"Does anyone really want this? Who uses Activex other than corporations that are too dumb to use Java?"
All IE plugins are ActiveX controls. ActiveX is very rarely, if ever, competing against Java applets. In a web browser - in IE, that is - 99% of the time, ActiveX means "plugin". Not "corporation who is too dumb to use Java".
But then again, being so quick to call people dumb, I'm sure you are intelligent enough yourself to figure that out.
There's actually a good reason why that is true in many situations. The reason is that a JIT / interpreter can dynamically analyze and optimize the code. Think about it. A JIT is a compiler - just like a C/C++ compiler. But it compiles from (for example) Java bytecode to native code rather than from C/C++ source code to native code. Now, if it does the compilation before or while the program runs, like the Sun Hotspot Java VM does, then it can actually profile the compiled code and see where the "hot spots" are. That is, it can analyze which parts would benefit the most from optimization, and then optimize those parts much more than a normal C/C++ compiler would do, and with much more knowledge than a C/C++ can ever have.
That's why, if you make something like a simple app that searches for prime numbers or similar, you can actually see higher performance from a Java app running in a good JVM than from a native C/C++ app.
Also keep in mind that many things that are done in high level languages like Java are actually done with native code. For example the graphics toolkit in Java is now hardware accelerated on Windows. So when you blit an Image to another, that's being done in hardware. This means that many things are "just as fast" in Java as in C/C++, because the part of the app that actually uses any considerable CPU cycles is exactly the same in Java as in a native application.
The biggest area where Java still loses is startup time and memory consumption. It's not the fault of the VM if the applications programmed in the language suck. I mean, yeah, most Java apps are dog slow. But when you look at their source code, it's often a horrible mess with people doing non-buffered IO, creating millions of temporary objects every second that cause major garbage collection overheads, etc. It has given the VM a much worse reputation than is warranted.
The way you're bitching, you'd think that phone companies no longer make "normal" phones. That's simply not true. In fact Nokia just recently announced a phone (http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,4582,00.html) that is much MORE simple than any of the recent low end models of theirs. In fact, most phones of most manufacturers are very low end and doesn't have much more than basic features in them.
Having said that, I think it's a little sad to see you being so locked on a word; "phone". Think of it as "device" instead. In addition to the low end models mentioned above, these companies also make some devices which not only have phone functionality but also other stuff. For example, they have a large screen to make using email and the web easier. They have a camera, so you can send picture messages with MMS to friends ("Look, we're here in Thailand. Doesn't it look nice? Too bad you couldn't join us!" or "The bar is crowded and we're having fun!! You should come here! Here's what it looks like right now!").
Oh, and of course you don't HAVE to buy these devices. If you're happy with your old phone, just keep it.
Why not compare to the actual "road service" web site, which has live cameras in a great number of places, that you can check on the web and see what the weather and traffic is like. In addition, there are also actual "trafic data", which shows "cars per hour" counts as well as "average speed" etc. information.
... is not so much that it is 100 km higher up, but that it is on a completely different plane (inclination). Changing the orbit plane to match that of IIS would requires several orders of magnitude more fuel than just increasing the velocity to lift the orbit from the roughly 270km of Columbia to the roughtly 370km of IIS. Even though 100 km sounds like a lot, it's actually not a huge different in velocity change required (roughly the same as the decrease in velocity for the de-orbit burn, which can even be performed with the RCS thrusters if the OMS engines fail to work for some reason).
I'm curious about your signature. Where did you get the source code to VC++ 6.0's libc? Running it through a debugger, it asks for the file flcose.c, which is nowhere to be found in the VC++ distribution. I also checked EVC. Or could it be that you are just making that up yourself or citing some Internet rumor? Please provide proof to back up that it really doesn't do the assert until before it is too late?
"Don't assume that each new "feature" offered by your cell phone provider (or your ISP) is something you want."
We don't. See, here in Europe, we're had SMS since around 1995 or so, and originally, it wasn't even pitched by the telco. It became popular because it was useful. So calling it a "new feature" is kinda ridiculous.
It's un-obtrusive. You can read and respond when and if you want. It doesn't ring and ring and ring. You can turn of the ringer completely, for the phone AND for SMS and still be able to talk to people if you need to, during meetings, during class, in subways or restaurants or other places where it's considered bad to talk on the phone. If you want to be left alone, just put the phone away.
It's an OPTION, not a MUST. And it's an option that seems to fit lots and lots of people really well, judging from that billions of SMS's are sent every day around the world.
