounds strangely familiar after watching the new 4hr pilot doesn't it?
Actually the new pilot is only 3 hours long. Which may be why some people have complained that there appeared to be a lot of commercials in the US broadcast...
If SCO had told the truth about something, now that would be news. SCO lying about something is an everyday occurance, and hardly merits posting on Slashdot:-).
If habitual liers telling lies was considered "non-news" then political correspondants would be out of a job PDQ.
If you read BugTraq, then you would also be aware of the numerous holes in Interner Explorer and misfeatures in Outlook, which MS have stated categorically they will not fix.
This kind of refusal to fix bugs or playing "it's a feature, not a bug" is unique to proprietary software. With OSS the issue is likely to be addressed, even if the result is a "fork" things are still better than the proprietary situation.
I'd sooner trust an operating system vendor that releases prompt patches to small portions of their product, than some cowboy outfit who release occasional mega patches to their product.
Especially where the "mega-patch" is likely to require a reboot and it may be unclear what the patch actually does.
Besides, comparing the number of patches to RedHat 9 against those for Windows is bullshit. The typical Linux distro includes a large number of genuinely useful software packages, while MicroSoft's OS comes with... notepad.
It's also very unlikely that any given machine will have every single program from a Linux distribution installed. Especially since some of programs are alternatives where the package manager will only easily let you install one alternative.
With SUS its very easy. We have our SUS server sync up with the Windows Update every morning at 4 am, then I manually test and approve each patch for deployment.
The person complaining that things wern't easy was describing a large company with offices all over the planet running lots of different configurations. Doing something at "4am" is only meaningfull if your entire network is in one timezone...
It's funny how many of the systems being replaced with the GPL'd Linux system are proprietary Unix systems, and really not that many of them are Microsoft boxes.
The thing is they are not being migrated to Microsoft systems. Even though Microsoft has been claiming for years that NT is a "Unix Killer". Migrating from proprietary Unix to an Open Source Unix like system is obviously far less trouble than migrating to a different proprietary platform.
As to 'there aren't any other companies like Microsoft' that makes you sound like someone who primarily is out there to hate Microsoft. There are many other companies like Microsoft.
There arn't that many companies around who can be found guilty of breaking the law twice and carry on with "business as usual".
Many of them aren't as good at it as Microsoft but they wish they were. Oracle is a good example. They pioneered the concept of vapourware, when Billy was still just selling MS-DOS.
Can Oracle dictate to hardware suppliers what software they can and cannot bundle with their computers?
Or, if you're more budget minded, a roof rack on your car, a straight stretch of highway, and a happy-go-lucky view of life would suffice.
In order for this to work then the top speed (plus windspeed assuming you can drive directly into the wind) of the car/truck needs to be greater than v2 for the missile.
we're not talking about building a cruise missile suitable for sale to the USN or to compete with the Tomahawk on the world market.
we're talking about the low end of the market, launch from your local airfield.
The Tomahawk uses a rocket booster in order to launch. Stick a powerful enough SRB on a DIY missile and you don't need an airfield.
One of the nice things about open source is that if the project forks, you can "fork" it right back, you are not at the mercy of your software suppliers.
However you "fork" open source software it is likely to stay open source. Whereas forked proprietary software can rapidly end up with incompatable versions. Especially if the reason it was forked was so the supplier could play "divide and conquer".
If you need it enough you can pay for it's development. This is also true if the project is otherwise abandoned, with paid-for software you would need to be the highest bidder at the auction (or at the mercy of some gready and broke VC).
Actually the situation is even worst with proprietary software. Just because it's "abandoned" does not mean that it has lost copyright.
So if you have company A and B, each with 500 employees,
sometimes it's not true that an imaginary company C resulting
from the merger of A and B creates a better product because
there are more amployees working on the same problem.
Assuming they are actually working on the same "problem" and have methods of working which can fit together. It's perfectly possible for the result of such a merger to to be a worst product
Hardware upgrades. Over time, what if you want to perform partial hardware upgrades on some of your systems, or add new systems, but you wish to keep your network homogenous from a software standpoint? If MS does not choose to continue to add support to its OS for new hardware, and they often do not, then what do you do? You will be unable to work with the new hardware without performing an upgrade. With the Linux solution you have the ability to add support for new hardware yourself if the vendor chooses not to.
It's also possible that Microsoft may decide not to support "old" hardware. It wouldn't be that suprising if they released a version of Windows without ISA support which only recognised USB keyboards and mice...
i suppose these 'independent' commission members have no political interests or leanings? they would not, for example, redraw boundaries so as to help their favorite party win control of parliament?
Which would be very difficult since they just don't have access to the relevent data. Getting hold of the membership lists from their own political party wouldn't necessarily help much, since there could be quite a few political parties in the area and not all people who regularly vote for a specific party are members. In order to find out who voted for who in a previous election they'd need ballot papers, counterfoils and electoral registers. Which wouldn't be easy, getting caught doing this would be very embarrasing.
