...and then/. will hate him like a holy Jihad, with every other story a lefthanded rant about how Google sucks, and how the world of mindless sheep computer users just don't properly appreciate the open-source alternatives
But only after an extended period of time where searches through Google (or any attempt to access a Google service) would randomly lead to a green error screen with cryptic debug data - unofficially known as the "Green Screen of Goo".
If you look at the test picture, you'll note that the OCZ product has a much more shiny "silver" look. We all know that the more shiny something is, the better it is. Obviously the CompUSA stuff is crap.
Now - what all those orange and red dots have to do with anything... and all that text... and... ooooh... xbox....
There's nothing either inaccurate or misleading about it. RedHat's entire business model is built on repacking other peoples work. If they want to be taken as a serious software company they'll have to do more than make small (relatively speaking) contributions.
I suppose it all depends on your perspective. Sure - RedHat packages the work of others. Welcome to the world of Open Source. Heck - its not like the concept is foriegn to proprietary software either. The IT industry is full of examples of companies making profit off of other's work. Around here, there seems to be a certain glee taken when Microsoft is discovered to be using BSD or GPL code (even when they're fully complying with the license in question).
I guess it comes down to perception. Just how much of a contribution does RedHat make? I'm under the impression that they give pretty heavily to the Open Source community. RedHat's own listing includes quite a few projects - though no indication as to exactly how much input they've had. One can also find occasional mention of RedHat's development involvement elsewhere (albiet this is also from a RedHat source, if an informal one). I have no idea what the current status of RedHat involvement in these projects are. Feel free to provide an update / information. But at this point, my own perception leans towards RedHat being a contributer as well as consumer of Open Source code.
Why bother? People went to distributions so that they didn't have to build a system on their own.
Sure. And I bet if these contributions are important enough, they'll get adopted by the Linux comunity as a whole and show up in your normal Fedora (Debian, SuSE, etc.) packages. Heck. Even if they don't get picked up by the Linux community in general, if its important to RedHat users there will be someone who'll package them for Fedora.
Why not make the binary packages available? It's not as if it requires additional work. They're already doing it for themselves. Why not distribute those binaries to mirror sites? Simple: RedHat is now a corporation and the need to generate profits goes against the OpenSource ideal.
I agree with you in part. It is a bit odd that RedHat is playing at this. And it seems a bit silly considering the ability for the RedHat / Fedora community to simply pick up the code and package it. But hey - its their business.
One point to stress - RedHat's new business model is really about highlighting their service. They want to make it very plain what piece one is getting when one installs Fedora or RedHat Enterprise. Fedora is the bleeding edge, experimental, community, hack distribution. RedHat Enterprise is the nice, safe, slow target for Enterprise software developers and their customers. Chock full of certified compatability, full-service binaries, support options / infrastructure, and all the other warm-fuzzy tidbits an Enterprise customer likes to buy.
Does this go against the Open Source ideal? Not at all. It's a change (one that I'm not too fond of myself). But it falls in line with their licensing. And RedHat still contributes - albeit in a different manner. After all, nobody said that you weren't allowed to make a buck. Even the FSF.
RedHat is not a serious software company. Their primary business is taking someone elses software and packaging it together and selling it (I don't care if they call it support there's no way to get RedHat without paying so for all intents and purposes it's being sold).
First, RedHat contributes to various Open Source projects. Labeling all of RedHat Linux as "someone elses software" is at the least inacurrate. It may even be misleading.
Secondly, all of RedHat's contributions to Open Source progects are available for download. To include the Enterprise improvements. However, these are more likely to be limited to source code. Download, compile, install. Or wait for someone else to do it. Voila. You have the software.
What you don't get is the RedHat service. Easy, quick binary packages and update infrastructure. Or a vendor-certified environment for your Enterprise applications.
Earth-orbit is hardly a "frontier" in this century. 200 km may qualify as space research, but not space exploration.
I would certainly call earth orbit a frontier (as well as the moon). These are not trivial places to reach - despite our overall success in launching vehicles in to space. It will remain a frontier until space stations are numerous and commercial flights to them are available to most civilians.