As far as reliability is concerned, like so many others have pointed out, there's a delivery notification for SMS's, so you know if got through. And in addition to that, there's a return receipt system so you know for damn sure that the other person read the message. Here in Europe, and from what me and friends have used it in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, to name a few non-European places, the reliability is sure as hell higher than 7.5% failure. More like 99% or 100% reliability as long as you're not in a concrete bunker 10 meters under ground.
Could you be any more ignorant? SMS, like voice mail, is a supporting function to calls. Their benefit is that they are un-obtrusive to write as well as to send. Just like email. You can read them are respond to them when you like, or ignore them if you don't consider them important. Unlike calls, which demand your attention NOW!
Some typical situations where I use SMS:
- on the subway: "hey, i'll be about 5 minutes late"
- replying to an SMS like the one above with "ok, no problem"
- somewhere without a TV or radio and I want to know the results from the Formula 1 race: "F1" Back comes the results, with short commentary if there were some big accident with injury or similar
- during a meeting, when my phone rang but the person didn't get through because the phone was set on silent to not disturb the meeting: "in meeting. i'll call you after it! was it something urgent?"
- in Thailand, rather than spending 5 euros per minute (or whatever) on a call: "the plane is 10 hours late. don't bother coming to the airport, i'll take a cab"
And no. They are not unreliable. Like so many other person's here have pointed out, SMS's work well enough that you don't even think about reliability issues. I personally don't remember any instance where I would have lost an SMS and over the years, I must have sent several thousands of SMS's. And you know, you actually get confirmation when you send it if it was delivered, PLUS, there's a return receipt system.
The article in this story is talking about text messaging in the *USA*. I wouldn't even be so sure it's about GSM SMS but rather the article writer might just be using "SMS" as a term for proprietary US text messaging systems.
This is definitely NOT what I'm seeing. Not here in Finland, but also not when I've been travelling in other countries that use GSM. I consider it about on par on reliability with email.
First of all, you get a notification immediately on the phone if the message was delivered or not, just like when you send email. In addition to that, there's a return receipt type system that many people use. I personally don't use it because I've never had any problem with messages not getting through, but I know people who do use it and I've never heard them complain about messages getting lost.
I'm wondering if the SMS messages talked about in the article are really GSM SMS messages? It seems that all European users here are saying that they have no problems what so ever. And this study was made in the USA. Considering that GSM is hardly used at all in the USA, I'm kinda wondering if they are just using "SMS" to describe whatever proprietary text messaging systems are in use in the USA. The true SMS is that of the GSM system, where you can send an SMS to any other GSM user in the world, regardless of their or your telco, with litterally billions of messages sent every day (more than email, as a matter of fact).
I find it odd how many readers of Slashdot, whom you'd think are more progressive than most other people, can't get over the term "phone".
Every time there is a story about a new advanced mobile phone, you hear people go "Why does my phone have to do X? it's a phone! Why can't it do one thing well?".
Well, first of all, at least with GSM, which is what most of the world except the USA and Japan use, the phone has worked "very well" for about 10 years now. Coverage is excellent. Sound quality is excellent. Text messages work great. No problems.
Second, "phone" is just a traditional term that is attached to these devices. Just because people call it "phone" doesn't mean that the only feature it should and could have is voice communication. PDA's are getting phone features now, and "phones" are getting PDA features. You might as well refer to all of these handheld computer & communication devices with some new term. But why? What's wrong with continuing to call them "phone" or "PDA"? It's just a name for crying out loud!
And as far as the features themselves go, some of them are quite convenient.
It's quite clear that North Americans have not yet grasped (based on statistics) the convenience and un-obtrusiveness of text messages. It's weird too, as they are basically the equivalent to instant messaging or email, which are both quite popular in North America. Text messages cut down on ringing phones and annoyance quite a lot.
Cameras, while clearly more of a novelty, can be quite cool too. "Hey, is the bar crowded?" "Here, I'll show you!", and then you send an MMS with a 10 second old photo. "You wouldn't believe how much fun we're having here on our vacation!", and a photo to go with it, like a post card, only instantaneous. Yes, it's not something that is necessary, but it's fun and can be quite convenient and nobody is forcing you to buy one of these devices.
Always on internet? You don't HAVE to surf or check your email, but if you're sitting in a restaurant, wondering if there are still tickets to that one movie you wanted to see, you can do it and you can reserve those tickets. Sport freak? You can check those soccer / name-the-sport scores. Or perhaps you're camping and want to check the weather forecast.
