It is also alarming that today's Russia is still in complete denial over their role as an aggressor in WWII, and that they're still to this day holding on to the Finnish provinces that Stalin demanded from Finland, besides massive war reparations, as an "Allied victor" after the war.
Well, I'm from Finland myself, and one of my grandfathers was killed fighting the Russians during the Continuation War (my other grandfather survived the war though), so I know all to well about USSR and their behavior. I have no love lost for Russians when it comes to their aggression against Finland and the brutal dictatorship that they had.
That said, I have no problems acknowledging the fact that it was Russians who carried out the bulk of the fighting against the Germans. Yes, Stalin was no better than Hitler was. But the fact is that USSR was instrumental at defeating Germany. Denying that fact because Stalin was an asshole and because actions of USSR left alot to be desired, is simply revisionism.
But if it werent for US materials it would have been insurmountable losses.
While US supplies did help (of course they did) they were not be all end all in the war. For example, most of the tanks that were shipped to USSR were old and crappier than the ones Russians used. Native Russian production of war-material far outstripped the amount of goods that was shipped to them by the Allied. When it comes to tanks, Russia received about 12.000 of them, most being old and/or phased out by the western powers. In comparison, production of T-34-tank alone (A tank that was far superior to anything that was shipped to USSR by USA) numbered in the tens of thousands!
In the end, the war was decided by Russian soldiers who fought the Germans.
Long before the US Naval Task Force even reaches in sight of european land, our subs would have wasted the europeans sea forces.
Of course, European subs would be sitting still while that took place? Europeans have no means of destroying US subs? And why couldn't the European navies simply wait in port for the americans to arrive. Once they get closer, they would set sail to engage them, supported by hundreds of planes operating from carriers and land-based bases.
Mind you, I'm european, and this is all wargame theory, but in a US vs. Europe war, I'd place my bets on the US
War between Europe and USA would end in stalemate. Europe has no means of invading USA, and USA has no means of invading Europe. Even if USA did manage to get some forces across the Atlantic in to Europe, you would still have to supply those forces, while they were fighting forces of superior numbers, equal training and good equipment. It would NOT be like it was in Iraq, and US Forces would actually be outmanned, and in the end, outgunned.
If USA and Europe were right next to each other, with no body of water between them, it would be more interesting. But even then, I wouldn't say that it would be a walk in the park for USA, far from it.
Well they always loose when the US gets involved anyhow. WW1 and WWII would have been TOTAL losses for all of europe if not for the US military and materials.
yeah, because Russians had NOTHING to do with defeating the Nazis! They just fought the longest, caused the most losses, fought the biggest battles, tied up bulk of the Wehrmacht (even after Normandy, something like 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern Front) etc. etc. No sirre, it was all American show! Rest of us were just along for the ride!
the US has recently showed it is the only army on the planet earth that can advance blitz style over huge tracts
Like the Atlantic Ocean?
it has the best transportation and logistics system in use and that make very long supply lines possible.
Like, over the Atlantic Ocean?
Add to that absolute air superiority
How would you do that? the US Forces would (for the large part) have to rely on the planes their carriers could carry, whereas European could use all the planes they have. "Absolute air superiority"? I don't think so.
and the most capale weapons systems in existence
Well, the German Leopard 2 is the best MBT in the world right now, followed by Abrams M1A2. British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc are nothing to sneeze at either. And there are quite alot of those tanks available.
So, USA tries to invade Europe by shipping forces across the Atlantic. While doing that, they will run in to the European naval-forces and air-forces. If they overcome those, they will land at hostile shores, with EXTREMELY long and vulnerable supply-lines. Facing them are dug-in forces of equal numbers and quality with short lines of supply. In the air, USA would have to rely mostly on the planes their carriers could carry, Europeans could all the planes they would have at their disposal. Walk in the park? Hardly. If you thought Normandy was difficult, you have no idea how difficult invasion across the Atlantic would be like!
To my knowledge, Siemens 1.3 megapixel camera wont be released until Q3, whereas the Nokia-phone is released in a very short time. By Q3, Nokia might also have 1.3 megapixel camera.
We use nothing but Nokia-phones in my workplace. we have about 60 of them. And apart from few minor glitches (and the users beat the crap out of them) they work very well. The brand-new models sometimes have few software-glitches, but they haven't bothered us much.
I walk around with my digital camera very often as a matter of fact.
But most people who own a digital camera do not. And since you would be carrying a phone regardless, why carry two devices if you could carry just one device? Of course, if you are planning to shoot some pictures, carrying a regural camrea is better, but cameraphones excel at those ex tempore pictures you weren't planning to shoot.
I have a Nokia 6600, a camera-phone. And (this may come as a shock to you) using it to call people is no shape or form more difficult than using my previous phone (Nokia 6310i which doesn't have a camera).