NASA's space exploration is not like the colonization of America by European powers, because after setting foot there the powers that be didn't follow through with settlements or even extended exploration.
How long did it take to colonize America after Columbus first reported back with his findings (not even touching on whether Columbus was first)? How long after the first colonies on the east coast until the west was also conquored? Keep in mind that timeline before you label space as abandoned.
Steve Jackson Games had this happen back in the 80s...you know, before the invention of Half-Life and Everquest, and hence before computers were interesting. They were raided by the SS (for a totally bogus reason) and had their computers siezed.
Re:That just takes out all the romanticism
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That said, my older sister (in a PhD program in Physics no less) talked me into looking at the Mars Rover videos on NASA. While we both agreed that the entire project seemed like a waste of money, and questioned the motives, and agreed that we wouldn't ever want to do such work, it was still...well cool.
As an aside - what questionable motives do you put to the mars probes? Surely you're not expecting a missile platform on the next rover.
Another possibility to your lack of interest is that the space program is no longer the center of technology. At one time, some of the best of the best were working for NASA (or other national space programs) in one way or another. NASA was well funded. It was developing cutting edge, amazing technology. If you wanted to work on the absolute coolest tech with the best in the field, NASA was a place to do it.
Not anymore.
Today's NASA is largely a bureaucracy filled with bureaucrats and the mediocre - peppered with groups of very talented and skilled True Believers of the space program. NASA's budget is constantly under attack and often linked to various porkbarrel projects. Now, if you want to work on cutting edge tech with the best in your field... unless its VERY specific to space exploration, you're probably better off looking elsewhere than NASA.
Sadly.
Sure, Spirit and other Mars rovers are cool. But they're not manned-mission-to-the-moon (or Mars) cool.
Not to say he's right, but your analogy actually reinforces his POV, not yours.
Either I didn't make my point clearly enough, or you missed it.
Sure - the discovery of the "New World" was due to the work of mavericks (although funded by their respective governments / power structure). But once that boundary was pushed and new frontiers were discovered, there was a very important (and rahter long) period of history where that frontier was explored and settled. It wasn't simply a process of continuously sailing over the next horizon (although it wasn't the end of exploring frontiers either).
We should continue to push beyond our known horizon. But the desire to do so does not mean continued work with existing, known frontiers is fruitless.
What good is going 200 miles up? It's pointless? Been there done that. We need to grow a a pair and get going.
Exactly. I mean - we keep doing this kind of thing. What the hell was the use of constantly sailing to this "New World" place? I mean - ships already hit the shoreline once. All this colonization and exploration crap. Worthless. History's superpowers should have been more worried with building ships to sail further.
I'm glad that NASA is getting a good kick in the pants. We can't waste another 30 years with crap like a 300 miles in space POS shuttle.
Say. You don't suppose it had anything to do with budget do you? Take a look at Volume 1 of the CAIB report - Chapter 5. Find Section 5.3 (on page 107). Do a little reading on what NASA had to work with in the past versus what they work with now.
The only caveat to this is that NASA changed. Those who held the slide-rules lost power to those who did the bean-counting. To some extent - this difference in management has been blamed for Challenger. And it is a simular theme that shows up within the pages of the CAIB Report.
Re:That just takes out all the romanticism
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I mean I know I can remember growing up as a kid, and thinking how cool it would be to go discover new things on the moon, or go make friends with aliens. I mean has anybody here not dreamed of being an Astronaught someday?
That's because you were a kid. You're an adult now. You understand more. And you're probably much more cynical. Your world view has shifted dramatically.
The program you are all sentimental about was part of a pissing contest between two superpowers holding guns to each other's heads. That doesn't really fall in line with the whole concept of discovering new things and making friends with aliens.
Heck - during the 60's, American culture couldn't even hold on to the "making friends with aliens" idea. SciFi flicks of the era started with aliens being our friends and possibly saviors. Then Hollywood latched on to the idea that aliens might not be friendly. Aliens became all manner of monster and mennace. Mix in a bit of Red Scare and you got Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Back to reality.