Java or native (compiled for the particular device and OS) games? With phones / PDA's that have CPU's as fast as the 486's of a few years ago and as much or more RAM, why not? It means your device doubles as a Game Boy Advance. If you spend a lot of time commuting, waiting on delayed planes on airports, then games can be great!
There are some "phones" now that also double as mp3 players. Why carry two devices if one is enough? Sure, they may not have a 20GB hard drive like the iPod, but the basic idea is good.
Bluetooth - it allows you to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, with a hands-free set but without cables to get tangled up in, without having to take the phone out from your pocket. It also allows you to - without cables - synchronize your address book from your PC to your phone. It allows you to use the Internet connectivity on your phone to get your laptop online from anywhere in the world (provided you use GSM, supported in countries on the planet).
And if you like your phone to be just a traditional phone for voice communication, then go right ahead and buy one of those models that are just that. The cellphone manufacturers still make those too.
So many people seem to doubt that P2P piracy is actually causing record companies to lose money. Well, consider for a minute how much this whole campaign of fighting it costs them. There's no money to be made in suing Napster and other such companies that don't have any money to begin with. So why do you think they are doing it, unless for the reason they say it is - to stop P2P piracy because it's causing them to lose shitloads of money?
I know 99% of all mp3's I'm ever in contact with are illegal and I know that maybe 90% of my friends (which include plenty non-geeks) have stopped buying CD's completely due to mp3's. With faster Internet connections, better P2P software, better mp3 hardware (think iPod), surely the situation isn't going to get any better than it is now.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the record companies actually ARE losing money? I mean, perhaps they deserve to, but I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that record companies aren't losing a lot of income due to P2P piracy!
"I hope for their sake they never make the mistake of firing me b/c noone else could even tell you what ls does!!!"
These kinds of things and people like you is exactly why so many companies are reluctant to switch to Linux. Sure, in your case, your company saved a little money but what happens if you have an accident or leave the company? They have no idea how their own system works and will be completely screwed. This is not the kind of situation companies want to be in. That's why companies would rather stick around with "comfortable and familiar" Windows solutions, even if it crashes every once in a while or has a hundred security bugs that need to be patched every year. In the long run, it's still a smaller risk for the company than relying on some geek who finds it funny (your "lol") that the company is completely dependent on you.
Point 2 is only partially correct. The bigger part of the picture (pun intended) is that they took 35000 pictures of which only about 5000 are usually shown in books and websites. The rest were over/under exposed, blurred, boring, 2nd halves of stereo images etc. etc. They are not HIDDEN. You can still see them, for example on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or lots of other places. They are just more rare cause they.. well.. are not very good.
Point 3 is correct and is quite well demonstrated in some pics where you see a crater that looks about 3 meters in diameter. And then you see the lunar rover next to it and you realize it's actually a 300 meter crater.
Point 4, your explanation is wrong. It *IS* a rocket. However, the lunar gravity is only 1/6th of earth's so the acceleration is quite rapid.
Point 5 is quite correct too..
You also failed to mention / debunk some other more "convincing evidence". For example:
In many pictures, shadows don't line up. Clearly, the pics were taken in a studio and there were many light sources. Well, if there were many light sources, there would be many shadows. Also, shadows don't line up on earth either. They just line up if the surfaces they are projected onto line up. So if you have a stone on a slope and an astronaut on even ground, their shadows won't be parallel.
Another common one is that there was no crater below the lunar module from the descent rocket. Well, the gravity is 1/6th of earth's and there's no more thrust needed to keep the LM hovering just before landing than there is to keep a helicopter hovering on earth. If a chopper lands on a beach on earth, does it make a huge crater? Also keep in mind that there's no athmosphere on the moon so there's no "blowing" effect what so ever. Only the lunar dust that was DIRECTLY hit by the rocket blast would be affected - and it was. In every single landing (of which there are long 16mm films, by the way, clearly showing how it all happened) you can see dust "kicking up" from the rocket.
Then there are totally bogus arguments like fake pictures showing "a third astronaut in the reflection of one astronaut's helmet" and stuff like that, which are just picture manipulations. If you bother at all, you can find the original picture (which in many cases is quite common and well known) and see the same picture without the Photoshop edited 3rd astronaut.
.. is not that they last only two-four hours with laptop use. The real problem is that they only last two years before they are totally worn out and you can toss them away. Not too long ago, my dad had to get a new cellular phone because he couldn't find batteries to his Nokia 8110 anymore. The phone was perfectly good for his use and the only reason why he had to get a new phone was because the battery would only last 15 minutes. That's how dead it has gotten in three years. Most of the 2+ year old laptops I've seen have the same problem. PDA's, CD and MD players, same thing. They get a lifespan of 2-3 years simply because their batteries will go dead in that time and you won't find replacements because the stores and factories have moved on to new products.
