Actually, the charter of the BBC is such that it is independant of the government - the government cannot influence its output. It is more of a publicly owned body than a state controlled service.
People in the UK (mostly) love the BBC, even those on the right politically. (They complain about it, but then they complian about everying). Even Thatcher was afraid to privatize it because she knew there would be outrage.
I've read all you Slashdotters responses to this. A lot of you seem to think that the US government is less online because of the size of the country. Sounds like an excuse to me.
I have an idea. It's just a little thought. Please don't mod me down as a troll. Here goes... Perhaps, just maybe, the UK and French governments are more on-line than the US government because, (deep breath), they are better organised than the US government. There, I've said it. I'm probably going to burn in hell now.
I think Americans often confuse their country's size with superiority. Yes, America is very big, but let's imagine for a moment that it was much smaller, say a fifth of the size, with a population of say, 50 million. Do you think it would be that 'superior' globally if that were the case? Would it have the most Nobel prize winners? (that would be the UK I think) Would it have the highest earning potential per capita? (That would be Switzerland) Would it have the freest citizens? (Probably Denmark). Would it have the highest standard of living? (Norway, according to the UN). Sorry, but I think the answers to these questions are no, no, no and no. America is a very big country, yep. But don't confuse that with an innate superiority.
M$ has convinced many hardware makers that M$'s method of code breaking and bloat are the only way to drive new hardware sales.
I think this probably underestimates the sophistication of thinking at hardware manufacturers, and the diversity of the market.
Take, for instance, the 3D computer graphics sector. I am sure Intel was very pleased when Microsoft started to make a big drive to get NT used by companies in the 3D graphics production/rendering market, because they regularly buy lots of boxes. However, I bet they are even happier now that NT/Windows is no longer seen as attractive in this sector, and everyone is moving to Linux. Why? Because now they can add features to their chips that make them more attractive to this sector, and release the code as Open Source to stimulate need and uptake. They tried to do something similar before with Windows, but MS firmly stamped on their efforts.
I've often thought that it is in many companies interests to find ways to screw over Microsoft, even in ways that are apparently not directly beneficial to them. I've always thought that this is probably one of the main motivating factors behind openoffice.org - it might not generate much profit for Sun, but it has the potential to kick Microsoft where it hurts, as the cream of their profits come from Office. Similarly with IBM's support and nurturing of SUSE, Mandrake and Redhat.
Of course there many be companies that have identified places they want to kick Microsoft but don't want to do it publicly. Take Intel for instance - despite their long-term relationship with Microsoft I'm sure they would prefer to drive sales of their processors by releasing open source developers toolkits that exploit new features they add to their processors. So its in their interest to promote the uptake of Linux, but without risking the wrath of Bill. This is one way they could do it - give bounties via a third party for development that they see as strategic for the wider uptake of Linux.
And not just Intel - there are many other companies that have the motivation to do this type of thing but don't want attention drawn their way.
As a citizen of "europe" I have yet to see the EU write one single peice of legislation that a) makes sense, b) actually has an effect other than to annoy people c) does any good. d) doesnt cost tonnes of money for sod all.
I am guessing that you are a UK citizen. Unfortunately certain sectors of the UK press takes a delight in printing "Brussels demands straight bananas" type stories, and don't report all the other things the EU is doing.
Increasing co-operation and standardizing regulations between all the EU countries is, to the say least, a difficult thing to do. Each country has its own legal system, its own style of government, and in many cases its own language.
I do business between various EU countries so I aware of the issues. The EU is doing a good and necessary job easing trade and legislation between all the countries of Europe. You say I have yet to see the EU write one single peice of legislation that a) makes sense, b) actually has an effect other than to annoy people c) does any good. d) doesnt cost tonnes of money for sod all - aren't you forgetting, for instance, the introduction of the Euro as the principal currency of most of the EU countries in just under two months time? That a) makes sense b) will have a profound effect on trade in the EU c) will greatly improve ease of trade and competitiveness and d) will greatly lower administration overheads and costs for nearly inter-EU trade.
This is so funny. These guys really don't get it at all, do they? Dangerous for them.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Well Bill, all of those things can still exist under an open source model, but it's a different model to yours. Can't you see that?
