No one, since no code is involved. Most likely no one will be picking up any copies of any interface specifications either as they will probably only be available to closed-source vendors at a substantial fee and under a restrictive NDA.
> It is when laws have progressed to the point of > having no rational basis.
That's the usual kind. Always has been.
> If the law in some city is that wearing a red > shirt on Friday would result in my arrest, is it > right that I be arrested and go to jail even if I > knew nothing of this obscure law?
"Right" has nothing to do with law.
> Laws have to have a rational basis to them.
They do. The best interests of the politicians.
> In the U.S., they should be fairly self evident > if a person is already familiar with the > Constitution. Unforuntately, with the current > state of things, this couldn't be further from the > truth.
> Please show me the passage in your constitution > that mandates only two choices.
It isn't in the Constitution. It's in the political system, where it gets more deeply embedded with every new law restricting ballot access and regulating poltical speech.
> Don't think for a moment that this is just another > way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they > don't like by denying them transportation rights.
And don't think for a moment that things will change for the better should Bush lose the election.
> hey have explosive detectors, they wipe your > clothes with a little paper disk, put it in a > machine, and they know if you were even near > explosives in the last day.
Or manure, or fertilizer, or any number of other nitrogen-containing materials.
I'm sure you will keep right on saying that as they work their way toward the system they really want, in which you will be required to get advance permission in order to be allowed to travel at all.
> Will the Internet fall in popularity as it becomes > more and more frustrating and dangerous to use, or > will we simply see a massive improvement in coding > practices and more secure software?"
It will become more frustrating for us, but less dangerous to those to whom it's just a type of television. This will come about not through a massive improvement in coding practices and more secure software but through a massive increase in regulation and control. The cable companies will control what you see on the Net the way they control what you see on cable tv.
You can't extract hydrogen from the atmosphere. You'd have to extract it from stored water. This could still work, though. During the day you'd use power from the solar cells to crack water, storing energy in the form of hydrogen in the gas bags. This would increase your lift during the day when you need it. At night you would feed hydrogen from the gas bags to fuel cells to produce power, saving the by-product water. This would decrease your lift, but you need less lift at night.
You _might_ be able to extract enough water from the air to supply makeup hydrogen. The air is pretty dry up there, though.
The hydrogen made only a minor contribution. Most of the fuel was in the skin. The fire would have been about as bad if the gas bags had been filled with helium.
Slashdot Mirror
How open is OpenFirmware?
Collecting information on what products are purchased together is not "collecting info on what you buy".
Bullshit. The savings are miniscule. I doubt that any of you make less than I do and I get along without any "loyalty cards".
> Is that why I have two loyalty cards on my keyring
> and three more in my wallet?
The stores forced them on you? They refuse to take your money unless you have one? It is impossible for you to take your business elsewhere?
No one, since no code is involved. Most likely no one will be picking up any copies of any interface specifications either as they will probably only be available to closed-source vendors at a substantial fee and under a restrictive NDA.
> It is when laws have progressed to the point of
> having no rational basis.
That's the usual kind. Always has been.
> If the law in some city is that wearing a red
> shirt on Friday would result in my arrest, is it
> right that I be arrested and go to jail even if I
> knew nothing of this obscure law?
"Right" has nothing to do with law.
> Laws have to have a rational basis to them.
They do. The best interests of the politicians.
> In the U.S., they should be fairly self evident
> if a person is already familiar with the
> Constitution. Unforuntately, with the current > state of things, this couldn't be further from the
> truth.
And always has been.
Do they have to publish the interfaces or just license them under NDA as in the US? If the latter it's useless.
Microsoft's very existence is dependent on copyright law: it is a creature of government regulation.
It's also a matter of what one considers "boring and barren". To me that describes any large city.
How many percent longer does it run between crashes?
Someone succeeded in trademarking Linux.
So what? That's still bloody well obvious.
You can. I can. 99.9% of Windows users can't.
> I mean, we're all going to be buying software
> direct from Indian companies soon,
Speak for yourself.
> Please show me the passage in your constitution
> that mandates only two choices.
It isn't in the Constitution. It's in the political system, where it gets more deeply embedded with every new law restricting ballot access and regulating poltical speech.
> If you're really isolated (ie. on a farm), then
> you will have more problems.
Most farms are closer to one or more small towns than you are to your job in the city.
> Don't think for a moment that this is just another
> way for Bushcroft & co. to harass people they
> don't like by denying them transportation rights.
And don't think for a moment that things will change for the better should Bush lose the election.
> If a person does not have any dangerous stuff with
> him/her, then what is the justification in
> forbidding that person to fly?
The fact that those doing the forbidding have guns.
> hey have explosive detectors, they wipe your
> clothes with a little paper disk, put it in a
> machine, and they know if you were even near
> explosives in the last day.
Or manure, or fertilizer, or any number of other nitrogen-containing materials.
I'm sure you will keep right on saying that as they work their way toward the system they really want, in which you will be required to get advance permission in order to be allowed to travel at all.
> But some say the project would violate privacy
> rights, while others are concerned it would cost
> the private sector too much money.
It will also decrease security.
> Will the Internet fall in popularity as it becomes
> more and more frustrating and dangerous to use, or
> will we simply see a massive improvement in coding
> practices and more secure software?"
It will become more frustrating for us, but less dangerous to those to whom it's just a type of television. This will come about not through a massive improvement in coding practices and more secure software but through a massive increase in regulation and control. The cable companies will control what you see on the Net the way they control what you see on cable tv.
You can't extract hydrogen from the atmosphere. You'd have to extract it from stored water. This could still work, though. During the day you'd use power from the solar cells to crack water, storing energy in the form of hydrogen in the gas bags. This would increase your lift during the day when you need it. At night you would feed hydrogen from the gas bags to fuel cells to produce power, saving the by-product water. This would decrease your lift, but you need less lift at night.
You _might_ be able to extract enough water from the air to supply makeup hydrogen. The air is pretty dry up there, though.
The idea is to generate hydrogen during the day and use it at night. Air density increases at night, so less lift is needed then.
The hydrogen made only a minor contribution. Most of the fuel was in the skin. The fire would have been about as bad if the gas bags had been filled with helium.