Don't get me started. I worked for six weeks in Singapore about two years ago. While it's very exotic and clean and all, it sure as hell is not what I would call a "fine city". If you like to live in a police state, sure. I prefer freedom.
While I hate cellphones in cinemas, cafés and restaurants as much as the next guy, I think a *law* to prohibit them in those places is absolutely absurd! What's next? A law against putting your elbows on the table? A law against not opening the door to older people? A law that says you can't chew with your mouth open?
I'm from Finland and this used to be quite a big problem here. Not just at cinemas. It seems people have learned now and for the last couple of years, I don't recall being disturbed by someone's phone at a movie theatre or restaurant. It just takes a while before people pick up on the etiquette. But you sure as hell don't need a law for it.
"Strange. Anybody can maintain their own source code branch, and accept or reject any changes from anybody in the tree he maintains. Do we now need a license for it? Why Sun needed this license?"
Sun's point is that they want to be in control not only of what's in the source but also in control of forking. That's why they [think] they need this license.
They fear that something like Microsoft's Java will happen again, where some company just decides that they will develop the code in another direction, not compatible with their own. While the new code might be better (like in the case of Microsoft's Java, back in those days), it will mean that the term "Java" would no longer mean just one thing but rather that there would be MS-Java, Sun-Java, IBM-Java, HP-Java, etc.
"1) Because one bullet was supposed to have gone thru three people, all at different angles."
Three? See, this is exactly what the parent was talking about. There was *TWO* people that the bullet passed through. Connally and JFK. And if you look at pictures shown by the "look, the single bullet theory is ridiculous"-people, sure enough, it will look like it had to make funny u-turns in the air. However, if you look at the actual pictures of how JFK and Connally sat, you'll notice that they weren't at all directly behind eachother but that JFK was much further to the outside of the car than Connally was. Thus, a bullet passing through his head would have hit Connally in the right shoulder, just as it did.
Of course there's a million other evidence, for and against but I'm not really interested in the whole JFK conspiracy. I just don't like it when people bend the facts; say it was three people instead of two, show diagrams full of errors and clearly exaggerated with bullets making u-turns in the air and so on.
If your case is so convincing, just stick to the facts. Ok?
Here's just one site that reveals some of the bullshit:
How about the Nokia 7650, which IS out now. It has a color screen, Symbian OS, Java, MIDI, GPRS, Bluetooth, a fast CPU, lots of RAM, and a digital camera.
Really? I'm a die-hard flightsim fan that has played Flight Simulator since FS2 on Apple IIe and every version since - the old SubLogic ones, ATP, the MS FS-series (=what the SubLogic ones were called after MS bought them), all of them. Throughout the years, there's been other sims; A320, Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited, X-Plane, the Chuck Yeager sim (I forget the exact name) and Fly! come to mind. None of these have died because Microsoft would have bought them or used dirty tactics. Flight Simulator has always won on its own merits and continues to do so.
Fly! comes relatively close in many aspects but the graphics engine in FS2002 is still WAY ahead. Even FS2000 beats the Fly! II graphics engine! Then there's the extensibility. MS gives out SDK's and tools for its sim so people can make their own planes, sceneries and add-ons for it - such as multiplayer systems like Squawkbox, GPS and FMS systems, flight planners, etc. Then there's scenery accuracy. Then there's flight model accuracy and just plain usability and playability. And quality. Sorry, but while Microsoft may be evil and is eating children and pissing in your cornflakes, you can't deny that Microsoft has produced a kick ass sim that is competing fair and square. To try to deny Microsoft the credit for it just because the really, really, really early versions were based on SubLogic's code is just retarded. So much has changed since then in the engine that there can't be ANYTHING left really.
Then of course, there's the fact that being a monopoly isn't illegal, contrary to popular belief so the DOJ wouldn't go after them even if they DID have a monopoly in flight sims. Even theoretically.
Slashdot Mirror
"Does anyone really want this? Who uses Activex other than corporations that are too dumb to use Java?"
All IE plugins are ActiveX controls. ActiveX is very rarely, if ever, competing against Java applets. In a web browser - in IE, that is - 99% of the time, ActiveX means "plugin". Not "corporation who is too dumb to use Java".
But then again, being so quick to call people dumb, I'm sure you are intelligent enough yourself to figure that out.