Why did the US get so upset over Sputnik to begin with? It doesn't take much imagionation to see the military aspects.
Don't get me wrong. I think the space program is more than military application. But the military aspect has always been there. Whether you recognized it or not.
The initial designs involved a telescopic rod. Experiments on the Vomit Commet proved that once extended, the astronaut would be unable to maneuver the rod effectively (the test subject would attempt to move the rod and end up twisting themselves about with the rod remaining stationary). So that idea was scrapped and the engineer in question began working on the problem.
His design was effectively a compressed gas source connected to a hose with a hook on its end. The device itself would store nice and compact with the hose itself bunched up on to the device (kind of telescoped I suppose). The astronaut would arm the device and squeeze a lever to dump gas in to the inflatable hose and extend it towards the structure. With low mass, the extended hose can then be moved about until the astronaut is able to hook the structure. They can then deflate the host and pull themselves to safety.
Another tidbit about working for NASA - one retains ownership of one's ideas. NASA legal helped the engineer patent his device (with a royalty free provision for NASA use, of course). The device itself has been picked up in the civilian market as rescue gear for rescuing victims caught in thin ice or out in a river.
I guess they don't want Marvin the Martian visiting the US anytime soon...
Oh, c'mon. Its got nothing to do with imigration. Its simply an extension of NASA's work with the Grey. NASA is working on additional pools of candidates for the on-going technology / genetics transfer program. Nothing to get excited about.
Interesting how a seemingly unrelated government entity can become part of the story.
NASA shares its expertise in different ways. I worked with an engineer who normaly developed various tools for use in space (one of his favorite was an emergency device used in case an astronaut got seperated from the structure during EVA). He also worked on a university research project to help develop a continuous flow heart pump.
We passively consume the articles, occasionally getting our suggestions accepted. But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it. Even if the vast majority of us agreed that an article was crap, and should never have been posted, we couldn't change it one iota.
Wow. This explains why every once in awhile, we'll get some article peppered with responses about what crap the article is. Its because these folks "passively consume the articles."
Imagine if these folks realized that they could actually interact. They can register. They can configure their account. They can filter out subjects they're not interested in. Or... now this is where it gets tricky.... NOT click on the articles that sound like "crap."
Using the Web is odd like that. All chock full of interactive content and the ability to select one thing over the other. Granted - this is sometimes lost on content providers that come from broadcast media (and ad / marketer types). But hey.
I used to work (until about 1.5 years ago) pretty much opposite the Johnson Space Center in Houston. They have a Saturn V outside there - I often took people who came to visit me to JSC, and we'd have a look around the rocket park.
I work at JSC; pass Rocket Park a couple times a day on average. It is one of JSC's more noticeable landmarks. And central to Rocket Park is the Saturn V.
The Saturn V is indeed decaying. Badly. You can see the decay even from the main road going in and out of the center.
I had heard that a contractor was brought out to power-wash the rocket. During the job, flakes of paint began to wash loose. They stopped but some damage had already been done - and it simply highlights the current bad state of disrepair.
Budget for restoring the rocket is difficult to come by. And I understand that there has been some talk about building a sun shade over the rocket. Apparently, it would be cheaper to build the structure and routinely paint THAT rather than the continued cycle of refurbishing the aging Saturn V's surface. Of course - just because it might be cost effective, doesn't mean the money is available.
The best artifact inside JSC is an Apollo capsule that went to the moon and back. You can actually (or could when I was last there) touch the heat shield - it's neat touching something that's been to the Moon and back.
JSC has a lot of neat artifacts tucked away. The hallways of JSC's buildings are kind of like small museums. You can find some interesting conceptual art, diagrams, and models. Amazing photographs of Earth's geographical features as well as various atronomical bodies. There are displays of functional objects like space food, clothing, and tools. There are historical displays of old space suits. A hall of honor to those who have gone EVA. A Mission Control console used during Apollo 13. Models of early Shuttle designs used in the sonic test chamber. Just to name a few things. Most of the public will never see these displays.
It is simply ludicrous to assume that one admin, or even a team of them, is going to manually install patches to 50,000 workstations every couple months.
