Incase you hadnt noticed, all property laws are artificial. Theres nothing natural stopping me from coming along and taking your unattended car, moving into your house, taking your garden furniture. What does stop me? Laws. Exactly the same as what stops me sharing copyrighted material I dont have a license to distribute. Copyright infringement and theft are two different things, but both are infringement of artificial laws - you have no natural claim to protection of possessions.
I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows XP, despite people saying I would
I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows 2000, despite people saying I would
I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows 98, despite people saying I would
I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows 95, despite people saying I would
In short, everytime someone has said I would require new hardware for a Microsoft operating system release, I have had a perfectly usable system after upgrading to the new OS without buying hardware. Thats what makes me think I won't need to buy new hardware for Vista.
And no, Im not running XP on the same hardware I ran Windows 95 on:) My upgrades were not forced by Windows versions tho.
The thing is, until I can install OSX on my current Windows system IN PLACE OF windows, comparisons between Windows and OSX have no meaning precisely because I am required to buy new hardware to use OSX. Vista is a rip off of Tiger? Maybe, but until OSX appears on generic x86 platforms, OSX is not a competitor to Windows despite coming out with the features first.
In support of my assertion that the US will be doing exactly the same, I point to some recent Lockerbie bombing allegations regarding the CIA and faked evidence. Believe me, a top level policeman and a former CIA employee dont simply make this sort of stuff up, although it is up to a court of law to decide if its admissable.
Yes, exactly. My first thought was 'Am I supposed to shocked and horrified about this? Well, Im not!'. You can bet your ass that the US is doing exactly the same against the Chinese defence contracters and other companies.
What if 5 years from now Microsoft pulls another one of its format-change trick and my company can't read the documents it produced 5 years ago reliably?
Why? Does the software you were using 5 years ago suddenly stop working when Microsoft bring out new versions? Why would you be unable to read 5 year old documents reliably with the same software you used back then?
Now, the requirement to BUY the new versions will add to the TCO, but I still see no reason why you would suddenly lose access to your old documents.
Well, I recently took a good long look at all three desktop operating systems for a personal shootout, and I must say that out of Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux with KDE or Gnome, and OSX Tiger, OSX was the only one that stood out from the crowd as being anywhere near innovative or 'new'. I didnt see anything in Linux that I havent enjoyed using elsewhere for years, although its security strengths are a positive, Windows had the games plus point, but its much of a muchness desktop wise, but OSX takes integration and ease of use to a new level, especially for developers.
What am I trying to say? Well, before you complain about Vista not being 'innovative', take a look at the alternatives first, they arent much different in many aspects.
What desktop am I posting this from? OSX of course!
Java: price: free, well it is free
Sure, but not as in beer. Can I independently create my own JVM and distribute it?
Well, actually, yes you can. Theres nothing stopping you reimplimenting a JVM to the released specifications, infact Kaffe is one such reimplementation. Go get a book detailing the VM specifications and how to implement a good VM from Sun!
Interesting that apart from the cars in your list, all that crappy music, crappy movies, and crappy software seems to be readily available on filesharing networks. If its so crappy, why are people trading it like theres no tomorrow?
Let me add another point to that list: convenience. You see, I cant take my Thunderbird or Outlook install everywhere - sure I can leave the mail on an IMAP server but that still presents problems when i want to quickly check my email from a friends house, or when Im on holiday. With Gmail I can have the best of both worlds, a webmail interface AND pop3 access to that email, so I can use Thunderbird or Outlook as well.
Nope, they just changed the post, it origionally said Gmail was out of Beta. You see this is the type of confusion editors promote when they make POST PUBLICATION edits without marking that they have done so. If someone had checked the blog and gmail.com before the post was put live, they could have caught it then, but they waited until it was pointed out in the comments, and now you have 5 or 6 comments that are seemingly meaningless because of a silent editorial change.
Gmail is out of beta is it? News to me, still says 'beta' in the logo and nowhere in the blog entry does it say Gmails out of beta, just that you can sign up for it without an invite in the US.
Why are there three sets of wings being issued when only two X-15 flights broke the 100KM height requirement for 'space'? The two flights being 90 and 91, the nearest other flight being flight 62 at 95.9KM.
No, they were actually presented to both the SS1 pilots after the flights. I distinctly remember a photo of Melville being presented his by a FAA representative.
