This is similiar to how all modern combat aircraft get their funding:
F-22 Raptor - Lockheed/Martin YF-22 VS Northrop/MacDonnal Douglas YF-23
F-35 JSF - Lockheed/Martin X-35 VS Boeing X-32
The competitors for the F-117 and the B-2 were never released publically, and very very little is known about them, but there were bidding competitors. Interesting to note that the YF-23 was superior in every way to the YF-22 during trials, but the contract wasnt awarded to Northrop due to cost overruns on the B-2. Oh well, they got that anyway with Lockheed.
I find it amusing that what you call US bashing is actually coming from many US organisations. The truth is that a lot of people decry these facts because they dont fit in with the current US feelgood ethos, they contradict statements made by the current adminstration, or show the US in a light that a lot of americans wish wasnt turned on. These are facts. These are truths. The US was a major seller of bioweapons and chemical weapons within the 1980s.
Let me quote from my sources in my previous post:
The CDC and a biological sample company, American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war with Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
Hardly 'petroleum refining technology', and even if these were jsut sent to Iraq under the guise of public health, its incredibly nieve of the administration.
In 1994, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs produced a report into sales of chemical and biological weapons technologies to Iraq, and concluded that sales were greenlighted by the US administration. I quote (emphasis mine):
private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.
Again, I say hardly petroleum refining technology. This isnt US bashing for the sake of bashing, this is cold hard truths being shown at a time when the US would rather it wasnt. I will freely admit that the UK, France and Germany isnt any better, but at least we dont delude ourselves into thinking it didnt exist.
Im very surprised that noone has replied to you yet on this matter, but the gas and bio weapons Saddam used in 1991/1992 against the Kurds was purchased from the US and the UK in the 1980s, including the ability to produce more of them. Yes, the vast majority of WMD that we are looking for in Iraq are tehre because we sold them to Iraq. It is true that Germany and France also took part, as did Russia and China, but for the 1980s WMD were commonly traded arms, and the US was one of the biggest traders in them.
To achieve such high performance, Xen requires that OSes are ported to run on it. So far we have stable ports of Linux 2.4, Linux 2.6, and NetBSD. Ports of FreeBSD and Plan 9 are nearing completion.
1.4 Does Xen support Microsoft Windows?
Unfortunately there are no plans to support any versions of Windows in the near future. Furthermore, a port of Windows would be encumbered by licensing issues. Longer term, virtualisation features in next-generation CPUs should make it much easier to support unmodified OSes: at that time we will reconsider Windows support.
Personally, I trust the homepage more than the article.
'Watch out VMware and Microsoft'? If im correct, Vmware and VPC doesnt require the host operating system to be actually ported to the virtual system, whereas Xen does. This might be fine for specific usage, but its next to useless for what I use vmware for - trying out new and interesting operating systems, configurations or such. The markets may overlap near the top end, but I see no reason why VMware/VPC need watch out, as the main market for these VMs is running Windows, and while there has been a developers port of WinXP to Xen, I severely doubt you will see that in the wild.
Nope, what would happen is you would see a large increase in the number of single use companies being created. Want to see a competitors trade secrets? Spin off your legal team into its own company and have them sue after breaking all ties with you. You are now seperate and protected and your competitor is now in a lawsuit.
The energy required to overcome atomic bond energies and fuse helium and deuterium is a lot lower than deuterium and tritium. The amount of energy stored in the nucleus is reduced as the atom gets bigger, and its this energy that we are trying to 1. overcome, and 2. harness, so a larger nucleus to begin with means less energy out, but a lower ignition point for the fusion.
Whats more likely is that the update tool didnt distribute the vendor patch, but rather the changeset files from an applied patch. This would jsut replace the files on the disk.
The vast majority of tools that do these rollouts dont roll out the patches as supplied by the vendor. The patches are applied to a machine in a known state, and then that machine is scanned by the tool to see whats changed. This changeset is whats rolled out. And yes, jsut tried it, XP SP2 does indeed refuse to install on a Windows2000 system.