A good point. But then, it's already been pointed out that a Linux admin can automate this process. And have been able to do so for some time.
And that's the point. Automatic updates hasn't been highlighted in the Linux world because it has not been a problem; either because Linux admins don't see a personal need to do it or they already do it and don't see it as something special (how else do admins for large Linux server farms operate... or the IT folk for the likes of Burlington Coat Factory).
I'd like to see 90% of end-users using Linux and then see how secure it actually is... Note that these 90% will do _every_ possible stupid thing which will compromise security. Similarly, all the script kiddies, virus writers etc. would know that there is this huge bunch of potentially stupid guys (who do not know anything about security) using Linux.
That's a fair point. I'm also eager to see how Linux handles the desktop environment - a wasteland of unmanaged potential victims.
After all, Linux is not bulletproof. To take advantages of its strengths, someone has to manage it. In one form or another.
Having said that - its not a given that Linux would fall in the same manner as Windows. Keep in mind that many of the more successfull malware examples take advantage of fundimental design flaws in Windows or key Microsoft applications. In many ways, Microsoft has created its own problems.
To be fair, there are examples of Windows vulnerabilities that could be seen in Linux. Linux has had its fair share of worms too (although why they are shortlived is another conversation). And if a user is hell-bent on installing or executing some piece of dangerous code, then they're going to do it (and at the least lose their data).
But again - just because things happen in one environment, it doesn't mean they're going to happen in the new environment. Especially when those two environments have considerable differences.
Lots of things that propelled Linux (installers, heavy duty applications, drivers) were supported/helped by profit-loving companies.
Don't get me wrong. Loss of Linux's corporate sponsors would be a serious hit (as I noted in the given examples). But the potential damage is much less that with products based on proprietary software.
For example, once IBM decided OS/2 wasn't doing them any good, end users for OS/2 had to migrate. Once Be, Inc. went under, so did BeOS - no further deployment, development, or support.
If Mandrake goes under, users will be able to migrate to another distribution. That is, unless someone else decides that there is enough to Mandrake to continue supporting that particular distro's oddities.
If RedHat is sunk, SuSE will very likely pick up the slack. Especially with support from IBM and Novell. And that's not even counting the small groups of independant and sponsored special-interest developers or wave of independant or employed support personnel.
And that's the point.
You can directly attack proprietary products. But products based on Open Source make a different kind of target. And while they certainly can be damaged, they are also much more resilient to the standard bag of tricks.
This was also a subject of speculation here on Slashdot. However, if one starts digging and poking around, one discovers that the product largely consists of GNU and *BSD code (there's another thread covering this). It seems unlikely that there is any actual Unix code that requires such a license.
The GPL utility source code for Services for UNIX 3.0 contains the base utilities diff, sdiff, bc, dc, cpio, gzip, gunzip, gawk, patch, csplit, nl, strings, rpm, and SDK utilities/libraries ld.so, gcc, gdb, g++, g77, gasp, objcopy, ld, as, ar, nm, size, strip, ci, co, diff3 rcs, rlog, and ident.
The GPL utility source code for Interix 2.2 contains the utilities bc, ci, co, cpio, csplit, dc, diff, diff3, gawk, gzip, gunzip, ident, merge, nl, rcs, rcsdiff, rcsmerge and rlog.
Order the CD For $20 US you can order GPL utility source code from Interop Systems for either Interix 2.2 or Services for UNIX 3.0.
Download via FTP You can also download the GPL utility source code for either Interix 2.2 or Services for UNIX 3.0 directly from the Microsoft FTP server.
Windows hat put other companies out of business. Linux should be justa little bit worried.
Your thinking old business.
With conventional products, a piece of software is linked to a specific company. For that software project / product to continue, it must not only generate profit, but enough of a profit to be worth continuing. Microsoft is very good at either removing or damaging a market enough that competing products do not manage to generate the minimum profit required to continue. Once a product is abandoned, it is often shelved and removed from the market.
