I know that NASA did not build this one. I was refering to the fact that NASA came up with the ion drive and did the first lauch of one on the Deep Space 1
NASA didn't used an ion drive for the Cassini mision. It was a regular chemical rocket with gravity assist to get to Saturn. NASA would not have risked such an expensive mission to unproven ion drives. There is also the little fact that Deep Space 1 was the first spacecraft to actually use ion propulsion to reach another planetary body and was launched Oct. 24, 1998 while Cassini was launched late 1997 I think it was October 13th. I would have been _really_ stupid of NASA to use an ion engine on Cassini when they were never tested yet. A quote from the Cassini mission overview
After a seven-year voyage that includes
four gravity-assist maneuvers, Cassini will enter Saturn's orbit in July of 2004.
Current ion drives would never get to Saturn in 7 years.
Re:A Microsoft Defender Speaks Out
on
How Tomcat Works
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
you are the 1st person to tell me their Java app runs quickly
Umm, maybe because you have no experience with real Java? I can run.Net apps that are very bad and very slow. Does that mean I should think.Net sucks?
Most people I know (perhaps because I work with MS people) think it is slow as well
I think you have your answer there..Net is not any more faster or more efficient than Java. I work for a fortune 500 with 140,000 employees. I have met plenty of people like you that don't really understand Enterprise developemnt. The main experience is "MS-Only", mostly VB 6 type people. I dont' call that Enterprise. If any of your MS friends claims that MS stuff is faster, they are not in touch with reality.
We payed hundreds of thusands to have MS and third parties try out their best stuff on our intranet. At the end of the day, MS didn't have anything that could compete with PeopleSoft HR and PeopleSoft Portal. The MS solution just didn't fit our needs, it cost more and was less flexible. The PeopleSoft arch we have is Java based and runs like a champ for 140,000 employees at our corp, not to mention hundredes of thousands of others that PeopleSoft have sold to.
Most people I know (perhaps because I work with MS people)
I am sure you can take your MS-Only "deveolpers" and build a "great" corp. A bunch of "VB-Only" type "developers" whos knowledge in development is limited to a paper bag, that would be such a great foundation to build on. Please name any _major_ MS innovation that MS has come up with themselves that had no influence from some prior art?
All of the biggest corps in the USA (including the one I work for) have non-MS servesr running because MS doesn't have software that can even compete with the competition.
It would make a good propulsion system for micro-sat. Howver, I just think it is not a good option for any space option. One year to get to the moon vs. 3 day is really _very_ sad. An ion engine as you pointed out would be great for Earth orbit. I just don't want to see 30 year missions to Jupiter or Saturn any more. I want to see a big cut in or defense budget and transfer that to something that would really help mankind like our space budget. Here is too wishing:P
Now with Mac's being too expensive, thats just ignorance. You _may_ write a smaller check the 1st time you buy a Windows box, but after you buy all the extra stuff you need like a virus scanner, and you take into account that there is basically no resale value for a used PC, you will probably end up paying more for Windows in the long haul. Not to mention your cost of time putting up with various "features" in Windows.
That is the problem. JoeUser doesn't think like a corporation about itemizing an expense over 5 years. They _only_ think about how hard their check book will be hit now. I have said it a million time before and I will say it again. If Apple came out with a _NEW_ (not some used crap on eBay) iMac with a 15" LCD for $500-$700, they would bring MS down in a year. I have personally never understood Apples insistence to remain a niche market when they have the hardware and now since OS X the software to crush MS on the desktop. While I mostly use Linux, I would personally love to see an _affordable_ Mac. And by affordable, I don't mean a $1,000+ computer that is itemized over X years. I meas a nice iMac with a G5 and at least 512 MB of memory and 40-60GB drive with a 15"LCD for about $800 new. If that iMac allowed me to add my own video card and CD/DVD reader/writer, it would be the best deal out there.
The thing is, is that _most_ consumers do not look at their computer as a fashion statement and do not want to pay a "designer" price tag for a computer. Until Apple figures that out, they will sadly remain a niche market even though they have the hardware/software potential to take out MS.