Cameraphones are NOT meant to replace regural (digital)cameras! You wont take wedding-photos with camrea-phones. But the point is that you walk around with your camera very rarely, whereas most people carry their phones with them all the time (well, almost). If you happen to see something interesting, you can snap it's picture, since you will always have a camera (although a bit low-quality) with you.
Re:Any commerical companies using these?
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
People alway complain how you have to pay TT if you want to write proprietary software that uses Qt. They also say that that fact makes GTK+ more attractive to companies since with GTK+ you do not have to pay. But still, it seems that there's more commercial Qt-apps available than there are commercial GTK+-apps available. So it seems that the licensing-"issue" is not an issue at all in real life.
Re:Any commerical companies using these?
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
This means you have to pay TrollTech a fee if you want to create closed software that utilises QT.
Incorrect. If you write in-house software, you can use the GPL'ed Qt and still keep the source closed. In-house-software is not distributed to the public, therefore you do not have to share the code.
Now, if you are planning to write proprietary software for profit, then you have to pay Trolltech.
The unix way (which Gnome and KDE and probably the kernel (200+syscalls!) are losing sight of) is small components with tightly defined operating parameters.
Well, KDE is IMO the epitome of "The UNIX-way". It's a collection of technologies that tie together to form a desktop-experience. Take Konqueror for example. Now, some might say that it's anything but "the UNIX-way", but in reality it is. Konqueror is a collection of tools and protocols. Web-browsing is handled by KHTML, filebrowsing is handled by different KIO-slaves, File-wieving inside Konqueror is handled by Kparts etc. etc.
Another example is Kontact. It is a collection of separate apps (Kmail, Korganizer, Kaddresbook etc.) that tie together nicely to form an app that is more than the sum of it's parts.
To me, that's what the UNIX-way is all about. Different apps and tools playing together to form a whole that is more than the sum of it's parts.
OMFG!! No right mouse button! Holy shit! OMG! You were unable to PLUG IN A GENERIC STANDARD TWO-BUTTON MOUSE AVAILABLE FOR, AT MOST, $7 AT THE LOCAL RADIO SHACK.
I used KDE3.2 on my old Compaq Laptop on my way to work (I commute by train). All I had to do was to turn it on and start using it. Had I had a Mac, I would have had to plug in the external mouse (since the built-in mouse is no good) and then try to find a suitable place to use it on my lap (have you tried using an extrenal mouse on your lap in a croweded train/bus?). In short: It's a inconvenience and a hassle. But it doesn't have to be that way!
Of course I could havew used the keyboard-keys to emulate the second mouse-button, but that's inconvenient as well.
What Apple should do is to equip their system with two-button mouse (three-buttons are preferrable, but I think that's pushing it), but make both buttons do the same thing. That way the default behavior of the system does not change. Of course user could then map the second button to do something else (Expose for example) and users of other OS'es could finally use Apple-hardware with zero extra hassle! That might actually increase the sales of Apple-hardware a bit. I would LOVE to get a Powerbook or iBook and run Linux on it. But the one-button mouse is a big no-go for me!
After I log in to KDE3.2, my system uses about 55 megs of RAM. And that's with full-blown KDE-session with Kwallet, Juk, Kmixer and few other apps running in the background, not to mention Xfree and a largish background-image. Launching Konqueror (for example) increases the amount of RAM being used by few megs.
Yes, the screen may be big, but it's resolution is not that good. Hell, I have seen PC-laptops with 1600x1200 resolution years ago! My corp-laptop with 14.1" screen (IIRC) has 1400x1050-resoluton, that's same as Apple has on their 17" screen!
Bluetooth
Been available for quite some time already.
backlit keyboard
Some IBM Thinkpads have had illuminated keyboards (not backlit though) years before Apple introduced their solution!
With her iBook, she downloads legally music, burns CDs, makes movies, presentations, surfs, emails (look! no vir(i/uses!)), chats, tinkers around in UNIX terminals!
Apart from UNIX Terminals, is there something stopping her from doing all that in a PC-laptop? Download legal music? Check. Burn CD's? Check. Make movies? Check. Presentations? Check. Surfing? Check. Email? Check. Chatting? Check.
Quote: "LINDON, Utah, March 1/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced an intellectual property licensing agreement with EV1Servers.Net, a dedicated hosting division of Houston-based Everyones Internet (EV1.Net). Under the terms of the agreement, SCO will provide EV1Servers.Net with a site license that allows the use of SCO IP in binary form on all Linux servers managed by EV1Servers.Net in each of its hosting facilities."
How do you suggest that the GPL should be changed? So that the author could block certain companies from using his software? In that case the software wouldn't be free software anymore! GPL should NOT be changed to allow that to happen!
I, for one didn't realise that owners could block companies from using their code and don't like it one little bit.