The difference with an Open Source base is that the product is not linked with a single company or product. If, for example, RedHat goes under it does not mean Linux is no longer available or actively developed. In another example, if IBM decided their Linux business wasn't profitable enough to continue and they decided to market something else, Linux would still be available. Sure - both situations would be hard hits for Linux as a whole to take. But neither case would mean the removal of Linux from the market.
Linux is developed by fairly diverse group. It is currently used by a rather large range of businesses. And there is little additional companies from picking it up for their own use / products. Even in our example of IBM deciding to drop Linux, another company can easily come along and pick it up if they've got another idea of how to use it. This makes Linux a hard target to attack directly.
Granted - Linux isn't invulnerable. But it is much more difficult than conventional products to attack with a "squeeze off the air supply" tactic.
Not when you're dealing with long distances. Sure - walking is good exercise. Most people could use it (me included). But the Segway provides a way of covering those distances in a manner when walking isn't practical (and neither is a vehicle such as a car or bike).
Again, why not walk the 20 feet to the watercooler?
Lazy-ass mofo.
Who said anything about 20ft? Some office complexes are rather large. Zipping around a large office campus, going in and out of the associated buildings, could be very usefull at times. Especially if you can cover that distance quickly (and without mowing down pedestrians).
That's not to say that everyone needs a Segway. If your trips around the office involves a 20ft walk to the water cooler, then the Segway isn't for you. But that doesn't mean it's for nobody either.
Have you even tried to imagine what a third-generation Segway might look like or do, or are you stuck criticizing the Model A for its flaws? The bicycle is at its development ceiling, there isn't much more you can do with the basic idea except to make it lighter and stronger.
What I find kind of amusing about this line of thinking was the reactions to the first bicycles. They were rather inefficent, difficult to use, somewhat dangerous, and got a lot of negative attention from critics claiming that the odd devices would never have any pratical use.
Uh, that thing has *four* closely-spaced wheels - that makes it something that's going to fall over really easily.
Another thing that this does is increase the footprint for the device. I believe one of the advantages touted for the Segway was that it could be used wherever someone would walk due to a footprint roughly the same size as a pedestrian. It looks like if one wanted to pivot around with this device, you're much more likely to catch someone's toes as the back wheels swing around.
Slashdot Mirror
But only after an extended period of time where searches through Google (or any attempt to access a Google service) would randomly lead to a green error screen with cryptic debug data - unofficially known as the "Green Screen of Goo".
If you look at the test picture, you'll note that the OCZ product has a much more shiny "silver" look. We all know that the more shiny something is, the better it is. Obviously the CompUSA stuff is crap.
Now - what all those orange and red dots have to do with anything... and all that text... and... ooooh... xbox....
I suppose it all depends on your perspective. Sure - RedHat packages the work of others. Welcome to the world of Open Source. Heck - its not like the concept is foriegn to proprietary software either. The IT industry is full of examples of companies making profit off of other's work. Around here, there seems to be a certain glee taken when Microsoft is discovered to be using BSD or GPL code (even when they're fully complying with the license in question).
I guess it comes down to perception. Just how much of a contribution does RedHat make? I'm under the impression that they give pretty heavily to the Open Source community. RedHat's own listing includes quite a few projects - though no indication as to exactly how much input they've had. One can also find occasional mention of RedHat's development involvement elsewhere (albiet this is also from a RedHat source, if an informal one). I have no idea what the current status of RedHat involvement in these projects are. Feel free to provide an update / information. But at this point, my own perception leans towards RedHat being a contributer as well as consumer of Open Source code.
Sure. And I bet if these contributions are important enough, they'll get adopted by the Linux comunity as a whole and show up in your normal Fedora (Debian, SuSE, etc.) packages. Heck. Even if they don't get picked up by the Linux community in general, if its important to RedHat users there will be someone who'll package them for Fedora.
I agree with you in part. It is a bit odd that RedHat is playing at this. And it seems a bit silly considering the ability for the RedHat / Fedora community to simply pick up the code and package it. But hey - its their business.