The FAA's Associate Administrator, Patti Grace Smith, presented Mr. Melville with the first FAA-issued commercial astronaut wings. A few short months later, on October 4 th, I had the privilege of awarding the next set of wings to Astronaut Brian Binnie.
And thats the entire point. Concorde was designed with an air ram bleed system so that it could loose two entire passenger windows at FL600 (60,000ft) and still maintain enough of an internal atmospheric pressure to enable the pilots to stay conscious (normally at that altitude you are instantly unconscious). If Concorde can maintain this at FL600 then why cant standard airliners maintain the same at a much lower flight level?
Go much above Mach 2.4 and you start having to make your aircraft out of materials such as titanium instead of aluminium, because the heating goes up massively. Thus per plane costs go up correspondingly, and maintenance requires new tools. This is one of the reasons the American SST failed, because it was designed to 'out do' Concorde by going Mach 2.8 - Mach 3.
Concorde didnt have a failed business model, it was actually making money on each flight once British Airways took over Concorde operations totally. What it did have was huge development costs, mainly because in the end only 14 aircraft were sold. If all the options were exercised by the airlines, Concorde would have sold over 600 airframes and been very successful but unfortunately it turned out that it couldnt fly supersonic over land and the most profitable route for Concorde was already taken by Air France and British Airways.
I dont understand your comment about the 787 or A350 being 'faster', as they are both subsonic. There will always be a market for supersonic flights, whether its serviced by a major airline or a private aircraft.
You yourself mention the reason why this doesnt happen - terrain. An autopilot cannot conduct avoidance measures for other aircraft or terrain, so theres little point in having an auto descend capability, because if it happens over, say, Heathrow then you have a huge possibility of collisions with other aircraft, especially if one of them is going to make sudden, unexpected movements like dive 25,000 feet.
What you need to be asking is why didnt the cockpit oxygen systems work? You have 15 - 30 seconds to put an oxygen mask on at 35,000ft so how was it that neither Pilot or Flight Officer managed to get their (independant) mask on and descend the aircraft?
After all, some of the things said about the lawyer involved in this case were less than civilised or polite, and indeed a lot of posters had him mixed up with someone else of a similiar name. So, anyone willing to retract what they said?
SO you are telling me that you have *never* *ever* said to a friend 'I liked that movie' or 'These shoes are really comfortable'? That isnt advertising, that isnt being a shill, thats being satisfied with a product and thats exactly what my comments in my post mean.
People defend corporations not because they are shills but because their experiences with that corporations products have been positive, and contrary to your belief, not everyone is in it for the money which is why recommendations happen. I do profit when someone acts on my recommendation, it allows the product to be updated and support for my purchase to continue. If I dont recommend a product, I couldnt care less if the company folds as a result of lost sales. You dont have to be paid to benefit.
Again, your post puts across exactly the view that you are against, but pro opensource and linix rather than pro Microsoft or corporations. You say that you wouldnt hang out on a forum and badmouth competitors products based on a purchase you have made, but what gives opensource followers that exact right just because its an ideal? That is what happens on this forum, and others.
You really need to take a long hard look at your world view, because you are in danger of being pushed to the side as everyone walks past you not caring one little bit. You are an ideologist, and I fear very much that your ideology cannot survive just because you want it to.
Well, I certainly dont think its a concerted organised effort by any length, its simply the same sort of people who praise linux for the slightest achievement and put down Microsoft products at every turn. Every 'movement' has its own independant followers, and a lot of them take it to the extreme.
Im not affiliated with Microsoft, Im not a consultant for Microsoft or its products, Im not a vendor of any software at all. Im an inhouse Unix and Windows developer for a car fleet management company in the UK, and we use AIX, OpenBSD and Linux all over the shop (most of which I admin) as well as Microsoft Windows (which I dont). At this point Im debating whether or not to give you a number to call me on and verify that, but my boss would probably have a fit if i did that.
Dispite all that, Im still willing to say that my Windows 2000 system has rarely crashed on me, my XP system is going strong and doesnt crash, I dislike linux on the desktop for various reasons. Im not a zealot, I just draw from experience. Windows 95/98 was dire for stability but I havent found that to be true for the NT line.