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software,
So, Steve, you're saying you're older and wiser than IBM? Than HP? Than Compaq, Sun, Dell, Intel and all the other companies that are contributing to the Open Source community and releaseing code under the GPL? I think not. They get it, you don't.
It's still in the early phases, but we are massively mobilizing to try to stimulate communities, support communities, and really, if you will, borrow one from their playbook.
Can anyone point me to any evidence of this? Really? I've honestly tried to find it. Are there disussion boards where developers can openly discuss Microsoft technologies, and MS engineers will chip in with comments? I've looked for that, couldn't find it.
The clock is ticking Steve, Bill. Let me spell it out for you: YOU DON'T GET IT! If you don't get it soon, you're going to slowly die. Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.
Heh. Yeah, like "The Sun" counts as a paper. People only read it for the pretty pictures on page 3 and the sport.
This is a common opinion amongst the privilaged classes. However, you and me are from educated backgrounds. The Sun is widely read in the UK because there are a lot of people who are not from such privilaged backgrounds and who require a different type of paper.
My grandfather used to read the 'redtops', not because he was stupid or was only interested in tits and sport, but because it spoke in his language. If you take a look at the Sun you'll find that actually a lot of their political coverage isn't that bad, and they do go out of their way to explain complex issues, such as changes in the economy, in everyday terms.
I think it is much preferable to have a population that is informed, by whatever means, than one that is ignorant or apathetic. Not everyone has the appropriate background to read the Times or Guardian. Don't assume that means they are all stupid or disinterested.
Tin Foil helmet. TIN FOIL. The lead ones don't do any good, and they're heavy.
Ha ha! Good try. Do you think I'm that stupid? I know how frustrating it must be for you - I've seen you sitting outside in your car at night trying to scan me. The lead helmet stays!
I actually think that the US people are the best and greatest in the world.
Followed by:
Unfortunately, we have both relapsed into having governments composed of a professional political class (an hereditary one at the executive level in both cases)
And the USA is better? Er, Bush Jnr, Bush Snr? The Kennedies?
I look at what we (Britain) are contributing to in Afghanistan
Yes, with the USA. You seen to be confused. You hate the UK and love the USA in areas where they are equally bad. I suggest you try Australia.
It doesn't take a lead-helmet-wearing-paranoid to see that it's bad to have a computer database that knows where everyone is all the time. Do you really trust your government that much?
Well, yes, actually I would trust the UK government that much. Democracy is very strong in the UK - people are very aware of what is going on (it has the highest newspaper readership of any country in the world) and they let it be known when are not happy. Remember Margret Thatcher had to step down as Prime Minister mid-term because she had overstepped the mark.
Is it heresy to suggest that demoncracy is stronger in the UK than the US? I am afraid that's the impression I get with Bush apparently so easily swayed by the moneymen and the people of the USA apparently so apathetic about it. I'm not trying to be a troll, that's just the impression I get.
In my experience, most people hate their first job after graduation. Accept it - go for the 'best' job you can even if you know you may not enjoy it. Try to stick with it for two years and get as much experience and training as you can. Then make a career change to what you really want to do.
Just because you studied CS, doesn't mean that you have to base your career around it. However, you should use it as leverage to get a good first job, because without work experience it's difficult to change tack. Once you've got a bit of experience, then you'll have a lot more freedom to change and move to what you really want to do.
The real sad cases are those people who get a 'good' job which they really hate, but then don't have the courage to change to something different.
You paint a quite sad picture of the UK - in fact it is funny to compare how negative UK citizens are about their country compaired to a typical American's blind patriotism for his!
One thing that I think makes the UK a great place is the very high level of integrity of its people. Generally speaking, the Brits are a very decent lot who usually "do the right thing". Even those in positions of power, which believe me is not true in many countries. This might explain
why Brits feel safe with government controlled cameras in the streets, but many Americans would be unhappy with the situation.
Re:Yeah, you may have gotten the bank's secret dat
on
Drive-By Hacking in London
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I used to live in Brixton in South London. At first, I was against the cameras, but then I saw how they had a positive effect on reducing crime.