One point to stress - RedHat's new business model is really about highlighting their service. They want to make it very plain what piece one is getting when one installs Fedora or RedHat Enterprise. Fedora is the bleeding edge, experimental, community, hack distribution. RedHat Enterprise is the nice, safe, slow target for Enterprise software developers and their customers. Chock full of certified compatability, full-service binaries, support options / infrastructure, and all the other warm-fuzzy tidbits an Enterprise customer likes to buy.
Does this go against the Open Source ideal? Not at all. It's a change (one that I'm not too fond of myself). But it falls in line with their licensing. And RedHat still contributes - albeit in a different manner. After all, nobody said that you weren't allowed to make a buck. Even the FSF.
First, RedHat contributes to various Open Source projects. Labeling all of RedHat Linux as "someone elses software" is at the least inacurrate. It may even be misleading.
Secondly, all of RedHat's contributions to Open Source progects are available for download. To include the Enterprise improvements. However, these are more likely to be limited to source code. Download, compile, install. Or wait for someone else to do it. Voila. You have the software.
What you don't get is the RedHat service. Easy, quick binary packages and update infrastructure. Or a vendor-certified environment for your Enterprise applications.
I would certainly call earth orbit a frontier (as well as the moon). These are not trivial places to reach - despite our overall success in launching vehicles in to space. It will remain a frontier until space stations are numerous and commercial flights to them are available to most civilians.
How long did it take to colonize America after Columbus first reported back with his findings (not even touching on whether Columbus was first)? How long after the first colonies on the east coast until the west was also conquored? Keep in mind that timeline before you label space as abandoned.
Bruce Sterling wrote a piece on this event called The Hacker Crackdown.
As an aside - what questionable motives do you put to the mars probes? Surely you're not expecting a missile platform on the next rover.
Another possibility to your lack of interest is that the space program is no longer the center of technology. At one time, some of the best of the best were working for NASA (or other national space programs) in one way or another. NASA was well funded. It was developing cutting edge, amazing technology. If you wanted to work on the absolute coolest tech with the best in the field, NASA was a place to do it.
Not anymore.
Today's NASA is largely a bureaucracy filled with bureaucrats and the mediocre - peppered with groups of very talented and skilled True Believers of the space program. NASA's budget is constantly under attack and often linked to various porkbarrel projects. Now, if you want to work on cutting edge tech with the best in your field... unless its VERY specific to space exploration, you're probably better off looking elsewhere than NASA.
Sadly.
Sure, Spirit and other Mars rovers are cool. But they're not manned-mission-to-the-moon (or Mars) cool.
Either I didn't make my point clearly enough, or you missed it.
Sure - the discovery of the "New World" was due to the work of mavericks (although funded by their respective governments / power structure). But once that boundary was pushed and new frontiers were discovered, there was a very important (and rahter long) period of history where that frontier was explored and settled. It wasn't simply a process of continuously sailing over the next horizon (although it wasn't the end of exploring frontiers either).
We should continue to push beyond our known horizon. But the desire to do so does not mean continued work with existing, known frontiers is fruitless.
Exactly. I mean - we keep doing this kind of thing. What the hell was the use of constantly sailing to this "New World" place? I mean - ships already hit the shoreline once. All this colonization and exploration crap. Worthless. History's superpowers should have been more worried with building ships to sail further.
Say. You don't suppose it had anything to do with budget do you? Take a look at Volume 1 of the CAIB report - Chapter 5. Find Section 5.3 (on page 107). Do a little reading on what NASA had to work with in the past versus what they work with now.
The only caveat to this is that NASA changed. Those who held the slide-rules lost power to those who did the bean-counting. To some extent - this difference in management has been blamed for Challenger. And it is a simular theme that shows up within the pages of the CAIB Report.
That's because you were a kid. You're an adult now. You understand more. And you're probably much more cynical. Your world view has shifted dramatically.
The program you are all sentimental about was part of a pissing contest between two superpowers holding guns to each other's heads. That doesn't really fall in line with the whole concept of discovering new things and making friends with aliens.
Heck - during the 60's, American culture couldn't even hold on to the "making friends with aliens" idea. SciFi flicks of the era started with aliens being our friends and possibly saviors. Then Hollywood latched on to the idea that aliens might not be friendly. Aliens became all manner of monster and mennace. Mix in a bit of Red Scare and you got Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Back to reality.