Thats precisely what I thought. It says it right there in the article, the wrong OS version files were rolled out to the systems, resulting in obvious failure of that system. It can happen to any OS, it was the fault of the System Administrators, not the OS vendor, imagine the chaos if the wrong version of libc was rolled out to a linux system! But then, Slashdot loves to slant any MS related news so it can take a swipe at it.
2 years ago I purchased an Ipod, 3 weeks ago I purchased an old B&W Powermac to try out OSX before I replace one of my systems, and today I received my brand new 1.2ghz Ibook. While I still have a PC around for gaming and other things, Im definately switching most of my usage to the Mac, its just so.... pleasurable to use. I cant say my Ipod purchase influenced my Mac purchase, but hell, its still a good peripheral. All of my current kit works with OSX, so Ive lost nothing.
Its called a Baronet title, regardless of which sex its awarded to. She is referred to as a Baroness tho.
She was created a life peer in 1992, with the title Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven and continues to represent Conservatism in the House of Lords. Her husband, Denis, became Sir Denis Thatcher, Baronet. Mark Thatcher did inherit the Barony and is fully allowed to sit in the House of Lords, unless he is stripped of it by the Queen - which seems likely over the current scandle regarding a coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea.
Its worth pointing out that MOST British disliked RedDwarf as well, its more of a cult following rather than anything else, albeit a large following, but its definately not mainstream.
You do know that Margaret Thatcher (our best PM ever) isnt actually dead, so she cant be undead (in the strictest sense of the term)? Infact shes just taken up a Baronet title to sit in the House of Lords. And the current sitting Government is a completely different political party to Ms Thatcher.
The government has actually taken over the running of several of the franchises, with positive results. A lot of the other franchises are doing quite well actually, with a lot of problems being solved after Railtrack was taken over again.
BT did have a competitor. Mercury Telecommunications. In the 80s the Government paid Mercury an undisclosed sum of money to put in its 'figure of eight' backbone to cover the entire country, and while it was never as big as BT, it made its mark. Mercury was heavily publically subsidised to setup operations, but it was a 100% privately owned company, and it had preferential access to BTs local loop, a lot more than BTs competitors do now.
The UK government has the ability to seize back the privatised items if they are convinced that the privatisation was not successful longterm. This is what stops private companies from sitting on public resources. For example, British Rail was privatised at the start of the 1990s, with the actual physical rail network being sold to a private company called Railtrack, which the government had a shareholder interest in. In 2001 it was determined that Railtrack was not carrying out its job correctly and seized back the UK rail network after having a UK court agree, placing it in control of a public company called Network Rail. For those of you that think this is 'bad', this _is_ the agreement these companies entered into when they purchased the privatised utilities.
They were shown in order here in the UK, and *still* the majority of people I ask think it sucked (I think it sucked as well). And Im normally a guy who will sit through most things scifi.
P2P - ooh it has legitimate uses (tho you have to look hard to find them in actual usage), you cant ban it
RFID - ooh it can be used for bad things (but hasnt yet), ban it
I welcome this article, as it points out the many positive uses of RFID technology, so heres hoping it might change some slashdotters minds. Personally, I see RFID as a hugely positive thing, with a great potential in front of it (for good or bad, but thats the same for P2P).
When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box.
Ahem, bollocks. This wont happen, Microsoft provided a driver signing program to ensure that drivers conformed to the windows specification. Funny that, the number of unsigned drivers that I come across when installing windows hardware, most jsut went to the bother of adding extra parts to their install documentation to bypass the unsigned driver warning. What makes you think vendors will be "bending over backwards" to support Linux?
To do this they will have two valid options: 1.) provide open source drivers or 2.) provide adequate specifications so that other people can provide open source drivers.