I agree and that aspect of the system is good. However, I don't think it is good for our inner solar system. It may not even be good for our outer solar system. However, compared to other propulsion systems getting to the nearest star, the ion engine would be the best, but still leave much to be desired. I just hope that in my life time (I'm 31) I get to see cool technology that can get us to Pluto in like 3 months or so >:P
Re:A Microsoft Defender Speaks Out
on
How Tomcat Works
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What a stupid troll. I use HUGE enterprise apps written in Java for a fortune 500. They load fast. We use different JVM options that actually cause the apps to load _slower_ but give better runtime performance. You see, we don't _ever_ have to restart our enterprise Java apps running on Linux/Solaris. Our biggest Java app running on about 15 servers is up and ready in 30 seconds. I can't honestly tell you the last time we needed to restart our Java apps on Solaris or Linux. Now our.Net apps running under Win2k3 is a different story. No I am not bashing.Net. I program in both.Net and Java and think both are very nice. I just give the nod to Java because it does not lock me into MS only servers. At the fortune 500 where I am a senior programmer we have plenty of MS Windows servers and pretty much every desktop is MS Win2k or WinXP. However, all of our _critical_ servers and apps are not MS Windows. They are running on Solaris and Linux.
I happen to agree with the GP. If I started my own company, I would use Java/JSP. It would give MY company the most choice on what platform(s) to run. If I wanted to run all MS Windows. Fine. Java runs great under MS Windows servers. If I wanted Linux or Solaris, it is great as well since Java run great there too.
I don't even think Jupiter or Saturn would be preacticle for an ion engine. However, compared to current technology for deep space or extra-solar voyage using gravity assist, yes, the ion engine would be better. However, I still am not very impressed by it. I think it is a shame that we (USA) would spend billions upon billions on war, and constantly strip the budget of NASA. I really hope that in my life time (I'm 31) I get to see technology that can at least get us around the solar system in weeks or months.
2. The ESA did _not_ come up with an ion propulsion system. NASA had an ion propulsion system back in 1998 that was used on Deep Space 1. This is just the ESA continuing what NASA has done.
Sure they could. China could send up a "scientific mission" that just happens to fail and crash into the US Moon base. Do you really think the USA would start WWW (III/IV/V) over it? Humm, if the president at that time happens to be a Bush, maybe "we" would.
This craft took off on Sept. 27, 2003. It has taken more then a year to get to the moon! Back in 1969 we were able to travel 385,000 kilometers (the distance to the moon) in just 3 days. I don't see how this propulsion system is useful. Imagine how long it would take to get to Mars or Jupiter with this thing! With NASA's budget being limited, NASA should really concentrate on next-gen type propulsion systems that will have the necessary thrust to get us around at least the Solar Systems in a reasonable time.
How about a marketing campaign similar to Firefox? Get the geek community to cough up some doe and get some ads out about Gaim. What is making Firefox a success is advertising. JoeUser wants to be advertised to.
I am not familiar with the Jabber protocol. Does it run over HTTP? Can it be blocked while not blocking HTTP? One important thing for a IM protocol IM is to make the protocol so that it is impossible to tel between HTTP so that big ISP's can not ban together to try and stop it.
A simple fix in the sense that if we/you/I _could_ get this change to the patent system, it would fix the biggest problems with it. Now, exactly how to get our Representatives and Senators to do what is best for the nation and not big business, I will leave up to the reader >:P
I agree with you about WinAmp. However, a bunch of development tools need it. For example, MS Visual Studio.Net, etc. All/most of MS's help needs it. So you get plenty of apps that just die or have no means of getting context sensitive help, which is something that makes programming much nicer IMO. I wish MS didn't build things this way and I wish programs didn't work this way. A very simple fix would be to just have apps with HTML help just fire up your default browser. However, MS wouldn't be able to "exercise" their monopoly position by allowing that >:D
the companies/investors say "No" and then go off and build it for themselves
That is why there is a thing called an NDA. If the companies/investors break that NDA, "the brilliant computer scientist working in his mother's garage" can sue and get plenty of cash. Heck the "the brilliant computer scientist working in his mother's garage" won't even need to come up with money for an attorney since most will handle the case with no money up front knowing the big pay day to come when it is over.
Also, look at your argument, it sounds like what a big company would say to defend "IP" patents. How many "brilliant computer scientist working in their mother's garage" have come up with brilliant ideas vs. those working in an environment conducive to the invention process such as a lab/company/university?
I am sorry, I just don't agree with the notion that I should be allowed to sit here and just _think_ of something that may make a computer faster and then patent it. Note that the process doesn't have to work, nor do I have prove that it can work or get it to work. I can just wait several years and if a team of real inventors actually get a similar process to work, I can then sick the lawyers on them. I just don't see how this is advancing the arts and sciences in the USA/World.
Does proxomitron run on Linux or Mac? Is it integrated into Opera? Does it run even if Opera is not running? With Firefox, I just right click an image and select "Adblock image" and I'm done. How do you add blocks with proxomitron? Do you have to get the image/ad URL and then open proxomitron and add it? Is the image/ad instantly removed from the Opera page or do you have to refresh?
where 1mb = 30min on my crappy dial-up
Can't you find a better ISP? 1MB should come down in 4-6 minutes on regular ole dial-up. I was getting 1MB downloads in 5 minutes or so _years_ ago.