The number of people per district isn't the issue, it's the composition of each district. For example, even when all districts have exact equal populations, you can rig the process. You adjust the boundaries of the districts so that most of the districts have a mild majority of voters aligned with your party, and the rest have almost 100% opposition voters. If done right, you could end up with most of the seats even if fewer people actually vote for your party.
The difference is that the the UK and presumably Canada the people actually drawing the boundries are career civil servants and there is no public record of political party membership.
The problem is that these commissions are made up of people who are inevitably partisan, so what you end up with is only the illusion of independence, when in fact the party with the most adherents on the commission effectively draws the district boundaries to the benefit of its members, while making it look all nice and non-partisan.
This appears to be a specifically US problem. Not only is there a two party system, but people from those parties closely involved in the managment of elections.
In reality, there is no way to draw district boundaries in a "fair" way, because "fair" means different things to different people. The closest thing you can do is to permanently fix some method (algorithm) for drawing boundaries, which takes humans out of the loop forevermore; from that point forward, the rules of the game are at least known, so they don't change drastically every time a new party gets a 51% majority.
The other way to do it is with an independent civil service. Problem is that there dosn't appear to be any such tradition in the US. Even to the point where in a legally contested election the brother of one of the candidates is not expected to have nothing to do with the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy, if you're a sex offender (or a missing child that would like to remain missing), don't enter that school.
Assuming this system actually works in the first place. Something similar was pulled in Florida, after proving useless.
What's to stop CCRA from collecting it at the border?
They'd need an even bigger levy if they also intended policing the US/Canadian border.
Maybe the contrails weren't gas. It the chemical reaction used to propel the rockets produced, say, water droplets, you'd see it as such.
You wouldn't get liquid water in space. It would be either ice crystals or steam.
Applying thrust from the side of the missile, akin to the maneuvering jets, would get you an arc, wouldn't it?
One rocket engine which can be pointed in different directions. Thrusters would need liquid fuel, ignitors and other complications. As opposed to using a solid fuel booster and a "thrust vectoring" nozzle.
Um, how about those arcing missiles the Cylons shot out? Looked great, definately impossible.
Nothing impossible about such missiles. All you need is thrust vectoring (fins don't work too well in space) in order to have such guided missiles.
Next thing you'll be telling me they find it useful to cut the corners off of all their papers!
Makes it easier to ensure than a stack of papers is all face up. Maybe they run all of their computers on punched cards too...
Baltar chose him over her objections, because was the perfect scapegoat - and accidentally turned out to be right.
Or maybe it's the result of his having spent 2 years in the company of number 6. So he can unconciously spot non human behaviour.
In the 2hr pilot for the original series (originaly aired Sept 17 1978) they do not develop the plan to go to Earth until the very end of the show. The whole 2hr pilot is about the Colonies and the other Battlestars being wiped out, and the remaining defensless civilian ships huddling around the Galactica for protection. ...hmmm sounds strangely familiar after watching the new 4hr pilot doesn't it?
Actually the new pilot is only 3 hours long. Which may be why some people have complained that there appeared to be a lot of commercials in the US broadcast...
It seems the basis of the story (computers gone bad that want to kill us) was stolen from Terminator.
Terminator "borrowed" the idea of Skynet from "The Forbin Project" anyway...
If SCO had told the truth about something, now that would be news. SCO lying about something is an everyday occurance, and hardly merits posting on Slashdot :-).
If habitual liers telling lies was considered "non-news" then political correspondants would be out of a job PDQ.
SCO originally claimed it was a DDOS.
:)
SCO have been claiming a lot of things lately. In the context of their recent claims this one should probably be taken with a large pinch of salt
If you read BugTraq, then you would also be aware of the numerous holes in Interner Explorer and misfeatures in Outlook, which MS have stated categorically they will not fix.
This kind of refusal to fix bugs or playing "it's a feature, not a bug" is unique to proprietary software. With OSS the issue is likely to be addressed, even if the result is a "fork" things are still better than the proprietary situation.
I'd sooner trust an operating system vendor that releases prompt patches to small portions of their product, than some cowboy outfit who release occasional mega patches to their product.
... notepad.
Especially where the "mega-patch" is likely to require a reboot and it may be unclear what the patch actually does.
Besides, comparing the number of patches to RedHat 9 against those for Windows is bullshit. The typical Linux distro includes a large number of genuinely useful software packages, while MicroSoft's OS comes with
It's also very unlikely that any given machine will have every single program from a Linux distribution installed. Especially since some of programs are alternatives where the package manager will only easily let you install one alternative.
With SUS its very easy. We have our SUS server sync up with the Windows Update every morning at 4 am, then I manually test and approve each patch for deployment.
The person complaining that things wern't easy was describing a large company with offices all over the planet running lots of different configurations. Doing something at "4am" is only meaningfull if your entire network is in one timezone...
It's funny how many of the systems being replaced with the GPL'd Linux system are proprietary Unix systems, and really not that many of them are Microsoft boxes.