Well, 1) Why should they do this? Why do they have to subscribe to the same ideology that you do? Linux has been around for 14 years now, and the number of mainstream vendors releasing opensource drivers is still extremely low, what makes you think it will get better. 2) This has been discussed before, in a lot of cases hardware manufacturers are just plain unable to release specifications or driver code due to third party licenses. Stamping your feet and demanding it wont make the situation any better.
They have a third valid option, and that is to provide binary drivers. If the kernel devs cant supply a stable API due to their ideology, then thats their loss.
I can take issue with the 'arrogant stance' of the kernel developers. They demand something and think that everyone will fall into line. Well, that doesnt happen in the real world, and when it doesnt its the end users that suffer. As I said in my origional post, the vendors shouldnt solely take the blame for this, the kernel devs must take a fair share too. The Linux market just isnt big enough at the moment for such demands to really have an impact, theres no power behind it.
It really is arrogant to think that, just because linux exists under the ideology that it does, it should be given special treatment. Linux is the one breaking the status quo in this matter, but it gives little back in return for what it demands.
Uhm, precisely what you describe IS a two way street, just with no traffic passing through it. You say "why should Linus et al provide a stable API when vendors arent supplying specs", well I come back with "why should the vendors supply specs when they are being given a moving target". As I said, posturing, on BOTH sides. Linus isnt helping the vendors while the vendors arent helping Linus, and both have their own valid reasons.
If thats your arguement, then why not stop moaning about the situation. The simple fact of the matter is that you have two groups, one of which has a particular ideological view, and to insist that the other group follows the same view is nothing short of stupid. And IMHO, Nvidia cards are far from crappy.
Im sick of this (and will probably get modded down) but this isnt the sole fault of the vendors, now is it. For whatever reason, they will not release their driver set under opensource licenses, and thats agreeable because its their code and their decision. On the other hand, the linux kernel devs wont supply a stable module API, because they dont like binary modules, which is also agreeable because its also their code and their decision. This does leave the end user in the unenviable position of recompilations, but IMHO nvidea seems to have found a suitable halfway point for this, only requiring a stub recompile. But from where Im standing, its not just nvideas fault, both sides are posturing and trying to make a good situation out of a less than good one, but the majority of people on slashdot seem to blame vendors for supplying closed drivers when they have no real need to.
Slashdot Mirror
- F-22 Raptor - Lockheed/Martin YF-22 VS Northrop/MacDonnal Douglas YF-23
- F-35 JSF - Lockheed/Martin X-35 VS Boeing X-32
The competitors for the F-117 and the B-2 were never released publically, and very very little is known about them, but there were bidding competitors. Interesting to note that the YF-23 was superior in every way to the YF-22 during trials, but the contract wasnt awarded to Northrop due to cost overruns on the B-2. Oh well, they got that anyway with Lockheed.Let me quote from my sources in my previous post: Hardly 'petroleum refining technology', and even if these were jsut sent to Iraq under the guise of public health, its incredibly nieve of the administration.
In 1994, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs produced a report into sales of chemical and biological weapons technologies to Iraq, and concluded that sales were greenlighted by the US administration. I quote (emphasis mine): Again, I say hardly petroleum refining technology. This isnt US bashing for the sake of bashing, this is cold hard truths being shown at a time when the US would rather it wasnt. I will freely admit that the UK, France and Germany isnt any better, but at least we dont delude ourselves into thinking it didnt exist.
Im very surprised that noone has replied to you yet on this matter, but the gas and bio weapons Saddam used in 1991/1992 against the Kurds was purchased from the US and the UK in the 1980s, including the ability to produce more of them. Yes, the vast majority of WMD that we are looking for in Iraq are tehre because we sold them to Iraq. It is true that Germany and France also took part, as did Russia and China, but for the 1980s WMD were commonly traded arms, and the US was one of the biggest traders in them.
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Im sorry, I thought you were emphasising something else in your post, whereas it was actually myself misreading the line :/
Personally, I trust the homepage more than the article.