Why did the US get so upset over Sputnik to begin with? It doesn't take much imagionation to see the military aspects.
Don't get me wrong. I think the space program is more than military application. But the military aspect has always been there. Whether you recognized it or not.
Both you and the AC who responded are close.
The initial designs involved a telescopic rod. Experiments on the Vomit Commet proved that once extended, the astronaut would be unable to maneuver the rod effectively (the test subject would attempt to move the rod and end up twisting themselves about with the rod remaining stationary). So that idea was scrapped and the engineer in question began working on the problem.
His design was effectively a compressed gas source connected to a hose with a hook on its end. The device itself would store nice and compact with the hose itself bunched up on to the device (kind of telescoped I suppose). The astronaut would arm the device and squeeze a lever to dump gas in to the inflatable hose and extend it towards the structure. With low mass, the extended hose can then be moved about until the astronaut is able to hook the structure. They can then deflate the host and pull themselves to safety.
Another tidbit about working for NASA - one retains ownership of one's ideas. NASA legal helped the engineer patent his device (with a royalty free provision for NASA use, of course). The device itself has been picked up in the civilian market as rescue gear for rescuing victims caught in thin ice or out in a river.
Oh, c'mon. Its got nothing to do with imigration. Its simply an extension of NASA's work with the Grey. NASA is working on additional pools of candidates for the on-going technology / genetics transfer program. Nothing to get excited about.
NASA shares its expertise in different ways. I worked with an engineer who normaly developed various tools for use in space (one of his favorite was an emergency device used in case an astronaut got seperated from the structure during EVA). He also worked on a university research project to help develop a continuous flow heart pump.
Wow. This explains why every once in awhile, we'll get some article peppered with responses about what crap the article is. Its because these folks "passively consume the articles."
Imagine if these folks realized that they could actually interact. They can register. They can configure their account. They can filter out subjects they're not interested in. Or... now this is where it gets tricky.... NOT click on the articles that sound like "crap."
Using the Web is odd like that. All chock full of interactive content and the ability to select one thing over the other. Granted - this is sometimes lost on content providers that come from broadcast media (and ad / marketer types). But hey.
I work at JSC; pass Rocket Park a couple times a day on average. It is one of JSC's more noticeable landmarks. And central to Rocket Park is the Saturn V.
The Saturn V is indeed decaying. Badly. You can see the decay even from the main road going in and out of the center.
I had heard that a contractor was brought out to power-wash the rocket. During the job, flakes of paint began to wash loose. They stopped but some damage had already been done - and it simply highlights the current bad state of disrepair.
Budget for restoring the rocket is difficult to come by. And I understand that there has been some talk about building a sun shade over the rocket. Apparently, it would be cheaper to build the structure and routinely paint THAT rather than the continued cycle of refurbishing the aging Saturn V's surface. Of course - just because it might be cost effective, doesn't mean the money is available.
JSC has a lot of neat artifacts tucked away. The hallways of JSC's buildings are kind of like small museums. You can find some interesting conceptual art, diagrams, and models. Amazing photographs of Earth's geographical features as well as various atronomical bodies. There are displays of functional objects like space food, clothing, and tools. There are historical displays of old space suits. A hall of honor to those who have gone EVA. A Mission Control console used during Apollo 13. Models of early Shuttle designs used in the sonic test chamber. Just to name a few things. Most of the public will never see these displays.
A good point. But then, it's already been pointed out that a Linux admin can automate this process. And have been able to do so for some time.
And that's the point. Automatic updates hasn't been highlighted in the Linux world because it has not been a problem; either because Linux admins don't see a personal need to do it or they already do it and don't see it as something special (how else do admins for large Linux server farms operate... or the IT folk for the likes of Burlington Coat Factory).
That's a fair point. I'm also eager to see how Linux handles the desktop environment - a wasteland of unmanaged potential victims.
After all, Linux is not bulletproof. To take advantages of its strengths, someone has to manage it. In one form or another.