GPL (or any other license for that matter) basically says that "You may use/distribute this software as long as you agree to these terms". If you do not agree to those terms, then you lose the rights the license gives you. SCO disagrees with the terms of the GPL, therefore they lose the rights the license gives them.
A) Linux is not a monopoly B) All Linux-distros have more than one media-player to choose from C) All the media-players that come with Linux are in fact made by third-parties D) You are not forced to install a media-player if you do not want one E) If you do install a media-player, uninstalling it is easy
And I don't care one bit what happens in Windows. Hell, do Windows-developers whine because of some things taking place in Macs? No they do not, since it's a complete non-issue for them. Windows is a non-issue for me and I don't care what you can or can not do with Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm from Finland myself, and one of my grandfathers was killed fighting the Russians during the Continuation War (my other grandfather survived the war though), so I know all to well about USSR and their behavior. I have no love lost for Russians when it comes to their aggression against Finland and the brutal dictatorship that they had.
That said, I have no problems acknowledging the fact that it was Russians who carried out the bulk of the fighting against the Germans. Yes, Stalin was no better than Hitler was. But the fact is that USSR was instrumental at defeating Germany. Denying that fact because Stalin was an asshole and because actions of USSR left alot to be desired, is simply revisionism.
While US supplies did help (of course they did) they were not be all end all in the war. For example, most of the tanks that were shipped to USSR were old and crappier than the ones Russians used. Native Russian production of war-material far outstripped the amount of goods that was shipped to them by the Allied. When it comes to tanks, Russia received about 12.000 of them, most being old and/or phased out by the western powers. In comparison, production of T-34-tank alone (A tank that was far superior to anything that was shipped to USSR by USA) numbered in the tens of thousands!
In the end, the war was decided by Russian soldiers who fought the Germans.
Of course, European subs would be sitting still while that took place? Europeans have no means of destroying US subs? And why couldn't the European navies simply wait in port for the americans to arrive. Once they get closer, they would set sail to engage them, supported by hundreds of planes operating from carriers and land-based bases.
War between Europe and USA would end in stalemate. Europe has no means of invading USA, and USA has no means of invading Europe. Even if USA did manage to get some forces across the Atlantic in to Europe, you would still have to supply those forces, while they were fighting forces of superior numbers, equal training and good equipment. It would NOT be like it was in Iraq, and US Forces would actually be outmanned, and in the end, outgunned.
If USA and Europe were right next to each other, with no body of water between them, it would be more interesting. But even then, I wouldn't say that it would be a walk in the park for USA, far from it.
yeah, because Russians had NOTHING to do with defeating the Nazis! They just fought the longest, caused the most losses, fought the biggest battles, tied up bulk of the Wehrmacht (even after Normandy, something like 70-80% of German troops were in the Eastern Front) etc. etc. No sirre, it was all American show! Rest of us were just along for the ride!
Like the Atlantic Ocean?
Like, over the Atlantic Ocean?
How would you do that? the US Forces would (for the large part) have to rely on the planes their carriers could carry, whereas European could use all the planes they have. "Absolute air superiority"? I don't think so.
Well, the German Leopard 2 is the best MBT in the world right now, followed by Abrams M1A2. British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc are nothing to sneeze at either. And there are quite alot of those tanks available.
So, USA tries to invade Europe by shipping forces across the Atlantic. While doing that, they will run in to the European naval-forces and air-forces. If they overcome those, they will land at hostile shores, with EXTREMELY long and vulnerable supply-lines. Facing them are dug-in forces of equal numbers and quality with short lines of supply. In the air, USA would have to rely mostly on the planes their carriers could carry, Europeans could all the planes they would have at their disposal. Walk in the park? Hardly. If you thought Normandy was difficult, you have no idea how difficult invasion across the Atlantic would be like!
To my knowledge, Siemens 1.3 megapixel camera wont be released until Q3, whereas the Nokia-phone is released in a very short time. By Q3, Nokia might also have 1.3 megapixel camera.
We use nothing but Nokia-phones in my workplace. we have about 60 of them. And apart from few minor glitches (and the users beat the crap out of them) they work very well. The brand-new models sometimes have few software-glitches, but they haven't bothered us much.
But most people who own a digital camera do not. And since you would be carrying a phone regardless, why carry two devices if you could carry just one device? Of course, if you are planning to shoot some pictures, carrying a regural camrea is better, but cameraphones excel at those ex tempore pictures you weren't planning to shoot.
I have a Nokia 6600, a camera-phone. And (this may come as a shock to you) using it to call people is no shape or form more difficult than using my previous phone (Nokia 6310i which doesn't have a camera).
Cameraphones are NOT meant to replace regural (digital)cameras! You wont take wedding-photos with camrea-phones. But the point is that you walk around with your camera very rarely, whereas most people carry their phones with them all the time (well, almost). If you happen to see something interesting, you can snap it's picture, since you will always have a camera (although a bit low-quality) with you.
