Your Bush administration rewards loyalty to Bush. That is all. Anything else is purely secondary. An administration of sycophants, toadies and suckups. Truly, what an example to set the world and the kids of today.
always slightly worried about the waste by-products of nuclear power stations, over and beyond the stuff they use for nuclear bombs. With a half-life of how long? Thousands of years? Millions? Would you like a radioactive waste dump on your door-step?
If the nuclear waste disposal problem was solved, then I'd be all for nuclear energy.
XAML is meant to KILL HTML which is the browser which is the web. At the same time, it's going to kill LAMP (Linux Apache MySQL Perl) as an operation because nothing but MS boxes will be able to serve up XAML. comprenez-vous?
It's your MS-owned fur-lined trunk in which you can scream all you want but no one will listen.
Someone should take a gun to that fellow-traveller miguel and tell him that he shouldn't be leading us down into patent-lined kill-zones.I fear, alright, I fear.
My only hope is that Longhorn will be a pile of whaledreck. DOA.
Yeah, this is real weakness. Firefox hasnt gotten above 10% on the desktop and they're panicking. What firefox has is "developer mindshare". That's what MS are scared of losing. That's the reason for Longhorn. That's the reason for this barely dead-in-the-water browser. The whole longhorn thing is about a "rich client experience", about the browser dieing and about you being *locked* into rich internet apps built with XAML. Not about some half-arsed "standards compliant" browser. Tabs? Nah. Just a side-show.
It's a fucking zombie which they haven't the guts to kill because marketing won't let them.
Ah, ah. This is the reason that there are a lot of tools out there - which is one of the reasons that I use MySQL in an in-house projects. Not because it's the best featured SQL database in the world. It looks like a benign cycle is in place.
Most jobs you need tools which are "good enough". Hang on - isn't this one of the reasons that MS win out? It also gives the uber-geeks something to sneer about.
Interesting about the interference attacks. What stops Loran C (or any other radio system) from being interfered with? A small EMP from a tiny nuke would wipe out all radio navaid systems in the neighbourhood.
Also, it appears that Germany and Norway have withdrawn from the Loran agreement. Is Loran clinging on by it's fingernails?
I also see that they've killed Decca for pretty much the same reasons that Loran C seems to be going out of business. Decca was, for many years, my primary radio navaid - being on a UK ship meant that DECCA was used first and I well remember using it. Comparing the two at it's height, DECCA always had more coverage.
I think that a good lighthouse system would provide excellent backup system.
I grant you that radar and GPS have de-emphasised certain parts of navigation and booted out sextants and other radio-based systems like RDF, Loran altogether. Sextant sightings are now treated as an emergency measure, visual sightings by compass are still very useful. Lighthouses play an important role in the navigation environment.
Radar - good for night navigation and bad weather - only gives you a partial picture and sometimes a less than accurate one - the plan - and sometimes that can be misleading. Nothing better than a lighthouse to truly *fix* your position because it encodes it's identity into light. By the same token, that's why ships still have navigation lights.
A 3-point fix using compass bearings off of lighthouses and buoys is still the best way to fix your positions. Radar bearings are nowhere near as accurate, and far more prone to the "cocked-hat" problem. The same with Loran.
At anchor, taking compass bearings off of well-known points is still the best way to see if you're dragging anchor.
I'm implementing a scheduling system using JMS and it's great for what it does but it definitely restricts your choices. I've got a lot of perl build scripts and I'd dearly love to integrate my system with the perl. Currently, the build server process, written in Java, execs a process to run perl. Elegant it isn't. However, I went through a lot of pain tryin to integrate Perl with Java over a network protocol. Either the xml-rpc implementations were too simple-minded for what I wanted (I was only allowed to use off-the-shelf components so no writing from scratch or no major re-writing) or the SOAP interoperability btn Java and Perl sucked big-time, in part due to the language differences but mostly due to the implementations. The perl SOAP implementation gives at a certain point in the spec, I can't remember where, but it was a big enough hole for me to stop working on the SOAP interface.
The key to this MQ project is getting the interoperability btn languages to actually work. I see no mention of Perl, for example. Or of any scripting language. Certainly if they wish to "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk" there should be reference implementations for each *client* language they wish to integrate, ditto for the server-framework, although the latter would be a smaller pool.
If they can't do this, then the best thing is to stick to sockets for inter-language interoperability:-)
BTW, there are rumours of C++ interop with JMS - Code Mesh and MantaRay
I suppose you could use jython for python so I suppose you could say that JMS is spreading outside the compound but I'm not convinced.