Having said that - its not a given that Linux would fall in the same manner as Windows. Keep in mind that many of the more successfull malware examples take advantage of fundimental design flaws in Windows or key Microsoft applications. In many ways, Microsoft has created its own problems.
To be fair, there are examples of Windows vulnerabilities that could be seen in Linux. Linux has had its fair share of worms too (although why they are shortlived is another conversation). And if a user is hell-bent on installing or executing some piece of dangerous code, then they're going to do it (and at the least lose their data).
But again - just because things happen in one environment, it doesn't mean they're going to happen in the new environment. Especially when those two environments have considerable differences.
Don't get me wrong. Loss of Linux's corporate sponsors would be a serious hit (as I noted in the given examples). But the potential damage is much less that with products based on proprietary software.
For example, once IBM decided OS/2 wasn't doing them any good, end users for OS/2 had to migrate. Once Be, Inc. went under, so did BeOS - no further deployment, development, or support.
If Mandrake goes under, users will be able to migrate to another distribution. That is, unless someone else decides that there is enough to Mandrake to continue supporting that particular distro's oddities.
If RedHat is sunk, SuSE will very likely pick up the slack. Especially with support from IBM and Novell. And that's not even counting the small groups of independant and sponsored special-interest developers or wave of independant or employed support personnel.
And that's the point.
You can directly attack proprietary products. But products based on Open Source make a different kind of target. And while they certainly can be damaged, they are also much more resilient to the standard bag of tricks.
This was also a subject of speculation here on Slashdot. However, if one starts digging and poking around, one discovers that the product largely consists of GNU and *BSD code (there's another thread covering this). It seems unlikely that there is any actual Unix code that requires such a license.
And GNU. From their licensing page:
Which leads to kind of odd little things like the ability to download the contents of the GPL from Microsoft's servers (ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/Interix/interix
Your thinking old business.
With conventional products, a piece of software is linked to a specific company. For that software project / product to continue, it must not only generate profit, but enough of a profit to be worth continuing. Microsoft is very good at either removing or damaging a market enough that competing products do not manage to generate the minimum profit required to continue. Once a product is abandoned, it is often shelved and removed from the market.
The difference with an Open Source base is that the product is not linked with a single company or product. If, for example, RedHat goes under it does not mean Linux is no longer available or actively developed. In another example, if IBM decided their Linux business wasn't profitable enough to continue and they decided to market something else, Linux would still be available. Sure - both situations would be hard hits for Linux as a whole to take. But neither case would mean the removal of Linux from the market.
Linux is developed by fairly diverse group. It is currently used by a rather large range of businesses. And there is little additional companies from picking it up for their own use / products. Even in our example of IBM deciding to drop Linux, another company can easily come along and pick it up if they've got another idea of how to use it. This makes Linux a hard target to attack directly.
Granted - Linux isn't invulnerable. But it is much more difficult than conventional products to attack with a "squeeze off the air supply" tactic.
Not when you're dealing with long distances. Sure - walking is good exercise. Most people could use it (me included). But the Segway provides a way of covering those distances in a manner when walking isn't practical (and neither is a vehicle such as a car or bike).
Who said anything about 20ft? Some office complexes are rather large. Zipping around a large office campus, going in and out of the associated buildings, could be very usefull at times. Especially if you can cover that distance quickly (and without mowing down pedestrians).
That's not to say that everyone needs a Segway. If your trips around the office involves a 20ft walk to the water cooler, then the Segway isn't for you. But that doesn't mean it's for nobody either.
What I find kind of amusing about this line of thinking was the reactions to the first bicycles. They were rather inefficent, difficult to use, somewhat dangerous, and got a lot of negative attention from critics claiming that the odd devices would never have any pratical use.
Could you ride that bike on a crowded sidewalk (local ordinances aside)? How about through an office hallway.
Another thing that this does is increase the footprint for the device. I believe one of the advantages touted for the Segway was that it could be used wherever someone would walk due to a footprint roughly the same size as a pedestrian. It looks like if one wanted to pivot around with this device, you're much more likely to catch someone's toes as the back wheels swing around.