I now live in central Barcelona, where the pickpocketing and bag snatching is terrible. Frankly I wish they would install those cameras here.
And having walked around the streets of New York and San Francisco at night, I think they wouldn't go amiss there either.
It's not the cameras that you need to be afraid of, it's how they are used. As far as I can see they have had a good effect on reducing crime in many UK crimespots, without any infringements on anyones personal freedom (unless you're completely paranoid, in which case you'd better stay indoors with the lights out and your lead helmet on).
It has always been common knowledge that a key to Microsoft's dominance is making things easy for programmers so that they develop for the Windows platform. Is it just me has there been a real drop-off of interest by developers in all things Microsoft?
I remember there was a time about five years ago when most developers wouldn't even consider developing for anything other than Windows technologies and developer's magazines reflected that. These days, however, I see very little excitement about Microsoft technologies, for instance, I don't see lot of enthusiasm amongst developers about.Net and C#. Surely with Windows being the dominant platform, and.Net being Microsoft's new technical strategy, you'd expect some excited discussion about it amongst developers, but it's just not happening.
This is just a feeling I have, and I have been trying to think of a way to quantify it, if nothing else to prove to myself that this sea-change is actually occurring and not just because I now take my information from different sources. The simple metric I have come up with is this - the number of times a word occurs on Google:
Linux - 30,100,000
Microsoft - 20,100,000
This crude metric seems to suggest that Linux has 10m more pages than all of Microsoft's products put together. Seeing as Microsoft has such a dominant position in the desktop space and is still much more of a household name than Linux, I think this is quite a clear demonstration that there is a lot more material about Linux out there than about Microsoft's products.
This came as a suprise:
"Linus Torvalds" - 640,000
"Bill Gates" - 649,00
I would have expected Bill Gates (who's a household name) to occur a lot more than Linus.
This is also suprising:
"Internet Explorer" - 2,730,000
Mozilla - 2,730,000
Why on earth do people believe that America has a monopoly on being hated?
They don't have a monopoly, but they have a pretty dam big slice of the market. It's not just about Islamic militants, a lot of other groups rightly or wrongly don't like the US.
The point of my post was the illustrate the fact that putting down these feelings to jealousy is in fact ridiculous.
why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy.
Oh yes. Your argument makes so much sense. Now I understand. America is hated because the rest of the world is jealous.
Of course! That's why everyone hates the Swiss! They have the highest Earning Power (GDP per capita) in the world. All that fresh air and beautiful scenery too! And their public services are so efficient. Bastards! The only thing I don't understand is, since they obviously must be really hated, why haven't they had any terrorist attacks yet?
Ok, everyone seems to think I'm either dumb or a troll.
Hey, I understand how normal airplanes slow down. No need to be patronizing. I still think the issue of how they slow down is a valid question - I don't think it is as simple as some people are implying. For instance, the shuttle has terrible problems with heat as a result of air friction on descent.
With regards to the terrorist issue, I wasn't meaning it to be a troll, but I understand people are very sensitive about these things at the moment.
Finally, if you're going to call someone a jerk, please at least have the decency not to do it anonymously.
Let's just assume that in ten years time you'll be able to travel from London to Sydney on one of these things. What are the implications with regard to terrorism? Seriously. As we have seen a 747 full of fuel is very effective bomb, wouldn't one of these be so much worse due to momentum? And of course they would reach their target so much more quickly.
My other thought is, if they travel so fast, what mechanism will be used to slow them down at the other end? Just air resistance?
I'm a cynical brit, rather than a cynical American, but I have to be honest and say I didn't know how the BBC's funding is actually done.
If you're a Brit with a TV then don't you pay a license fee? That's where the funding comes from. Actually it's a bit more complex than that, but the important thing is the BBCs independence.
"We aim to be the world's most creative and trusted broadcaster and programme maker, seeking to satisfy all our audiences with services that inform, educate and entertain and enrich their lives in the ways that the market alone will not. We aim to be guided by our public purposes; to encourage the UK's most innovative talents; to act independently of all interests, and to aspire to the highest ethical standards:"
Notice to act independently of all interests. Also the BBC's charter makes numerous references to its independence.
Really? I can see that in UK politics, since they are government-funded, but everything?