The thing is they are not being migrated to Microsoft systems. Even though Microsoft has been claiming for years that NT is a "Unix Killer". Migrating from proprietary Unix to an Open Source Unix like system is obviously far less trouble than migrating to a different proprietary platform.
As to 'there aren't any other companies like Microsoft' that makes you sound like someone who primarily is out there to hate Microsoft. There are many other companies like Microsoft.
There arn't that many companies around who can be found guilty of breaking the law twice and carry on with "business as usual".
Many of them aren't as good at it as Microsoft but they wish they were. Oracle is a good example. They pioneered the concept of vapourware, when Billy was still just selling MS-DOS.
Can Oracle dictate to hardware suppliers what software they can and cannot bundle with their computers?
Or, if you're more budget minded, a roof rack on your car, a straight stretch of highway, and a happy-go-lucky view of life would suffice.
In order for this to work then the top speed (plus windspeed assuming you can drive directly into the wind) of the car/truck needs to be greater than v2 for the missile.
we're not talking about building a cruise missile suitable for sale to the USN or to compete with the Tomahawk on the world market.
we're talking about the low end of the market, launch from your local airfield.
The Tomahawk uses a rocket booster in order to launch. Stick a powerful enough SRB on a DIY missile and you don't need an airfield.
One of the nice things about open source is that if the project forks, you can "fork" it right back, you are not at the mercy of your software suppliers.
However you "fork" open source software it is likely to stay open source. Whereas forked proprietary software can rapidly end up with incompatable versions. Especially if the reason it was forked was so the supplier could play "divide and conquer".
If you need it enough you can pay for it's development. This is also true if the project is otherwise abandoned, with paid-for software you would need to be the highest bidder at the auction (or at the mercy of some gready and broke VC).
Actually the situation is even worst with proprietary software. Just because it's "abandoned" does not mean that it has lost copyright.
So if you have company A and B, each with 500 employees, sometimes it's not true that an imaginary company C resulting from the merger of A and B creates a better product because there are more amployees working on the same problem.
Assuming they are actually working on the same "problem" and have methods of working which can fit together. It's perfectly possible for the result of such a merger to to be a worst product
Hardware upgrades. Over time, what if you want to perform partial hardware upgrades on some of your systems, or add new systems, but you wish to keep your network homogenous from a software standpoint? If MS does not choose to continue to add support to its OS for new hardware, and they often do not, then what do you do? You will be unable to work with the new hardware without performing an upgrade. With the Linux solution you have the ability to add support for new hardware yourself if the vendor chooses not to.
It's also possible that Microsoft may decide not to support "old" hardware. It wouldn't be that suprising if they released a version of Windows without ISA support which only recognised USB keyboards and mice...
If SCO said "we'll dismiss ours if you dismiss yours," IBM would undoubtedly go for it, since IBM's suit is really only defensive.
Except that IBM will contend that SCO's suit and the press releases surrounding it have damaged their business. Thus SCO needs to compensate IBM.
i suppose these 'independent' commission members have no political interests or leanings? they would not, for example, redraw boundaries so as to help their favorite party win control of parliament?
Which would be very difficult since they just don't have access to the relevent data. Getting hold of the membership lists from their own political party wouldn't necessarily help much, since there could be quite a few political parties in the area and not all people who regularly vote for a specific party are members. In order to find out who voted for who in a previous election they'd need ballot papers, counterfoils and electoral registers. Which wouldn't be easy, getting caught doing this would be very embarrasing.
The number of people per district isn't the issue, it's the composition of each district. For example, even when all districts have exact equal populations, you can rig the process. You adjust the boundaries of the districts so that most of the districts have a mild majority of voters aligned with your party, and the rest have almost 100% opposition voters. If done right, you could end up with most of the seats even if fewer people actually vote for your party.
The difference is that the the UK and presumably Canada the people actually drawing the boundries are career civil servants and there is no public record of political party membership.
The problem is that these commissions are made up of people who are inevitably partisan, so what you end up with is only the illusion of independence, when in fact the party with the most adherents on the commission effectively draws the district boundaries to the benefit of its members, while making it look all nice and non-partisan.
This appears to be a specifically US problem. Not only is there a two party system, but people from those parties closely involved in the managment of elections.
In reality, there is no way to draw district boundaries in a "fair" way, because "fair" means different things to different people. The closest thing you can do is to permanently fix some method (algorithm) for drawing boundaries, which takes humans out of the loop forevermore; from that point forward, the rules of the game are at least known, so they don't change drastically every time a new party gets a 51% majority.
The other way to do it is with an independent civil service. Problem is that there dosn't appear to be any such tradition in the US. Even to the point where in a legally contested election the brother of one of the candidates is not expected to have nothing to do with the case.
Copyright laws only say that someone can make copies if they have permission. How someone gets permission is left to the author of the work.
Attaching a document to the work which enumerates under what terms and conditions permission is given is something most people can understand.