A developer/inventor actually creates something. A business method patent is _not_ creating. I am all for a short limited patent on an actual invention/creation. Allowing someone to sit somewhere and think up the "method" of clicking a button is _not_ an invention/creation.
Patents are the fuel for capitalism and are a good thing when used as they were originally created. Giving an inventor of a real/physical product a limited (no more then 10 years IMO for most not all industries) monopoly on that product will create incentive for that inventor and others both large and small to continue inventing knowing that their hard work will not be snatched up.
However, the greed and corruption of our (USA) politicians has allowed mostly big business to buy and pervert the patent systems to allow things like Amazon's "One-Click" patent. It is just insane to say that no other online merchant can allow their customers to purchase a product with one click without paying Amazon for that right. There is no invention in the "One-Click" patent.
I personally think software patents are bad. At the end of the day software patents are nothing more then mathematical algorithms. We don't allow some crazy mathematician to patent the process of adding two numbers. So why should we allow the big software companies to patent software? We don't allow a chef to patent recipes which would take away all the building-block tools of a chef. Yet we allow big companies to take away all the building blocks of software programmers.
"Innovation" is pretty much limited to the big corps. If a small-fish wants to get in the game, the best they can hope for is to get their product or their company bought out by the big-fish. The ability for a small-fish to actually invent a product and bring it to market is getting smaller and smaller with each corrupted patent that is granted.
Does bittorent or other P2P services depend on AOL, MSN, etc? No. So Gaim could just as easily change to their own protocal that runs over the net without the need for AOL, MSN or Yahoo! messenger. If Gaim gained a large enough user base, it could just come out with a major upgrade that totally changes the protocal to not need AOL, MSN, etc.
In Canada the "truth" has to be in the publics best interest as well.
Man that sucks. So truth is only good if it "is in the publics best interest"? An just _who_ gets to decide whether something is in the "publics best interest"?
Shouldn't the problem rest on personal responsibility?
I agree with that to a certain point. There needs to be _some_ limit to the "free" market. Should the "free" market be allowed to take advantage of someone with lower intellegence? Why? It is their fault they don't have the brains of you or I. Also, there are the different generations. Down here in Sunny Flordia, land of the retired Snow Birds, we get a lot of seniors who grew up in a different generation. A generation that was not filled with a bunch of "get rich quick scammers". Shouldn't they be protected? Or do we just say screw it and every man/woman for themselves? If we do that, then why not just outlaw all laws and go for anarchy? In that world, if I don't agree with you, I can just shoot you. Not a very good world IMO.
There is a _very_ simple fix to this issue. To aquire a patent, you must have working prototype. While I don't agree with software patents, this can still be applied. It would prevent people from just thinking of crap and getting a patent. There is not cost or R&D in thinking of something. The real purpose of a patent it to protect the investment of all the R&D by people. To just look at the market and try to guess things that may come up in the next 5-10 years is not innovative or deserving of a patent. If a patent would just require the submission of a complete working prototype, most of the problems of the patent system could go away (not all, but the biggest ones).
So because it is in a sidebar means it should look like crap? Being put in a sidebar just means it should render a narrow version of the page, not a crap version.
I don't blame Google for not wanting to push IE. MS defaults IE to their search and will continue to do so. Hence the whole monopoly problem thingy.
You can block ads with Opera too; via proxy/hosts file technology
Which is slower and not as easy as Adblock. Most JoeUsers won't know how to modify their hosts file or setup a blocking proxy server, so that is not a very good option. Also, for developers like myself that run a local web server, the local host file would cause 404's instead of actually blocking the ad. Second, a blocking proxy or hosts file will result in _BROKEN_ image links vs. Adblock which _REMOVES_ the image and colapses the HTML as if the ad was never there. A HUGE difference. When I block an ad in Firefox/Adblock, the image goes away and the HTML instantly adjusts as if the ad was never there, very cool.
Opera still has the chicken-n-egg issue. Not enough users to have most websites care about working around its quirks. Everytime I tried Opera, I ran into too many sites that didn't work or rendered poorly. Mozill/Firefox is finally getting enough users to get the attention needed to get standard support. I do hope Opera the best, because they are in the same boat as desktop Linux to me. That whole chicken-n-egg thing. I am all for competition, I just _personally_ don't feel that Opera adds enough features over Firefox to warrent the cost, and I certainly don't want to deal with ads to use the free version.