That isn't how it works. They are actually a 'public body' - they are independent of the government and funded by the people. They frequently do things (like reporting the facts) that upset whichever politican party is in power. Governments frequently try to interfere with it but luckily it is fairly well protected by the system.
They are also indepentent of any commerical entity and so cannot advertise - they are very strict about it. Presenters can't mention any company or product name outside of a news item.
I expect some of you cynical American types are thinking "Oh, yea, like that's going to work". Actually, generally it does. Like all things, it's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
The BBC is one of the few (or perhaps the only?) news organisations in the world with a legal obligation to be unbiased.
However, is it just me or is there a touch of sarcasm in the way the following sentence has been composed:
"I understand that, certainly, in tough economic times it is not the best time to introduce any new piece of work," he said, though he insisted that the software was very "exciting".
You have some good points, but essentially I have to disagree with you.
Actually, I think you are completely agreeing with me!
the mentality of software being manufactured like cars is a wrong mentalitly; it is Microsoft's mentality
Exactly. However, before the Internet, physical restrictions meant that in many ways it was like manufacturing cars. Teams of software developers in one location wrote programs which were then distributed on CD-ROM. The Internet means that we have a new process - Open Source development, which does not work like manufacturing cars. That is the fundamental threat to Microsoft.
So I don't understand why you think you are disagreeing with me. I think we agree!
This is infact a problem that Microsoft have pointed at every once in a while. That most slashdotters don't see.
I think a lot of Slashdotters do see it, but they don't see it as a problem.
Consider most of the successful open source software. Apache, Sendmail, KDE, the kernal Linux, etc. Is there a big company making money behind these projects? No. According to your argument these projects should at some point have ground to a halt, but they didn't. There must be something happening that you can't see. I can see it, and I think a lot of other Slashdotters can, but I can't be bothered to explain right now.
Slashdot Mirror
The government controls the TV station
Actually, the charter of the BBC is such that it is independant of the government - the government cannot influence its output. It is more of a publicly owned body than a state controlled service.
People in the UK (mostly) love the BBC, even those on the right politically. (They complain about it, but then they complian about everying). Even Thatcher was afraid to privatize it because she knew there would be outrage.
I've read all you Slashdotters responses to this. A lot of you seem to think that the US government is less online because of the size of the country. Sounds like an excuse to me.
I have an idea. It's just a little thought. Please don't mod me down as a troll. Here goes... Perhaps, just maybe, the UK and French governments are more on-line than the US government because, (deep breath), they are better organised than the US government. There, I've said it. I'm probably going to burn in hell now.
I think Americans often confuse their country's size with superiority. Yes, America is very big, but let's imagine for a moment that it was much smaller, say a fifth of the size, with a population of say, 50 million. Do you think it would be that 'superior' globally if that were the case? Would it have the most Nobel prize winners? (that would be the UK I think) Would it have the highest earning potential per capita? (That would be Switzerland) Would it have the freest citizens? (Probably Denmark). Would it have the highest standard of living? (Norway, according to the UN). Sorry, but I think the answers to these questions are no, no, no and no. America is a very big country, yep. But don't confuse that with an innate superiority.
M$ has convinced many hardware makers that M$'s method of code breaking and bloat are the only way to drive new hardware sales.
I think this probably underestimates the sophistication of thinking at hardware manufacturers, and the diversity of the market.
Take, for instance, the 3D computer graphics sector. I am sure Intel was very pleased when Microsoft started to make a big drive to get NT used by companies in the 3D graphics production/rendering market, because they regularly buy lots of boxes. However, I bet they are even happier now that NT/Windows is no longer seen as attractive in this sector, and everyone is moving to Linux. Why? Because now they can add features to their chips that make them more attractive to this sector, and release the code as Open Source to stimulate need and uptake. They tried to do something similar before with Windows, but MS firmly stamped on their efforts.
I've often thought that it is in many companies interests to find ways to screw over Microsoft, even in ways that are apparently not directly beneficial to them. I've always thought that this is probably one of the main motivating factors behind openoffice.org - it might not generate much profit for Sun, but it has the potential to kick Microsoft where it hurts, as the cream of their profits come from Office. Similarly with IBM's support and nurturing of SUSE, Mandrake and Redhat.