There's actually a good reason why that is true in many situations. The reason is that a JIT / interpreter can dynamically analyze and optimize the code. Think about it. A JIT is a compiler - just like a C/C++ compiler. But it compiles from (for example) Java bytecode to native code rather than from C/C++ source code to native code. Now, if it does the compilation before or while the program runs, like the Sun Hotspot Java VM does, then it can actually profile the compiled code and see where the "hot spots" are. That is, it can analyze which parts would benefit the most from optimization, and then optimize those parts much more than a normal C/C++ compiler would do, and with much more knowledge than a C/C++ can ever have.
That's why, if you make something like a simple app that searches for prime numbers or similar, you can actually see higher performance from a Java app running in a good JVM than from a native C/C++ app.
Also keep in mind that many things that are done in high level languages like Java are actually done with native code. For example the graphics toolkit in Java is now hardware accelerated on Windows. So when you blit an Image to another, that's being done in hardware. This means that many things are "just as fast" in Java as in C/C++, because the part of the app that actually uses any considerable CPU cycles is exactly the same in Java as in a native application.
The biggest area where Java still loses is startup time and memory consumption. It's not the fault of the VM if the applications programmed in the language suck. I mean, yeah, most Java apps are dog slow. But when you look at their source code, it's often a horrible mess with people doing non-buffered IO, creating millions of temporary objects every second that cause major garbage collection overheads, etc. It has given the VM a much worse reputation than is warranted.
The way you're bitching, you'd think that phone companies no longer make "normal" phones. That's simply not true. In fact Nokia just recently announced a phone (http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,,4582,00.html) that is much MORE simple than any of the recent low end models of theirs. In fact, most phones of most manufacturers are very low end and doesn't have much more than basic features in them.
Having said that, I think it's a little sad to see you being so locked on a word; "phone". Think of it as "device" instead. In addition to the low end models mentioned above, these companies also make some devices which not only have phone functionality but also other stuff. For example, they have a large screen to make using email and the web easier. They have a camera, so you can send picture messages with MMS to friends ("Look, we're here in Thailand. Doesn't it look nice? Too bad you couldn't join us!" or "The bar is crowded and we're having fun!! You should come here! Here's what it looks like right now!").
Oh, and of course you don't HAVE to buy these devices. If you're happy with your old phone, just keep it.
Why not compare to the actual "road service" web site, which has live cameras in a great number of places, that you can check on the web and see what the weather and traffic is like. In addition, there are also actual "trafic data", which shows "cars per hour" counts as well as "average speed" etc. information.
t -f rame.html
r am e.html
Here (realtime cameras):
http://www.tiehallinto.fi/alk/frames/kelikamera
and here (realtime traffic data):
http://www.tiehallinto.fi/alk/frames/liikenne-f
... is not so much that it is 100 km higher up, but that it is on a completely different plane (inclination). Changing the orbit plane to match that of IIS would requires several orders of magnitude more fuel than just increasing the velocity to lift the orbit from the roughly 270km of Columbia to the roughtly 370km of IIS. Even though 100 km sounds like a lot, it's actually not a huge different in velocity change required (roughly the same as the decrease in velocity for the de-orbit burn, which can even be performed with the RCS thrusters if the OMS engines fail to work for some reason).
I'm curious about your signature. Where did you get the source code to VC++ 6.0's libc? Running it through a debugger, it asks for the file flcose.c, which is nowhere to be found in the VC++ distribution. I also checked EVC. Or could it be that you are just making that up yourself or citing some Internet rumor? Please provide proof to back up that it really doesn't do the assert until before it is too late?
"Yes, but would you know it if you had lost it? ;)"
Because in GSM, the system tells you if the message was delivered or not.
"Don't assume that each new "feature" offered by your cell phone provider (or your ISP) is something you want."
We don't. See, here in Europe, we're had SMS since around 1995 or so, and originally, it wasn't even pitched by the telco. It became popular because it was useful. So calling it a "new feature" is kinda ridiculous.
It's un-obtrusive. You can read and respond when and if you want. It doesn't ring and ring and ring. You can turn of the ringer completely, for the phone AND for SMS and still be able to talk to people if you need to, during meetings, during class, in subways or restaurants or other places where it's considered bad to talk on the phone. If you want to be left alone, just put the phone away.
It's an OPTION, not a MUST. And it's an option that seems to fit lots and lots of people really well, judging from that billions of SMS's are sent every day around the world.