ALso, having it in the kernel is a Good Thing. Well, it is if you're windows - I think most windows system comes with a MQ, although I suspect that these are stripped-down versions of a more expensive "Enterprise System". If this system came with the kernel, then I'd've had one less thing to worry about:-)
There's no mention either of a proper Java implementation - including Message Driven Beans. This is the one part of JMS which is worth keeping, I think.
in short, good on the big picture but a lot of niggling worries. I shan't be attempting to use this system until rev 2.
Agree totally. The industry should be trying to make money rather than convict their users. The best analysis I've read is that MS are trying to take the content industries down this route then own them when it fails, just like the same DRM techniques failed during the 80s.
As a supporting anecdote,when I wanted to change my mobile to another service provider, I took it to a shop and they said "no, it's locked. Take it to that bloke with a stand in the market. He'll unlock it". So, I went to that bloke, who unlocked my mobo in 2 secs flat.
You might say that I'm not the "average user" and I might agree however it turn's out that my *mother* has done this piece of piracy as well.
If there's enough incentive and enough "blokes with a stand down the market", the broadcast flag won't mean diddley squat.
>I can't give her a linux cd and expect the same results.
This sounds like untested orthodoxy. Has anyone tried recently? I'd like to see someone set up an install race btn Linux (with a user-friendly linux distrib) & MS XP. The playing field would be as level as possible (something, btw, MS would never give you because they *own* the OEMs, that's why they're an illegal monopoly) and there would have to be independant judges. Say, two different *virgin* installer operators on different machines overseen by some worthy judges . It would be worth it - even if it failed - to see what happened.
All we need is someone's g/f(s) - something which would be hard to come-by on slashdot - although you claim to have one, which makes me suspicious. Maybe someone could volunteer their parents, grand or o'wise?
I think "second-rate" books - i.e. books that aren't canonized as "classic" or great - tend to make better movies. Take Jane Austen books: they rarely make "great" movies because the director is often constrained by the expectations of the audience, particularly those who wish to defend Austen's reputation. The director is less likely to tear it apart and make it into a decent film. See adaptations of Shakespearean plays. The keyword is usually "faithful". Once that comes into play, then you know you're likely to have a turkey to hand. If someone does make a good film out of a "classic" novel then it's more often than not, damned for not being "faithful".
It's the inverse with The Hunt for Red October. This can be taken apart at will and re-constructed as a movie because there's no need to defend Tom Clancy's literary talent or ouvre. I suspect he wants to make a buck or two rather see a "faithful" adaptation and the audience for TC's books don't have any great expectations of his work either.
As further weight for my assertion, I can't remember any adaptations of classic literary making it into anyone's top ten. Take this: poll from 2002. There are *no* adaptations of classic lit works here.
Three is always an unstable relationship and difficult to plot. It's probably best centred around strict hierarchies, as in Star Trek.
As to Tom Hanks...I hope not. He's my least favourite actor. MJS isn't the greatest film ever made but I do remember it with warmth. The safety-belt factor seems to be getting worse not better so that most remakes lose any of the spark that the original usually had.
You're gonna hafta. from longhorn onwards, they're embedding "security" in everything, from copy through to print file. Crack it and you'll be DMCA'd up the wazoo matey.
That's one of the original series beauties is that it's open to a range of interpretations. Great liberal western in space? Or Eisenhower-era imperialist western in space?
I have no idea about the Jewish theatre, but I think the series mostyly falls on the side of reform, certainly by using strong black female characters in a standard TV. At least, this is Uhura's viewpoint.
But, whatever it's foundations, the original succeeds through interaction of character,particularly the three, McCoy, Spock & Kirk. I always figured McCoy was the better half of Kirk, the humanist conscience as it were.He is at least as important as Spock, if not more, in the first generation. How does he fit in your interpretation?
As Star Trek morphed into Joseph Campbell-ish bollox and franchise hell, McCoy tended to drop out. Oh, humour and character, so elusive yet so important. Watching ST: NG, I realised how well the original cast balanced each other and how the quality of the writing - maybe not the plots or speicial effects - would never be the same again.
If you a USAian, you can write to your "congresscritter" about the Kyoto Protocols. It would be start if the worlds biggest polluter, outside of Europe, started showing some leadership and actually signed the thing.