Of course there many be companies that have identified places they want to kick Microsoft but don't want to do it publicly. Take Intel for instance - despite their long-term relationship with Microsoft I'm sure they would prefer to drive sales of their processors by releasing open source developers toolkits that exploit new features they add to their processors. So its in their interest to promote the uptake of Linux, but without risking the wrath of Bill. This is one way they could do it - give bounties via a third party for development that they see as strategic for the wider uptake of Linux.
And not just Intel - there are many other companies that have the motivation to do this type of thing but don't want attention drawn their way.
As a citizen of "europe" I have yet to see the EU write one single peice of legislation that a) makes sense, b) actually has an effect other than to annoy people c) does any good. d) doesnt cost tonnes of money for sod all.
I am guessing that you are a UK citizen. Unfortunately certain sectors of the UK press takes a delight in printing "Brussels demands straight bananas" type stories, and don't report all the other things the EU is doing.
Increasing co-operation and standardizing regulations between all the EU countries is, to the say least, a difficult thing to do. Each country has its own legal system, its own style of government, and in many cases its own language.
I do business between various EU countries so I aware of the issues. The EU is doing a good and necessary job easing trade and legislation between all the countries of Europe. You say I have yet to see the EU write one single peice of legislation that a) makes sense, b) actually has an effect other than to annoy people c) does any good. d) doesnt cost tonnes of money for sod all - aren't you forgetting, for instance, the introduction of the Euro as the principal currency of most of the EU countries in just under two months time? That a) makes sense b) will have a profound effect on trade in the EU c) will greatly improve ease of trade and competitiveness and d) will greatly lower administration overheads and costs for nearly inter-EU trade.
This is so funny. These guys really don't get it at all, do they? Dangerous for them.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Well Bill, all of those things can still exist under an open source model, but it's a different model to yours. Can't you see that?
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software,
So, Steve, you're saying you're older and wiser than IBM? Than HP? Than Compaq, Sun, Dell, Intel and all the other companies that are contributing to the Open Source community and releaseing code under the GPL? I think not. They get it, you don't.
It's still in the early phases, but we are massively mobilizing to try to stimulate communities, support communities, and really, if you will, borrow one from their playbook.
Can anyone point me to any evidence of this? Really? I've honestly tried to find it. Are there disussion boards where developers can openly discuss Microsoft technologies, and MS engineers will chip in with comments? I've looked for that, couldn't find it.
The clock is ticking Steve, Bill. Let me spell it out for you: YOU DON'T GET IT! If you don't get it soon, you're going to slowly die. Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.
Heh. Yeah, like "The Sun" counts as a paper. People only read it for the pretty pictures on page 3 and the sport.
This is a common opinion amongst the privilaged classes. However, you and me are from educated backgrounds. The Sun is widely read in the UK because there are a lot of people who are not from such privilaged backgrounds and who require a different type of paper.
My grandfather used to read the 'redtops', not because he was stupid or was only interested in tits and sport, but because it spoke in his language. If you take a look at the Sun you'll find that actually a lot of their political coverage isn't that bad, and they do go out of their way to explain complex issues, such as changes in the economy, in everyday terms.
I think it is much preferable to have a population that is informed, by whatever means, than one that is ignorant or apathetic. Not everyone has the appropriate background to read the Times or Guardian. Don't assume that means they are all stupid or disinterested.
Tin Foil helmet. TIN FOIL. The lead ones don't do any good, and they're heavy.
Ha ha! Good try. Do you think I'm that stupid? I know how frustrating it must be for you - I've seen you sitting outside in your car at night trying to scan me. The lead helmet stays!
I actually think that the US people are the best and greatest in the world.
Followed by:
Unfortunately, we have both relapsed into having governments composed of a professional political class (an hereditary one at the executive level in both cases)
And the USA is better? Er, Bush Jnr, Bush Snr? The Kennedies?
I look at what we (Britain) are contributing to in Afghanistan
Yes, with the USA. You seen to be confused. You hate the UK and love the USA in areas where they are equally bad. I suggest you try Australia.