As far as reliability is concerned, like so many others have pointed out, there's a delivery notification for SMS's, so you know if got through. And in addition to that, there's a return receipt system so you know for damn sure that the other person read the message. Here in Europe, and from what me and friends have used it in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, to name a few non-European places, the reliability is sure as hell higher than 7.5% failure. More like 99% or 100% reliability as long as you're not in a concrete bunker 10 meters under ground.
Could you be any more ignorant? SMS, like voice mail, is a supporting function to calls. Their benefit is that they are un-obtrusive to write as well as to send. Just like email. You can read them are respond to them when you like, or ignore them if you don't consider them important. Unlike calls, which demand your attention NOW!
Some typical situations where I use SMS:
- on the subway: "hey, i'll be about 5 minutes late"
- replying to an SMS like the one above with "ok, no problem"
- somewhere without a TV or radio and I want to know the results from the Formula 1 race: "F1" Back comes the results, with short commentary if there were some big accident with injury or similar
- during a meeting, when my phone rang but the person didn't get through because the phone was set on silent to not disturb the meeting: "in meeting. i'll call you after it! was it something urgent?"
- in Thailand, rather than spending 5 euros per minute (or whatever) on a call: "the plane is 10 hours late. don't bother coming to the airport, i'll take a cab"
And no. They are not unreliable. Like so many other person's here have pointed out, SMS's work well enough that you don't even think about reliability issues. I personally don't remember any instance where I would have lost an SMS and over the years, I must have sent several thousands of SMS's. And you know, you actually get confirmation when you send it if it was delivered, PLUS, there's a return receipt system.
The article in this story is talking about text messaging in the *USA*. I wouldn't even be so sure it's about GSM SMS but rather the article writer might just be using "SMS" as a term for proprietary US text messaging systems.
This is definitely NOT what I'm seeing. Not here in Finland, but also not when I've been travelling in other countries that use GSM. I consider it about on par on reliability with email.
First of all, you get a notification immediately on the phone if the message was delivered or not, just like when you send email. In addition to that, there's a return receipt type system that many people use. I personally don't use it because I've never had any problem with messages not getting through, but I know people who do use it and I've never heard them complain about messages getting lost.
I'm wondering if the SMS messages talked about in the article are really GSM SMS messages? It seems that all European users here are saying that they have no problems what so ever. And this study was made in the USA. Considering that GSM is hardly used at all in the USA, I'm kinda wondering if they are just using "SMS" to describe whatever proprietary text messaging systems are in use in the USA. The true SMS is that of the GSM system, where you can send an SMS to any other GSM user in the world, regardless of their or your telco, with litterally billions of messages sent every day (more than email, as a matter of fact).
I find it odd how many readers of Slashdot, whom you'd think are more progressive than most other people, can't get over the term "phone".
Every time there is a story about a new advanced mobile phone, you hear people go "Why does my phone have to do X? it's a phone! Why can't it do one thing well?".
Well, first of all, at least with GSM, which is what most of the world except the USA and Japan use, the phone has worked "very well" for about 10 years now. Coverage is excellent. Sound quality is excellent. Text messages work great. No problems.
Second, "phone" is just a traditional term that is attached to these devices. Just because people call it "phone" doesn't mean that the only feature it should and could have is voice communication. PDA's are getting phone features now, and "phones" are getting PDA features. You might as well refer to all of these handheld computer & communication devices with some new term. But why? What's wrong with continuing to call them "phone" or "PDA"? It's just a name for crying out loud!
And as far as the features themselves go, some of them are quite convenient.
It's quite clear that North Americans have not yet grasped (based on statistics) the convenience and un-obtrusiveness of text messages. It's weird too, as they are basically the equivalent to instant messaging or email, which are both quite popular in North America. Text messages cut down on ringing phones and annoyance quite a lot.
Cameras, while clearly more of a novelty, can be quite cool too. "Hey, is the bar crowded?" "Here, I'll show you!", and then you send an MMS with a 10 second old photo. "You wouldn't believe how much fun we're having here on our vacation!", and a photo to go with it, like a post card, only instantaneous. Yes, it's not something that is necessary, but it's fun and can be quite convenient and nobody is forcing you to buy one of these devices.
Always on internet? You don't HAVE to surf or check your email, but if you're sitting in a restaurant, wondering if there are still tickets to that one movie you wanted to see, you can do it and you can reserve those tickets. Sport freak? You can check those soccer / name-the-sport scores. Or perhaps you're camping and want to check the weather forecast.