'Watch out VMware and Microsoft'? If im correct, Vmware and VPC doesnt require the host operating system to be actually ported to the virtual system, whereas Xen does. This might be fine for specific usage, but its next to useless for what I use vmware for - trying out new and interesting operating systems, configurations or such. The markets may overlap near the top end, but I see no reason why VMware/VPC need watch out, as the main market for these VMs is running Windows, and while there has been a developers port of WinXP to Xen, I severely doubt you will see that in the wild.
Nope, what would happen is you would see a large increase in the number of single use companies being created. Want to see a competitors trade secrets? Spin off your legal team into its own company and have them sue after breaking all ties with you. You are now seperate and protected and your competitor is now in a lawsuit.
The energy required to overcome atomic bond energies and fuse helium and deuterium is a lot lower than deuterium and tritium. The amount of energy stored in the nucleus is reduced as the atom gets bigger, and its this energy that we are trying to 1. overcome, and 2. harness, so a larger nucleus to begin with means less energy out, but a lower ignition point for the fusion.
Whats more likely is that the update tool didnt distribute the vendor patch, but rather the changeset files from an applied patch. This would jsut replace the files on the disk.
The vast majority of tools that do these rollouts dont roll out the patches as supplied by the vendor. The patches are applied to a machine in a known state, and then that machine is scanned by the tool to see whats changed. This changeset is whats rolled out. And yes, jsut tried it, XP SP2 does indeed refuse to install on a Windows2000 system.
Thats precisely what I thought. It says it right there in the article, the wrong OS version files were rolled out to the systems, resulting in obvious failure of that system. It can happen to any OS, it was the fault of the System Administrators, not the OS vendor, imagine the chaos if the wrong version of libc was rolled out to a linux system! But then, Slashdot loves to slant any MS related news so it can take a swipe at it.
2 years ago I purchased an Ipod, 3 weeks ago I purchased an old B&W Powermac to try out OSX before I replace one of my systems, and today I received my brand new 1.2ghz Ibook. While I still have a PC around for gaming and other things, Im definately switching most of my usage to the Mac, its just so .... pleasurable to use. I cant say my Ipod purchase influenced my Mac purchase, but hell, its still a good peripheral. All of my current kit works with OSX, so Ive lost nothing.
Im one happy switcher.
Its called a Baronet title, regardless of which sex its awarded to. She is referred to as a Baroness tho.
She was created a life peer in 1992, with the title Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven and continues to represent Conservatism in the House of Lords. Her husband, Denis, became Sir Denis Thatcher, Baronet. Mark Thatcher did inherit the Barony and is fully allowed to sit in the House of Lords, unless he is stripped of it by the Queen - which seems likely over the current scandle regarding a coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea.
Its worth pointing out that MOST British disliked RedDwarf as well, its more of a cult following rather than anything else, albeit a large following, but its definately not mainstream.
You do know that Margaret Thatcher (our best PM ever) isnt actually dead, so she cant be undead (in the strictest sense of the term)? Infact shes just taken up a Baronet title to sit in the House of Lords. And the current sitting Government is a completely different political party to Ms Thatcher.
The government has actually taken over the running of several of the franchises, with positive results. A lot of the other franchises are doing quite well actually, with a lot of problems being solved after Railtrack was taken over again.
BT did have a competitor. Mercury Telecommunications. In the 80s the Government paid Mercury an undisclosed sum of money to put in its 'figure of eight' backbone to cover the entire country, and while it was never as big as BT, it made its mark. Mercury was heavily publically subsidised to setup operations, but it was a 100% privately owned company, and it had preferential access to BTs local loop, a lot more than BTs competitors do now.