It doesn't take a lead-helmet-wearing-paranoid to see that it's bad to have a computer database that knows where everyone is all the time. Do you really trust your government that much?
Well, yes, actually I would trust the UK government that much. Democracy is very strong in the UK - people are very aware of what is going on (it has the highest newspaper readership of any country in the world) and they let it be known when are not happy. Remember Margret Thatcher had to step down as Prime Minister mid-term because she had overstepped the mark.
Is it heresy to suggest that demoncracy is stronger in the UK than the US? I am afraid that's the impression I get with Bush apparently so easily swayed by the moneymen and the people of the USA apparently so apathetic about it. I'm not trying to be a troll, that's just the impression I get.
In my experience, most people hate their first job after graduation. Accept it - go for the 'best' job you can even if you know you may not enjoy it. Try to stick with it for two years and get as much experience and training as you can. Then make a career change to what you really want to do.
Just because you studied CS, doesn't mean that you have to base your career around it. However, you should use it as leverage to get a good first job, because without work experience it's difficult to change tack. Once you've got a bit of experience, then you'll have a lot more freedom to change and move to what you really want to do.
The real sad cases are those people who get a 'good' job which they really hate, but then don't have the courage to change to something different.
You paint a quite sad picture of the UK - in fact it is funny to compare how negative UK citizens are about their country compaired to a typical American's blind patriotism for his!
One thing that I think makes the UK a great place is the very high level of integrity of its people. Generally speaking, the Brits are a very decent lot who usually "do the right thing". Even those in positions of power, which believe me is not true in many countries. This might explain
why Brits feel safe with government controlled cameras in the streets, but many Americans would be unhappy with the situation.
I used to live in Brixton in South London. At first, I was against the cameras, but then I saw how they had a positive effect on reducing crime.
I now live in central Barcelona, where the pickpocketing and bag snatching is terrible. Frankly I wish they would install those cameras here.
And having walked around the streets of New York and San Francisco at night, I think they wouldn't go amiss there either.
It's not the cameras that you need to be afraid of, it's how they are used. As far as I can see they have had a good effect on reducing crime in many UK crimespots, without any infringements on anyones personal freedom (unless you're completely paranoid, in which case you'd better stay indoors with the lights out and your lead helmet on).
It has always been common knowledge that a key to Microsoft's dominance is making things easy for programmers so that they develop for the Windows platform. Is it just me has there been a real drop-off of interest by developers in all things Microsoft?
.Net and C#. Surely with Windows being the dominant platform, and .Net being Microsoft's new technical strategy, you'd expect some excited discussion about it amongst developers, but it's just not happening.
I remember there was a time about five years ago when most developers wouldn't even consider developing for anything other than Windows technologies and developer's magazines reflected that. These days, however, I see very little excitement about Microsoft technologies, for instance, I don't see lot of enthusiasm amongst developers about
This is just a feeling I have, and I have been trying to think of a way to quantify it, if nothing else to prove to myself that this sea-change is actually occurring and not just because I now take my information from different sources. The simple metric I have come up with is this - the number of times a word occurs on Google:
Linux - 30,100,000
Microsoft - 20,100,000
This crude metric seems to suggest that Linux has 10m more pages than all of Microsoft's products put together. Seeing as Microsoft has such a dominant position in the desktop space and is still much more of a household name than Linux, I think this is quite a clear demonstration that there is a lot more material about Linux out there than about Microsoft's products.
This came as a suprise:
"Linus Torvalds" - 640,000
"Bill Gates" - 649,00
I would have expected Bill Gates (who's a household name) to occur a lot more than Linus.
This is also suprising:
"Internet Explorer" - 2,730,000
Mozilla - 2,730,000
"Linux developer" - 20,600
"Windows developer" - 12,200
Is it just me, or do these figures suggest that Microsoft should be very worried indeed?
Yes, Papst have a reputation for making extremely quiet fans.
Their uk web site is here http://www.papstplc.com/
They have a technical article about "Noise effects of cooling fans and its measurement" here:
http://www.papstplc.com/index.php3?section=articl
Why on earth do people believe that America has a monopoly on being hated?