So personally, I don't think changing the "method" is going to help anything.
Sure it will. With the GAIM encryption support, the RIAA/MPAA will have no means to tell what you are casually trading with your friends. I actually think this is the best way to go. Close friends sharing content vs. mass illegal distribution of content. Granted, you may not be able to just jump on a P2P and download what you want (which is illegal), but you will be able to share casually with your friends and not have anything to worry about. I think this is a _great_ idea.
it's not as if you're web browsing experience isn't overcome with advertising, anyway.
Mine is. Using Firefox and Adblock, I don't see any ads. The only ads I see are what I consider "good" ads like what Google does. Non-intrusive and plain text. Graphics or anything that flashes, is blocked by Adblock. Why in the world would I use a browser that delivers MORE ads to me? If I pay for Opera, what exactly is my money buying? What features does Opera have that Firefox does not to make it worth paying for? If Opera was $4.95 or something, I may consider trying it. Firefox with the tons of extensions adds all the features I could ever need without having to pay. Opera may still have a market in the embedded world where speed and memory foot-print matter. However, for a normal users, Opera just doesn't deliever enough features over the competition to warrent the price IMO.
Yes, compare the one for IE to the one for Firefox. Notice the HUGE difference? The Google IE page looks like someone was _very_ drunk when they put it together, or just didn't really care about it.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA didn't used an ion drive for the Cassini mision. It was a regular chemical rocket with gravity assist to get to Saturn. NASA would not have risked such an expensive mission to unproven ion drives. There is also the little fact that Deep Space 1 was the first spacecraft to actually use ion propulsion to reach another planetary body and was launched Oct. 24, 1998 while Cassini was launched late 1997 I think it was October 13th. I would have been _really_ stupid of NASA to use an ion engine on Cassini when they were never tested yet. A quote from the Cassini mission overview
Current ion drives would never get to Saturn in 7 years.We payed hundreds of thusands to have MS and third parties try out their best stuff on our intranet. At the end of the day, MS didn't have anything that could compete with PeopleSoft HR and PeopleSoft Portal. The MS solution just didn't fit our needs, it cost more and was less flexible. The PeopleSoft arch we have is Java based and runs like a champ for 140,000 employees at our corp, not to mention hundredes of thousands of others that PeopleSoft have sold to.
I am sure you can take your MS-Only "deveolpers" and build a "great" corp. A bunch of "VB-Only" type "developers" whos knowledge in development is limited to a paper bag, that would be such a great foundation to build on. Please name any _major_ MS innovation that MS has come up with themselves that had no influence from some prior art?All of the biggest corps in the USA (including the one I work for) have non-MS servesr running because MS doesn't have software that can even compete with the competition.
It would make a good propulsion system for micro-sat. Howver, I just think it is not a good option for any space option. One year to get to the moon vs. 3 day is really _very_ sad. An ion engine as you pointed out would be great for Earth orbit. I just don't want to see 30 year missions to Jupiter or Saturn any more. I want to see a big cut in or defense budget and transfer that to something that would really help mankind like our space budget. Here is too wishing :P
The thing is, is that _most_ consumers do not look at their computer as a fashion statement and do not want to pay a "designer" price tag for a computer. Until Apple figures that out, they will sadly remain a niche market even though they have the hardware/software potential to take out MS.
I agree and that aspect of the system is good. However, I don't think it is good for our inner solar system. It may not even be good for our outer solar system. However, compared to other propulsion systems getting to the nearest star, the ion engine would be the best, but still leave much to be desired. I just hope that in my life time (I'm 31) I get to see cool technology that can get us to Pluto in like 3 months or so >:P
I happen to agree with the GP. If I started my own company, I would use Java/JSP. It would give MY company the most choice on what platform(s) to run. If I wanted to run all MS Windows. Fine. Java runs great under MS Windows servers. If I wanted Linux or Solaris, it is great as well since Java run great there too.
I don't even think Jupiter or Saturn would be preacticle for an ion engine. However, compared to current technology for deep space or extra-solar voyage using gravity assist, yes, the ion engine would be better. However, I still am not very impressed by it. I think it is a shame that we (USA) would spend billions upon billions on war, and constantly strip the budget of NASA. I really hope that in my life time (I'm 31) I get to see technology that can at least get us around the solar system in weeks or months.
2. The ESA did _not_ come up with an ion propulsion system. NASA had an ion propulsion system back in 1998 that was used on Deep Space 1. This is just the ESA continuing what NASA has done.
Sure they could. China could send up a "scientific mission" that just happens to fail and crash into the US Moon base. Do you really think the USA would start WWW (III/IV/V) over it? Humm, if the president at that time happens to be a Bush, maybe "we" would.