People alway complain how you have to pay TT if you want to write proprietary software that uses Qt. They also say that that fact makes GTK+ more attractive to companies since with GTK+ you do not have to pay. But still, it seems that there's more commercial Qt-apps available than there are commercial GTK+-apps available. So it seems that the licensing-"issue" is not an issue at all in real life.
Incorrect. If you write in-house software, you can use the GPL'ed Qt and still keep the source closed. In-house-software is not distributed to the public, therefore you do not have to share the code.
Now, if you are planning to write proprietary software for profit, then you have to pay Trolltech.
Why compare to dual-Xeon from Dell? Why not compare to dual-Opteron from any other manufacturer?
Well, KDE is IMO the epitome of "The UNIX-way". It's a collection of technologies that tie together to form a desktop-experience. Take Konqueror for example. Now, some might say that it's anything but "the UNIX-way", but in reality it is. Konqueror is a collection of tools and protocols. Web-browsing is handled by KHTML, filebrowsing is handled by different KIO-slaves, File-wieving inside Konqueror is handled by Kparts etc. etc.
Another example is Kontact. It is a collection of separate apps (Kmail, Korganizer, Kaddresbook etc.) that tie together nicely to form an app that is more than the sum of it's parts.
To me, that's what the UNIX-way is all about. Different apps and tools playing together to form a whole that is more than the sum of it's parts.
I used KDE3.2 on my old Compaq Laptop on my way to work (I commute by train). All I had to do was to turn it on and start using it. Had I had a Mac, I would have had to plug in the external mouse (since the built-in mouse is no good) and then try to find a suitable place to use it on my lap (have you tried using an extrenal mouse on your lap in a croweded train/bus?). In short: It's a inconvenience and a hassle. But it doesn't have to be that way!
Of course I could havew used the keyboard-keys to emulate the second mouse-button, but that's inconvenient as well.
What Apple should do is to equip their system with two-button mouse (three-buttons are preferrable, but I think that's pushing it), but make both buttons do the same thing. That way the default behavior of the system does not change. Of course user could then map the second button to do something else (Expose for example) and users of other OS'es could finally use Apple-hardware with zero extra hassle! That might actually increase the sales of Apple-hardware a bit. I would LOVE to get a Powerbook or iBook and run Linux on it. But the one-button mouse is a big no-go for me!
After I log in to KDE3.2, my system uses about 55 megs of RAM. And that's with full-blown KDE-session with Kwallet, Juk, Kmixer and few other apps running in the background, not to mention Xfree and a largish background-image. Launching Konqueror (for example) increases the amount of RAM being used by few megs.
I think that's far from unreasonable.
Yes, the screen may be big, but it's resolution is not that good. Hell, I have seen PC-laptops with 1600x1200 resolution years ago! My corp-laptop with 14.1" screen (IIRC) has 1400x1050-resoluton, that's same as Apple has on their 17" screen!
Been available for quite some time already.
Some IBM Thinkpads have had illuminated keyboards (not backlit though) years before Apple introduced their solution!
Apart from UNIX Terminals, is there something stopping her from doing all that in a PC-laptop? Download legal music? Check. Burn CD's? Check. Make movies? Check. Presentations? Check. Surfing? Check. Email? Check. Chatting? Check.
Maybe you don't have any problem with it, but the morons at that website do.
Link
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced an intellectual property licensing agreement with EV1Servers.Net, a dedicated hosting division of Houston-based Everyones Internet (EV1.Net). Under the terms of the agreement, SCO will provide EV1Servers.Net with a site license that allows the use of SCO IP in binary form on all Linux servers managed by EV1Servers.Net in each of its hosting facilities."
Quote: "LINDON, Utah, March 1
Well boo-frigging-hoo! "The movie was not 100% identical to the book! Peter Jackson: Burn in Hell!"
I think Meet the Feebles is awesome! No, it's not for everyone, but crappy it is not.
How do you suggest that the GPL should be changed? So that the author could block certain companies from using his software? In that case the software wouldn't be free software anymore! GPL should NOT be changed to allow that to happen!
GPL (or any other license for that matter) basically says that "You may use/distribute this software as long as you agree to these terms". If you do not agree to those terms, then you lose the rights the license gives you. SCO disagrees with the terms of the GPL, therefore they lose the rights the license gives them.
A) Linux is not a monopoly
B) All Linux-distros have more than one media-player to choose from
C) All the media-players that come with Linux are in fact made by third-parties
D) You are not forced to install a media-player if you do not want one
E) If you do install a media-player, uninstalling it is easy
And I don't care one bit what happens in Windows. Hell, do Windows-developers whine because of some things taking place in Macs? No they do not, since it's a complete non-issue for them. Windows is a non-issue for me and I don't care what you can or can not do with Windows.