They don't have a monopoly, but they have a pretty dam big slice of the market. It's not just about Islamic militants, a lot of other groups rightly or wrongly don't like the US.
The point of my post was the illustrate the fact that putting down these feelings to jealousy is in fact ridiculous.
why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy.
Oh yes. Your argument makes so much sense. Now I understand. America is hated because the rest of the world is jealous.
Of course! That's why everyone hates the Swiss! They have the highest Earning Power (GDP per capita) in the world. All that fresh air and beautiful scenery too! And their public services are so efficient. Bastards! The only thing I don't understand is, since they obviously must be really hated, why haven't they had any terrorist attacks yet?
Ok, everyone seems to think I'm either dumb or a troll.
Hey, I understand how normal airplanes slow down. No need to be patronizing. I still think the issue of how they slow down is a valid question - I don't think it is as simple as some people are implying. For instance, the shuttle has terrible problems with heat as a result of air friction on descent.
With regards to the terrorist issue, I wasn't meaning it to be a troll, but I understand people are very sensitive about these things at the moment.
Finally, if you're going to call someone a jerk, please at least have the decency not to do it anonymously.
Let's just assume that in ten years time you'll be able to travel from London to Sydney on one of these things. What are the implications with regard to terrorism? Seriously. As we have seen a 747 full of fuel is very effective bomb, wouldn't one of these be so much worse due to momentum? And of course they would reach their target so much more quickly.
My other thought is, if they travel so fast, what mechanism will be used to slow them down at the other end? Just air resistance?
I'm a cynical brit, rather than a cynical American, but I have to be honest and say I didn't know how the BBC's funding is actually done.
If you're a Brit with a TV then don't you pay a license fee? That's where the funding comes from. Actually it's a bit more complex than that, but the important thing is the BBCs independence.
From the BBC's web site:
The BBC's Editorial Values:
"We aim to be the world's most creative and trusted broadcaster and programme maker, seeking to satisfy all our audiences with services that inform, educate and entertain and enrich their lives in the ways that the market alone will not. We aim to be guided by our public purposes; to encourage the UK's most innovative talents; to act independently of all interests, and to aspire to the highest ethical standards:"
Notice to act independently of all interests. Also the BBC's charter makes numerous references to its independence.
Really? I can see that in UK politics, since they are government-funded, but everything?
That isn't how it works. They are actually a 'public body' - they are independent of the government and funded by the people. They frequently do things (like reporting the facts) that upset whichever politican party is in power. Governments frequently try to interfere with it but luckily it is fairly well protected by the system.
They are also indepentent of any commerical entity and so cannot advertise - they are very strict about it. Presenters can't mention any company or product name outside of a news item.
I expect some of you cynical American types are thinking "Oh, yea, like that's going to work". Actually, generally it does. Like all things, it's not perfect, but it's pretty damn good.
The BBC is one of the few (or perhaps the only?) news organisations in the world with a legal obligation to be unbiased.
However, is it just me or is there a touch of sarcasm in the way the following sentence has been composed:
"I understand that, certainly, in tough economic times it is not the best time to introduce any new piece of work," he said, though he insisted that the software was very "exciting".
So Steve insisted it was very "exciting". Funny.
You have some good points, but essentially I have to disagree with you.
Actually, I think you are completely agreeing with me!
the mentality of software being manufactured like cars is a wrong mentalitly; it is Microsoft's mentality
Exactly. However, before the Internet, physical restrictions meant that in many ways it was like manufacturing cars. Teams of software developers in one location wrote programs which were then distributed on CD-ROM. The Internet means that we have a new process - Open Source development, which does not work like manufacturing cars. That is the fundamental threat to Microsoft.
So I don't understand why you think you are disagreeing with me. I think we agree!
This is infact a problem that Microsoft have pointed at every once in a while. That most slashdotters don't see.
I think a lot of Slashdotters do see it, but they don't see it as a problem.
Consider most of the successful open source software. Apache, Sendmail, KDE, the kernal Linux, etc. Is there a big company making money behind these projects? No. According to your argument these projects should at some point have ground to a halt, but they didn't. There must be something happening that you can't see. I can see it, and I think a lot of other Slashdotters can, but I can't be bothered to explain right now.