Java or native (compiled for the particular device and OS) games? With phones / PDA's that have CPU's as fast as the 486's of a few years ago and as much or more RAM, why not? It means your device doubles as a Game Boy Advance. If you spend a lot of time commuting, waiting on delayed planes on airports, then games can be great!
There are some "phones" now that also double as mp3 players. Why carry two devices if one is enough? Sure, they may not have a 20GB hard drive like the iPod, but the basic idea is good.
Bluetooth - it allows you to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, with a hands-free set but without cables to get tangled up in, without having to take the phone out from your pocket. It also allows you to - without cables - synchronize your address book from your PC to your phone. It allows you to use the Internet connectivity on your phone to get your laptop online from anywhere in the world (provided you use GSM, supported in countries on the planet).
And if you like your phone to be just a traditional phone for voice communication, then go right ahead and buy one of those models that are just that. The cellphone manufacturers still make those too.
So many people seem to doubt that P2P piracy is actually causing record companies to lose money. Well, consider for a minute how much this whole campaign of fighting it costs them. There's no money to be made in suing Napster and other such companies that don't have any money to begin with. So why do you think they are doing it, unless for the reason they say it is - to stop P2P piracy because it's causing them to lose shitloads of money?
I know 99% of all mp3's I'm ever in contact with are illegal and I know that maybe 90% of my friends (which include plenty non-geeks) have stopped buying CD's completely due to mp3's. With faster Internet connections, better P2P software, better mp3 hardware (think iPod), surely the situation isn't going to get any better than it is now.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the record companies actually ARE losing money? I mean, perhaps they deserve to, but I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that record companies aren't losing a lot of income due to P2P piracy!
"I hope for their sake they never make the mistake of firing me b/c noone else could even tell you what ls does!!!"
These kinds of things and people like you is exactly why so many companies are reluctant to switch to Linux. Sure, in your case, your company saved a little money but what happens if you have an accident or leave the company? They have no idea how their own system works and will be completely screwed. This is not the kind of situation companies want to be in. That's why companies would rather stick around with "comfortable and familiar" Windows solutions, even if it crashes every once in a while or has a hundred security bugs that need to be patched every year. In the long run, it's still a smaller risk for the company than relying on some geek who finds it funny (your "lol") that the company is completely dependent on you.
Point 1 is corret.
Point 2 is only partially correct. The bigger part of the picture (pun intended) is that they took 35000 pictures of which only about 5000 are usually shown in books and websites. The rest were over/under exposed, blurred, boring, 2nd halves of stereo images etc. etc. They are not HIDDEN. You can still see them, for example on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal or lots of other places. They are just more rare cause they.. well.. are not very good.
Point 3 is correct and is quite well demonstrated in some pics where you see a crater that looks about 3 meters in diameter. And then you see the lunar rover next to it and you realize it's actually a 300 meter crater.
Point 4, your explanation is wrong. It *IS* a rocket. However, the lunar gravity is only 1/6th of earth's so the acceleration is quite rapid.
Point 5 is quite correct too..
You also failed to mention / debunk some other more "convincing evidence". For example:
In many pictures, shadows don't line up. Clearly, the pics were taken in a studio and there were many light sources. Well, if there were many light sources, there would be many shadows. Also, shadows don't line up on earth either. They just line up if the surfaces they are projected onto line up. So if you have a stone on a slope and an astronaut on even ground, their shadows won't be parallel.
Another common one is that there was no crater below the lunar module from the descent rocket. Well, the gravity is 1/6th of earth's and there's no more thrust needed to keep the LM hovering just before landing than there is to keep a helicopter hovering on earth. If a chopper lands on a beach on earth, does it make a huge crater? Also keep in mind that there's no athmosphere on the moon so there's no "blowing" effect what so ever. Only the lunar dust that was DIRECTLY hit by the rocket blast would be affected - and it was. In every single landing (of which there are long 16mm films, by the way, clearly showing how it all happened) you can see dust "kicking up" from the rocket.
Then there are totally bogus arguments like fake pictures showing "a third astronaut in the reflection of one astronaut's helmet" and stuff like that, which are just picture manipulations. If you bother at all, you can find the original picture (which in many cases is quite common and well known) and see the same picture without the Photoshop edited 3rd astronaut.
.. is not that they last only two-four hours with laptop use. The real problem is that they only last two years before they are totally worn out and you can toss them away. Not too long ago, my dad had to get a new cellular phone because he couldn't find batteries to his Nokia 8110 anymore. The phone was perfectly good for his use and the only reason why he had to get a new phone was because the battery would only last 15 minutes. That's how dead it has gotten in three years. Most of the 2+ year old laptops I've seen have the same problem. PDA's, CD and MD players, same thing. They get a lifespan of 2-3 years simply because their batteries will go dead in that time and you won't find replacements because the stores and factories have moved on to new products.
