...I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them. --Prof Frink, Much Apu About Nothing
Well, A) Europeans don't exactly have a good history of being united among themselves or (for better or for worse) of cooperating fully with the US military.
B) I could be wrong, but I think the point of the article is that it is being designed so that *no one* can jam it.
No, he's making a valid point. If the Europeans want to put up a satellite system that anyone can use for military purposes, then the US might very well be forced to shoot it down in the event of war with anyone who uses it (European or not). They probably wouldn't like that, so they're getting the opportuntity in-advance to prevent it.
My high school calc teacher was without a doubt one of the best 2 teachers I ever had -- We never touched a computer once in her class. And God help me, if I had had Maple, I would have been *SCREWED* It's definetely better to learn it first without a computer and then learn the computer shortcuts.
The consentual sodomy case you are talking about is Lawrence v. Texas. The PRIMARY reason they fought the case all the way to the surpreme court was to stay *off* the state's list of registered sex offenders.
I think the industry as a whole would be *MUCH* better off looking for a technical solution rather than hoping for government intervention. Plus, the internet is multinational, so it's a hopeless task for the government to do anything about it. "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" pretty much sums up this article.
The legal system does have rules that a person cannot benefit from his crime. That does NOT prevent others from benefitting, thought. Just look at Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of the mansom family. He made his reputation and a LOT of $ off of the murders. But he didn't commit them, so to our legal system, that's ok.
What I'm trying to say is that LUGs are typically great love ins but, they are rarely any help to a enterprise admin
Don't take this the wrong way, but the purpose of a LUG isn't to provide hardcore engineering-level help. That's what a support contract with the vendor is for. Generally, the purpose of a lug is to provide hel for novice to semi-advanced linux users.
If you want good tech support, you have to pay for it. And updates, but you can get those for free anyhow (but the paying custumers usually get peak-hours priority).
You're not paying for the software itself which, as you said, came from Acadamia. You are paying the tech peoples' salaries and for the servers to host the updates on.
Everyone is in favor of *personal* free speech. People, myself inclued, are not so willingly to extend it to commerical or cooperate free speech - ala Spam, telemarketers, spim et al
The idea here is to do to SCO what they are trying to do to the OS movement - make the public afraid to touch them. I mean, if buying SCO stock means you risk getting a subpeana, who is going to do it? So what if ESR gets one - I'm sure he'd be happy to give SCO a piece of his mind. The goal is to make your average wall streeter afraid to touch SCO with a 10 foot pole, and there's not a whole lot SCO can do that they haven't already done.
I can't remember who, but one of the great sciece fiction masters compared the post World War II world to a tighty packed room where everyone is armed with hand grenades. The situation, by its very nature, tends to erm, "dissuade" major disgreements.
1) That's 3 clicks per email * the rate at which you gets spams. It adds up after a while
2) There's always the chance of a type 2 error - you could lose (either through accidental blocking or unintetional deleteing) an important email.
3) You pay for the bandwidth that they waste, in the long run. They are simply shifting the price of getting in touch with you from themselves to you. In effect, they are calling you on your dime.
Is that necessarily effecient? Hydrogen is clean, but as you point out, the energy to make it has to come from somewhere. Even even if that somewhere is relatively clean, you don't want to use an ineffecient processes to convert it. How effecient is electrolysis?
The article mentions hydrogen fuel cells as a way to break big oil. But last I heard, the most effecient way to make hydrogen is from coal, which is a dirty nasty process. (Or so I hear). Am I wrong on this?
Slashdot Mirror
...I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them. --Prof Frink, Much Apu About Nothing
Well,
A) Europeans don't exactly have a good history of being united among themselves or (for better or for worse) of cooperating fully with the US military.
B) I could be wrong, but I think the point of the article is that it is being designed so that *no one* can jam it.
No, he's making a valid point. If the Europeans want to put up a satellite system that anyone can use for military purposes, then the US might very well be forced to shoot it down in the event of war with anyone who uses it (European or not). They probably wouldn't like that, so they're getting the opportuntity in-advance to prevent it.
My high school calc teacher was without a doubt one of the best 2 teachers I ever had -- We never touched a computer once in her class. And God help me, if I had had Maple, I would have been *SCREWED* It's definetely better to learn it first without a computer and then learn the computer shortcuts.
The consentual sodomy case you are talking about is Lawrence v. Texas. The PRIMARY reason they fought the case all the way to the surpreme court was to stay *off* the state's list of registered sex offenders.
Forget funny, that comment was damn insightful.
Grandpa Simpson: I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was. Now what I'm with isn't it. And what's "it" seems weird and scary to me.
I think the industry as a whole would be *MUCH* better off looking for a technical solution rather than hoping for government intervention. Plus, the internet is multinational, so it's a hopeless task for the government to do anything about it. "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" pretty much sums up this article.
The legal system does have rules that a person cannot benefit from his crime. That does NOT prevent others from benefitting, thought. Just look at Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of the mansom family. He made his reputation and a LOT of $ off of the murders. But he didn't commit them, so to our legal system, that's ok.
It mandates installation of anti-circumvention technology built into your brain at birth?
It's basically a super DMCA act. It kills your right to make personal backups and prohibits copyright circumvention of any kind. How nice of them.
What I'm trying to say is that LUGs are typically great love ins but, they are rarely any help to a enterprise admin
Don't take this the wrong way, but the purpose of a LUG isn't to provide hardcore engineering-level help. That's what a support contract with the vendor is for. Generally, the purpose of a lug is to provide hel for novice to semi-advanced linux users.
If you want good tech support, you have to pay for it. And updates, but you can get those for free anyhow (but the paying custumers usually get peak-hours priority).
You're not paying for the software itself which, as you said, came from Acadamia. You are paying the tech peoples' salaries and for the servers to host the updates on.
Local LUG
Everyone is in favor of *personal* free speech. People, myself inclued, are not so willingly to extend it to commerical or cooperate free speech - ala Spam, telemarketers, spim et al
Hilarious. You damn near made me spill coffee on myself.
The idea here is to do to SCO what they are trying to do to the OS movement - make the public afraid to touch them. I mean, if buying SCO stock means you risk getting a subpeana, who is going to do it? So what if ESR gets one - I'm sure he'd be happy to give SCO a piece of his mind. The goal is to make your average wall streeter afraid to touch SCO with a 10 foot pole, and there's not a whole lot SCO can do that they haven't already done.
"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate..." says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO.
Oh, the irony.
I can't remember who, but one of the great sciece fiction masters compared the post World War II world to a tighty packed room where everyone is armed with hand grenades. The situation, by its very nature, tends to erm, "dissuade" major disgreements.
1) That's 3 clicks per email * the rate at which you gets spams. It adds up after a while
2) There's always the chance of a type 2 error - you could lose (either through accidental blocking or unintetional deleteing) an important email.
3) You pay for the bandwidth that they waste, in the long run. They are simply shifting the price of getting in touch with you from themselves to you. In effect, they are calling you on your dime.
Is that necessarily effecient? Hydrogen is clean, but as you point out, the energy to make it has to come from somewhere. Even even if that somewhere is relatively clean, you don't want to use an ineffecient processes to convert it. How effecient is electrolysis?
The article mentions hydrogen fuel cells as a way to break big oil. But last I heard, the most effecient way to make hydrogen is from coal, which is a dirty nasty process. (Or so I hear). Am I wrong on this?
That comment made me laugh so hard my sides hurt now :)
Hilarious. Did the devil make you write your name in blood in his book? :)