Oops, maybe that would compromise your "rugged individualism". My bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Your Bush administration rewards loyalty to Bush. That is all. Anything else is purely secondary. An administration of sycophants, toadies and suckups. Truly, what an example to set the world and the kids of today.
or you just pleased to see me.
always slightly worried about the waste by-products of nuclear power stations, over and beyond the stuff they use for nuclear bombs. With a half-life of how long? Thousands of years? Millions? Would you like a radioactive waste dump on your door-step?
If the nuclear waste disposal problem was solved, then I'd be all for nuclear energy.
Oh dear.
Watch my lips.
XAML is meant to KILL HTML which is the browser which is the web. At the same time, it's going to kill LAMP (Linux Apache MySQL Perl) as an operation because nothing but MS boxes will be able to serve up XAML. comprenez-vous?
It's your MS-owned fur-lined trunk in which you can scream all you want but no one will listen.
Someone should take a gun to that fellow-traveller miguel and tell him that he shouldn't be leading us down into patent-lined kill-zones.I fear, alright, I fear.
My only hope is that Longhorn will be a pile of whaledreck. DOA.
Yeah, this is real weakness. Firefox hasnt gotten above 10% on the desktop and they're panicking. What firefox has is "developer mindshare". That's what MS are scared of losing. That's the reason for Longhorn. That's the reason for this barely dead-in-the-water browser. The whole longhorn thing is about a "rich client experience", about the browser dieing and about you being *locked* into rich internet apps built with XAML. Not about some half-arsed "standards compliant" browser. Tabs? Nah. Just a side-show.
It's a fucking zombie which they haven't the guts to kill because marketing won't let them.
Nothing to see here, move along.
For biometrics to work, we'll all have to wear gloves. All the time *except* when we giving the bio. Either that, or we do a lot of polishing.
what it says. Surely this is an implicit admission that Moore's Law has finally been laid to rest.
It's just not economically viable spending time trying to squeeze more power out of the current methodolgies.
Ah, ah. This is the reason that there are a lot of tools out there - which is one of the reasons that I use MySQL in an in-house projects. Not because it's the best featured SQL database in the world. It looks like a benign cycle is in place.
Most jobs you need tools which are "good enough". Hang on - isn't this one of the reasons that MS win out? It also gives the uber-geeks something to sneer about.
Also, it appears that Germany and Norway have withdrawn from the Loran agreement. Is Loran clinging on by it's fingernails?
I also see that they've killed Decca for pretty much the same reasons that Loran C seems to be going out of business. Decca was, for many years, my primary radio navaid - being on a UK ship meant that DECCA was used first and I well remember using it. Comparing the two at it's height, DECCA always had more coverage.
I think that a good lighthouse system would provide excellent backup system.
nice. It's a pity the IBM MQ is so **^%%$$ expensive.
Good about the Perl API to AMQ - now that would be a bonus.
I grant you that radar and GPS have de-emphasised certain parts of navigation and booted out sextants and other radio-based systems like RDF, Loran altogether. Sextant sightings are now treated as an emergency measure, visual sightings by compass are still very useful. Lighthouses play an important role in the navigation environment.
Radar - good for night navigation and bad weather - only gives you a partial picture and sometimes a less than accurate one - the plan - and sometimes that can be misleading. Nothing better than a lighthouse to truly *fix* your position because it encodes it's identity into light. By the same token, that's why ships still have navigation lights.
A 3-point fix using compass bearings off of lighthouses and buoys is still the best way to fix your positions. Radar bearings are nowhere near as accurate, and far more prone to the "cocked-hat" problem. The same with Loran.
At anchor, taking compass bearings off of well-known points is still the best way to see if you're dragging anchor.
The key to this MQ project is getting the interoperability btn languages to actually work. I see no mention of Perl, for example. Or of any scripting language. Certainly if they wish to "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk" there should be reference implementations for each *client* language they wish to integrate, ditto for the server-framework, although the latter would be a smaller pool.
If they can't do this, then the best thing is to stick to sockets for inter-language interoperability:-)
BTW, there are rumours of C++ interop with JMS - Code Mesh and MantaRay I suppose you could use jython for python so I suppose you could say that JMS is spreading outside the compound but I'm not convinced.
ALso, having it in the kernel is a Good Thing. Well, it is if you're windows - I think most windows system comes with a MQ, although I suspect that these are stripped-down versions of a more expensive "Enterprise System". If this system came with the kernel, then I'd've had one less thing to worry about :-)
There's no mention either of a proper Java implementation - including Message Driven Beans. This is the one part of JMS which is worth keeping, I think.
in short, good on the big picture but a lot of niggling worries. I shan't be attempting to use this system until rev 2.