"Ahhh Singapore! Its a Fine City"
Don't get me started. I worked for six weeks in Singapore about two years ago. While it's very exotic and clean and all, it sure as hell is not what I would call a "fine city". If you like to live in a police state, sure. I prefer freedom.
While I hate cellphones in cinemas, cafés and restaurants as much as the next guy, I think a *law* to prohibit them in those places is absolutely absurd! What's next? A law against putting your elbows on the table? A law against not opening the door to older people? A law that says you can't chew with your mouth open?
I'm from Finland and this used to be quite a big problem here. Not just at cinemas. It seems people have learned now and for the last couple of years, I don't recall being disturbed by someone's phone at a movie theatre or restaurant. It just takes a while before people pick up on the etiquette. But you sure as hell don't need a law for it.
"Land of the free" indeed.
"Strange. Anybody can maintain their own source code branch, and accept or reject any changes from anybody in the tree he maintains. Do we now need a license for it? Why Sun needed this license?"
Sun's point is that they want to be in control not only of what's in the source but also in control of forking. That's why they [think] they need this license.
They fear that something like Microsoft's Java will happen again, where some company just decides that they will develop the code in another direction, not compatible with their own. While the new code might be better (like in the case of Microsoft's Java, back in those days), it will mean that the term "Java" would no longer mean just one thing but rather that there would be MS-Java, Sun-Java, IBM-Java, HP-Java, etc.
Neck, not head. Error on my part in the post. However you entirely missed the point.
"1) Because one bullet was supposed to have gone thru three people, all at different angles."
Three? See, this is exactly what the parent was talking about. There was *TWO* people that the bullet passed through. Connally and JFK. And if you look at pictures shown by the "look, the single bullet theory is ridiculous"-people, sure enough, it will look like it had to make funny u-turns in the air. However, if you look at the actual pictures of how JFK and Connally sat, you'll notice that they weren't at all directly behind eachother but that JFK was much further to the outside of the car than Connally was. Thus, a bullet passing through his head would have hit Connally in the right shoulder, just as it did.
Of course there's a million other evidence, for and against but I'm not really interested in the whole JFK conspiracy. I just don't like it when people bend the facts; say it was three people instead of two, show diagrams full of errors and clearly exaggerated with bullets making u-turns in the air and so on.
If your case is so convincing, just stick to the facts. Ok?
Here's just one site that reveals some of the bullshit:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
How about the Nokia 7650, which IS out now. It has a color screen, Symbian OS, Java, MIDI, GPRS, Bluetooth, a fast CPU, lots of RAM, and a digital camera.
Soon, there will be as many games that you can play on Linux as there are games that you can play on Macintosh!
Yes you can. Either using ad-hoc WLAN or using GPRS. Or using Bluetooth. All three work great for me..
Thanks for the tip!
Really? I'm a die-hard flightsim fan that has played Flight Simulator since FS2 on Apple IIe and every version since - the old SubLogic ones, ATP, the MS FS-series (=what the SubLogic ones were called after MS bought them), all of them. Throughout the years, there's been other sims; A320, Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited, X-Plane, the Chuck Yeager sim (I forget the exact name) and Fly! come to mind. None of these have died because Microsoft would have bought them or used dirty tactics. Flight Simulator has always won on its own merits and continues to do so.
Fly! comes relatively close in many aspects but the graphics engine in FS2002 is still WAY ahead. Even FS2000 beats the Fly! II graphics engine! Then there's the extensibility. MS gives out SDK's and tools for its sim so people can make their own planes, sceneries and add-ons for it - such as multiplayer systems like Squawkbox, GPS and FMS systems, flight planners, etc. Then there's scenery accuracy. Then there's flight model accuracy and just plain usability and playability. And quality. Sorry, but while Microsoft may be evil and is eating children and pissing in your cornflakes, you can't deny that Microsoft has produced a kick ass sim that is competing fair and square. To try to deny Microsoft the credit for it just because the really, really, really early versions were based on SubLogic's code is just retarded. So much has changed since then in the engine that there can't be ANYTHING left really.
Then of course, there's the fact that being a monopoly isn't illegal, contrary to popular belief so the DOJ wouldn't go after them even if they DID have a monopoly in flight sims. Even theoretically.