I dont care if you dont believe me, I just wanted to reply to your 'anyone with anything positive to say about Windows and negative to say about Linux is a shill' post. You do realise that your post pushes the exact same view you are ranting about, but pro Linux instead of pro Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
Incase you hadnt noticed, all property laws are artificial. Theres nothing natural stopping me from coming along and taking your unattended car, moving into your house, taking your garden furniture. What does stop me? Laws. Exactly the same as what stops me sharing copyrighted material I dont have a license to distribute. Copyright infringement and theft are two different things, but both are infringement of artificial laws - you have no natural claim to protection of possessions.
- I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows XP, despite people saying I would
- I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows 2000, despite people saying I would
- I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows 98, despite people saying I would
- I didnt *have* to buy new hardware for Windows 95, despite people saying I would
In short, everytime someone has said I would require new hardware for a Microsoft operating system release, I have had a perfectly usable system after upgrading to the new OS without buying hardware. Thats what makes me think I won't need to buy new hardware for Vista.And no, Im not running XP on the same hardware I ran Windows 95 on
The thing is, until I can install OSX on my current Windows system IN PLACE OF windows, comparisons between Windows and OSX have no meaning precisely because I am required to buy new hardware to use OSX. Vista is a rip off of Tiger? Maybe, but until OSX appears on generic x86 platforms, OSX is not a competitor to Windows despite coming out with the features first.
In support of my assertion that the US will be doing exactly the same, I point to some recent Lockerbie bombing allegations regarding the CIA and faked evidence. Believe me, a top level policeman and a former CIA employee dont simply make this sort of stuff up, although it is up to a court of law to decide if its admissable.
Yes, exactly. My first thought was 'Am I supposed to shocked and horrified about this? Well, Im not!'. You can bet your ass that the US is doing exactly the same against the Chinese defence contracters and other companies.
What if 5 years from now Microsoft pulls another one of its format-change trick and my company can't read the documents it produced 5 years ago reliably?
Why? Does the software you were using 5 years ago suddenly stop working when Microsoft bring out new versions? Why would you be unable to read 5 year old documents reliably with the same software you used back then?
Now, the requirement to BUY the new versions will add to the TCO, but I still see no reason why you would suddenly lose access to your old documents.
Well, I recently took a good long look at all three desktop operating systems for a personal shootout, and I must say that out of Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux with KDE or Gnome, and OSX Tiger, OSX was the only one that stood out from the crowd as being anywhere near innovative or 'new'. I didnt see anything in Linux that I havent enjoyed using elsewhere for years, although its security strengths are a positive, Windows had the games plus point, but its much of a muchness desktop wise, but OSX takes integration and ease of use to a new level, especially for developers.
What am I trying to say? Well, before you complain about Vista not being 'innovative', take a look at the alternatives first, they arent much different in many aspects.
What desktop am I posting this from? OSX of course!
Well, actually, yes you can. Theres nothing stopping you reimplimenting a JVM to the released specifications, infact Kaffe is one such reimplementation. Go get a book detailing the VM specifications and how to implement a good VM from Sun!
Interesting that apart from the cars in your list, all that crappy music, crappy movies, and crappy software seems to be readily available on filesharing networks. If its so crappy, why are people trading it like theres no tomorrow?
Let me add another point to that list: convenience. You see, I cant take my Thunderbird or Outlook install everywhere - sure I can leave the mail on an IMAP server but that still presents problems when i want to quickly check my email from a friends house, or when Im on holiday. With Gmail I can have the best of both worlds, a webmail interface AND pop3 access to that email, so I can use Thunderbird or Outlook as well.
Nope, they just changed the post, it origionally said Gmail was out of Beta. You see this is the type of confusion editors promote when they make POST PUBLICATION edits without marking that they have done so. If someone had checked the blog and gmail.com before the post was put live, they could have caught it then, but they waited until it was pointed out in the comments, and now you have 5 or 6 comments that are seemingly meaningless because of a silent editorial change.
Gmail is out of beta is it? News to me, still says 'beta' in the logo and nowhere in the blog entry does it say Gmails out of beta, just that you can sign up for it without an invite in the US.
No, the F-15 is the Fighting Falcon.
Why are there three sets of wings being issued when only two X-15 flights broke the 100KM height requirement for 'space'? The two flights being 90 and 91, the nearest other flight being flight 62 at 95.9KM.
From the FAA:
It is for me, we get the real deal here in the UK.