> Finally, Google IS a US-based country.
It'll be getting it's own flag and army next.
Agree totally. The industry should be trying to make money rather than convict their users. The best analysis I've read is that MS are trying to take the content industries down this route then own them when it fails, just like the same DRM techniques failed during the 80s.
As a supporting anecdote,when I wanted to change my mobile to another service provider, I took it to a shop and they said "no, it's locked. Take it to that bloke with a stand in the market. He'll unlock it". So, I went to that bloke, who unlocked my mobo in 2 secs flat.
You might say that I'm not the "average user" and I might agree however it turn's out that my *mother* has done this piece of piracy as well.
If there's enough incentive and enough "blokes with a stand down the market", the broadcast flag won't mean diddley squat.
"any CPU with cycles would do". That definitely sounds like a come-on. Yeah, baby!
why is this -1? This could do with a lot more exposure. Comments like those of the grandparent could be rebutted.
>I can't give her a linux cd and expect the same results.
This sounds like untested orthodoxy. Has anyone tried recently? I'd like to see someone set up an install race btn Linux (with a user-friendly linux distrib) & MS XP. The playing field would be as level as possible (something, btw, MS would never give you because they *own* the OEMs, that's why they're an illegal monopoly) and there would have to be independant judges. Say, two different *virgin* installer operators on different machines overseen by some worthy judges . It would be worth it - even if it failed - to see what happened.
All we need is someone's g/f(s) - something which would be hard to come-by on slashdot - although you claim to have one, which makes me suspicious. Maybe someone could volunteer their parents, grand or o'wise?
I think "second-rate" books - i.e. books that aren't canonized as "classic" or great - tend to make better movies. Take Jane Austen books: they rarely make "great" movies because the director is often constrained by the expectations of the audience, particularly those who wish to defend Austen's reputation. The director is less likely to tear it apart and make it into a decent film. See adaptations of Shakespearean plays. The keyword is usually "faithful". Once that comes into play, then you know you're likely to have a turkey to hand. If someone does make a good film out of a "classic" novel then it's more often than not, damned for not being "faithful".
It's the inverse with The Hunt for Red October. This can be taken apart at will and re-constructed as a movie because there's no need to defend Tom Clancy's literary talent or ouvre. I suspect he wants to make a buck or two rather see a "faithful" adaptation and the audience for TC's books don't have any great expectations of his work either.
As further weight for my assertion, I can't remember any adaptations of classic literary making it into anyone's top ten. Take this: poll from 2002. There are *no* adaptations of classic lit works here.
BgFtGrBstrds
Three is always an unstable relationship and difficult to plot. It's probably best centred around strict hierarchies, as in Star Trek.
As to Tom Hanks...I hope not. He's my least favourite actor. MJS isn't the greatest film ever made but I do remember it with warmth. The safety-belt factor seems to be getting worse not better so that most remakes lose any of the spark that the original usually had.
You're gonna hafta. from longhorn onwards, they're embedding "security" in everything, from copy through to print file. Crack it and you'll be DMCA'd up the wazoo matey.
That's one of the original series beauties is that it's open to a range of interpretations. Great liberal western in space? Or Eisenhower-era imperialist western in space?
I have no idea about the Jewish theatre, but I think the series mostyly falls on the side of reform, certainly by using strong black female characters in a standard TV. At least, this is Uhura's viewpoint.
But, whatever it's foundations, the original succeeds through interaction of character,particularly the three, McCoy, Spock & Kirk. I always figured McCoy was the better half of Kirk, the humanist conscience as it were.He is at least as important as Spock, if not more, in the first generation. How does he fit in your interpretation?
As Star Trek morphed into Joseph Campbell-ish bollox and franchise hell, McCoy tended to drop out. Oh, humour and character, so elusive yet so important. Watching ST: NG, I realised how well the original cast balanced each other and how the quality of the writing - maybe not the plots or speicial effects - would never be the same again.
Also, you pay a lower car tax (UK one-off payment I have no idea why they do this) if your car is graded to be more environment-friendly.
you misspelled "fat bastard" "flat character"
If you a USAian, you can write to your "congresscritter" about the Kyoto Protocols. It would be start if the worlds biggest polluter, outside of Europe, started showing some leadership and actually signed the thing.
Oops, maybe that would compromise your "rugged individualism". My bad.
h