The UK government has the ability to seize back the privatised items if they are convinced that the privatisation was not successful longterm. This is what stops private companies from sitting on public resources. For example, British Rail was privatised at the start of the 1990s, with the actual physical rail network being sold to a private company called Railtrack, which the government had a shareholder interest in. In 2001 it was determined that Railtrack was not carrying out its job correctly and seized back the UK rail network after having a UK court agree, placing it in control of a public company called Network Rail. For those of you that think this is 'bad', this _is_ the agreement these companies entered into when they purchased the privatised utilities.
They were shown in order here in the UK, and *still* the majority of people I ask think it sucked (I think it sucked as well). And Im normally a guy who will sit through most things scifi.
- P2P - ooh it has legitimate uses (tho you have to look hard to find them in actual usage), you cant ban it
- RFID - ooh it can be used for bad things (but hasnt yet), ban it
I welcome this article, as it points out the many positive uses of RFID technology, so heres hoping it might change some slashdotters minds. Personally, I see RFID as a hugely positive thing, with a great potential in front of it (for good or bad, but thats the same for P2P).When desktop application availability turns the tide in Linux's favor, every hardware company out there will be bending over backwards to make sure their products work perfectly in Linux out of the box.
Ahem, bollocks. This wont happen, Microsoft provided a driver signing program to ensure that drivers conformed to the windows specification. Funny that, the number of unsigned drivers that I come across when installing windows hardware, most jsut went to the bother of adding extra parts to their install documentation to bypass the unsigned driver warning. What makes you think vendors will be "bending over backwards" to support Linux?
To do this they will have two valid options: 1.) provide open source drivers or 2.) provide adequate specifications so that other people can provide open source drivers.
Well, 1) Why should they do this? Why do they have to subscribe to the same ideology that you do? Linux has been around for 14 years now, and the number of mainstream vendors releasing opensource drivers is still extremely low, what makes you think it will get better. 2) This has been discussed before, in a lot of cases hardware manufacturers are just plain unable to release specifications or driver code due to third party licenses. Stamping your feet and demanding it wont make the situation any better.
They have a third valid option, and that is to provide binary drivers. If the kernel devs cant supply a stable API due to their ideology, then thats their loss.
I can take issue with the 'arrogant stance' of the kernel developers. They demand something and think that everyone will fall into line. Well, that doesnt happen in the real world, and when it doesnt its the end users that suffer. As I said in my origional post, the vendors shouldnt solely take the blame for this, the kernel devs must take a fair share too. The Linux market just isnt big enough at the moment for such demands to really have an impact, theres no power behind it.
It really is arrogant to think that, just because linux exists under the ideology that it does, it should be given special treatment. Linux is the one breaking the status quo in this matter, but it gives little back in return for what it demands.
Uhm, precisely what you describe IS a two way street, just with no traffic passing through it. You say "why should Linus et al provide a stable API when vendors arent supplying specs", well I come back with "why should the vendors supply specs when they are being given a moving target". As I said, posturing, on BOTH sides. Linus isnt helping the vendors while the vendors arent helping Linus, and both have their own valid reasons.
If thats your arguement, then why not stop moaning about the situation. The simple fact of the matter is that you have two groups, one of which has a particular ideological view, and to insist that the other group follows the same view is nothing short of stupid. And IMHO, Nvidia cards are far from crappy.
Im sick of this (and will probably get modded down) but this isnt the sole fault of the vendors, now is it. For whatever reason, they will not release their driver set under opensource licenses, and thats agreeable because its their code and their decision. On the other hand, the linux kernel devs wont supply a stable module API, because they dont like binary modules, which is also agreeable because its also their code and their decision. This does leave the end user in the unenviable position of recompilations, but IMHO nvidea seems to have found a suitable halfway point for this, only requiring a stub recompile. But from where Im standing, its not just nvideas fault, both sides are posturing and trying to make a good situation out of a less than good one, but the majority of people on slashdot seem to blame vendors for supplying closed drivers when they have no real need to.
Yea, right. One misplaced period and he's condemned to a life of poverty and desperation
Well, yes he will be, if the period is his girlfriends.