And thats the entire point. Concorde was designed with an air ram bleed system so that it could loose two entire passenger windows at FL600 (60,000ft) and still maintain enough of an internal atmospheric pressure to enable the pilots to stay conscious (normally at that altitude you are instantly unconscious). If Concorde can maintain this at FL600 then why cant standard airliners maintain the same at a much lower flight level?
Go much above Mach 2.4 and you start having to make your aircraft out of materials such as titanium instead of aluminium, because the heating goes up massively. Thus per plane costs go up correspondingly, and maintenance requires new tools. This is one of the reasons the American SST failed, because it was designed to 'out do' Concorde by going Mach 2.8 - Mach 3.
Concorde didnt have a failed business model, it was actually making money on each flight once British Airways took over Concorde operations totally. What it did have was huge development costs, mainly because in the end only 14 aircraft were sold. If all the options were exercised by the airlines, Concorde would have sold over 600 airframes and been very successful but unfortunately it turned out that it couldnt fly supersonic over land and the most profitable route for Concorde was already taken by Air France and British Airways.
I dont understand your comment about the 787 or A350 being 'faster', as they are both subsonic. There will always be a market for supersonic flights, whether its serviced by a major airline or a private aircraft.
You yourself mention the reason why this doesnt happen - terrain. An autopilot cannot conduct avoidance measures for other aircraft or terrain, so theres little point in having an auto descend capability, because if it happens over, say, Heathrow then you have a huge possibility of collisions with other aircraft, especially if one of them is going to make sudden, unexpected movements like dive 25,000 feet.
What you need to be asking is why didnt the cockpit oxygen systems work? You have 15 - 30 seconds to put an oxygen mask on at 35,000ft so how was it that neither Pilot or Flight Officer managed to get their (independant) mask on and descend the aircraft?
After all, some of the things said about the lawyer involved in this case were less than civilised or polite, and indeed a lot of posters had him mixed up with someone else of a similiar name. So, anyone willing to retract what they said?
SO you are telling me that you have *never* *ever* said to a friend 'I liked that movie' or 'These shoes are really comfortable'? That isnt advertising, that isnt being a shill, thats being satisfied with a product and thats exactly what my comments in my post mean.
People defend corporations not because they are shills but because their experiences with that corporations products have been positive, and contrary to your belief, not everyone is in it for the money which is why recommendations happen. I do profit when someone acts on my recommendation, it allows the product to be updated and support for my purchase to continue. If I dont recommend a product, I couldnt care less if the company folds as a result of lost sales. You dont have to be paid to benefit.
Again, your post puts across exactly the view that you are against, but pro opensource and linix rather than pro Microsoft or corporations. You say that you wouldnt hang out on a forum and badmouth competitors products based on a purchase you have made, but what gives opensource followers that exact right just because its an ideal? That is what happens on this forum, and others.
You really need to take a long hard look at your world view, because you are in danger of being pushed to the side as everyone walks past you not caring one little bit. You are an ideologist, and I fear very much that your ideology cannot survive just because you want it to.
Well, I certainly dont think its a concerted organised effort by any length, its simply the same sort of people who praise linux for the slightest achievement and put down Microsoft products at every turn. Every 'movement' has its own independant followers, and a lot of them take it to the extreme.
Im not affiliated with Microsoft, Im not a consultant for Microsoft or its products, Im not a vendor of any software at all. Im an inhouse Unix and Windows developer for a car fleet management company in the UK, and we use AIX, OpenBSD and Linux all over the shop (most of which I admin) as well as Microsoft Windows (which I dont). At this point Im debating whether or not to give you a number to call me on and verify that, but my boss would probably have a fit if i did that.
Dispite all that, Im still willing to say that my Windows 2000 system has rarely crashed on me, my XP system is going strong and doesnt crash, I dislike linux on the desktop for various reasons. Im not a zealot, I just draw from experience. Windows 95/98 was dire for stability but I havent found that to be true for the NT line.
I dont care if you dont believe me, I just wanted to reply to your 'anyone with anything positive to say about Windows and negative to say about Linux is a shill' post. You do realise that your post pushes the exact same view you are ranting about, but pro Linux instead of pro Microsoft?
That's a little less than 17 swimming pools worth of coal in energy.
Olympic or paddling?
I agree about all the rumours, but home addresses of various people are posted with malicious intent on slashdot all the time - wheres the difference?