This craft took off on Sept. 27, 2003. It has taken more then a year to get to the moon! Back in 1969 we were able to travel 385,000 kilometers (the distance to the moon) in just 3 days. I don't see how this propulsion system is useful. Imagine how long it would take to get to Mars or Jupiter with this thing! With NASA's budget being limited, NASA should really concentrate on next-gen type propulsion systems that will have the necessary thrust to get us around at least the Solar Systems in a reasonable time.
I am not familiar with the Jabber protocol. Does it run over HTTP? Can it be blocked while not blocking HTTP? One important thing for a IM protocol IM is to make the protocol so that it is impossible to tel between HTTP so that big ISP's can not ban together to try and stop it.
A simple fix in the sense that if we/you/I _could_ get this change to the patent system, it would fix the biggest problems with it. Now, exactly how to get our Representatives and Senators to do what is best for the nation and not big business, I will leave up to the reader >:P
I agree with you about WinAmp. However, a bunch of development tools need it. For example, MS Visual Studio .Net, etc. All/most of MS's help needs it. So you get plenty of apps that just die or have no means of getting context sensitive help, which is something that makes programming much nicer IMO. I wish MS didn't build things this way and I wish programs didn't work this way. A very simple fix would be to just have apps with HTML help just fire up your default browser. However, MS wouldn't be able to "exercise" their monopoly position by allowing that >:D
Also, look at your argument, it sounds like what a big company would say to defend "IP" patents. How many "brilliant computer scientist working in their mother's garage" have come up with brilliant ideas vs. those working in an environment conducive to the invention process such as a lab/company/university?
I am sorry, I just don't agree with the notion that I should be allowed to sit here and just _think_ of something that may make a computer faster and then patent it. Note that the process doesn't have to work, nor do I have prove that it can work or get it to work. I can just wait several years and if a team of real inventors actually get a similar process to work, I can then sick the lawyers on them. I just don't see how this is advancing the arts and sciences in the USA/World.
Patents are the fuel for capitalism and are a good thing when used as they were originally created. Giving an inventor of a real/physical product a limited (no more then 10 years IMO for most not all industries) monopoly on that product will create incentive for that inventor and others both large and small to continue inventing knowing that their hard work will not be snatched up.
However, the greed and corruption of our (USA) politicians has allowed mostly big business to buy and pervert the patent systems to allow things like Amazon's "One-Click" patent. It is just insane to say that no other online merchant can allow their customers to purchase a product with one click without paying Amazon for that right. There is no invention in the "One-Click" patent.
I personally think software patents are bad. At the end of the day software patents are nothing more then mathematical algorithms. We don't allow some crazy mathematician to patent the process of adding two numbers. So why should we allow the big software companies to patent software? We don't allow a chef to patent recipes which would take away all the building-block tools of a chef. Yet we allow big companies to take away all the building blocks of software programmers.
"Innovation" is pretty much limited to the big corps. If a small-fish wants to get in the game, the best they can hope for is to get their product or their company bought out by the big-fish. The ability for a small-fish to actually invent a product and bring it to market is getting smaller and smaller with each corrupted patent that is granted.
Does bittorent or other P2P services depend on AOL, MSN, etc? No. So Gaim could just as easily change to their own protocal that runs over the net without the need for AOL, MSN or Yahoo! messenger. If Gaim gained a large enough user base, it could just come out with a major upgrade that totally changes the protocal to not need AOL, MSN, etc.
There is a _very_ simple fix to this issue. To aquire a patent, you must have working prototype. While I don't agree with software patents, this can still be applied. It would prevent people from just thinking of crap and getting a patent. There is not cost or R&D in thinking of something. The real purpose of a patent it to protect the investment of all the R&D by people. To just look at the market and try to guess things that may come up in the next 5-10 years is not innovative or deserving of a patent. If a patent would just require the submission of a complete working prototype, most of the problems of the patent system could go away (not all, but the biggest ones).
I don't blame Google for not wanting to push IE. MS defaults IE to their search and will continue to do so. Hence the whole monopoly problem thingy.
Opera still has the chicken-n-egg issue. Not enough users to have most websites care about working around its quirks. Everytime I tried Opera, I ran into too many sites that didn't work or rendered poorly. Mozill/Firefox is finally getting enough users to get the attention needed to get standard support. I do hope Opera the best, because they are in the same boat as desktop Linux to me. That whole chicken-n-egg thing. I am all for competition, I just _personally_ don't feel that Opera adds enough features over Firefox to warrent the cost, and I certainly don't want to deal with ads to use the free version.