Because the US DOD doesn't use PC's to train pilots on. It uses much larger more sophisticated systems running on high-end hardware connected to large physical simulators.
These multimillion-dollar simulators are built and supported by contractors who own their internals. It's not unlikely the US DOD has access to the code but the developers have no interest in giving it away; particularly when other governments are also willing to pay for this technology.
Honestly I can't imagine who would be suprised by this or how the originial question got scored so high.
One thing dampening all of this is that old Macs don't drop in price nearly as fast as Wintel boxes. Three and four year old Mac hardware (which is what is being talked about) still costs a lot more then 3 and 4 year old Wintel hardware. Indeed with a new entry level iMac costing $799 it's usually not worth retrofitting a whole new Mac from scratch.
Are these adaptions useful? Sure, particularly for those with a significent investment in an existing Mac. If one's box is already tricked out, running well and has the oomph to run MacOS X 10.1 properly then this is a great thing. But for folks thinking "heeey, I'll just pick up an old junker Mac and cobble MacOS X onto it" you're probably not making a good investment of time or money.
Wintel hardware has an optimum lifespan of 24-36 months, 48 months is still ok but you're running into diminishing results. Sure folks still use 5 year old Wintel hardware but rarely as a desktop system and even more rarely do they go out and buy it just to put a new OS onto.
On the other hand lots of Mac folks are perfectly happy running 5 year old Mac hardware and are in no hurry to move on. They paid a premium and got a box that has lasted well and is only now going to be a problem if they want to jump to the new MacOS X. Selling for 10 cents on the dollar isn't how the old Apple hardware market works: There are folks out there still willing to pay serious money for extra PCI slots or built-in SCSI or whatever.
So, if you're looking to play with MacOS X borrow a friend's. Or buy a cheap new box. Or throw Darwin onto your Wintel and play with the underpinnings. But going the buy-an-old-Mac-&-fix-'er-up route isn't really worth it unlesss you've already got one laying around.
Macs retain their value for a long time, it's not like the Wintel market with a 24-36 month optimum lifespan.
For a new iMac preloaded with MacOS X 10.1 (& therefore MacOS 9.21 also) you'll pay $799, about the same as for an older box with a kluged MacOS X, no USB, a couple generations-ago video, etc.
Long ago I worked for the folks who made Meeting Maker which is cross-platform (both client & server) plus ties into directories, etc. It would fit your needs, compliment your exisiting email system.
Discliamer: I worked for a previous incarnation of the company many years ago on a different product line.
This allows calendar sharing (though it barely works even as this) but completely leaves out any of the nifty optimization/rescheduling/reservations stuff typically used.
HP's already addressed the Open Sourcing of OpenMail when they announced it's EOLing (as championed by then new-hire Bruce Parens.) Apparently there's too much 3rd party licensed code in OpenMail, it would cost large sums of money to sanitize and they felt that without this hard-to-replace code the whole deal would be worthless.
In short it would cost HP lots to give away something unusable and likely not worth fixing up.
Folks make choices. Live side by side & get water, sewage, etc. Live spread out and go with pumps, septic, paying $1k a pole to have electricity run in.
That said for folks in a suburban situation it's not too difficult to set up a neighborhood LAN. Run a cable or even 802.11b between the houses. Cut a deal with an ISP where they support all of the local folks. Will it cost? Yeah but one can proablably get some deals; figure it over 2 years and it's reasonable.
Aside from that - if ya can't pay for it you don't get it. I don't know how much economic development the State of Maine would get out of subsidizing folk's high-speed internet acess that wouldn't be better invested in roads or schoolbooks (or even the Governor's laptops in schools plan.)
What did you expect @Home to do? I'm a AT&T Broadband in the former MediaOne territory (which means we explicitly ARE allowed to run our own web-servers etc - it IS in our local AUP and we've all received letters from the powers-that-be confirming this when @Home was first introduced) and even we were blocked.
What else could have been done?
@Home managed a patchwork network with 1.35 million customers. There's no way they could have quickly rolled out a response to Code Red on the scale required. As it was parts of their network were beginning to saturate before the block was put in place and with much of the activity now dampened they've removed the block.
How to identify the Code Red afflicted machines?
What kind of infrastructure would even be required to monitor & identify Code Red-type problems across the @Home network?
Would the @Home customers (the corporations, not the individual subscribers) even be willing to pay for this addt'l service?
How fast could this be budgeted and deployed?
What policy applies that differs Code Red from acceptable network traffic?
How to contact the thousands of afflicted customers?
How to tell them all that they'll need to wipe their drives and rebuild from known good backups (like they have any) if their PC's are to be considered secure again?
How to provide that scale of customer support?
How not to take the blame from those customers for having "given them Code Red"?
In the meantime how to slow or stop the spread of Code Red, dampen the traffic problems?
Can't filter at the routers; that sort of specific address management is hell on routers and couldn't be applied at the scale needed.
Cutting off individual customers by deprovisioning them would overwhelm the support infrastructure as well as piss off thousands who would suddenly find themselves without service and no way to even patch their PC's.
What kind of precedent would this set?
Would @Home go from being a simple ISP providing basic connectivity to a cop ensuring what travels over it's network?
What if others took advantage of this? Could RIAA file an injunction and force @Home to apply any comprehensive monitoring & blocking system it put in place (for Code Red et al) to block Napster et al?
What about the next virus/worm/trojan horse? Would the policies/procedures/hardware/software/monitoring so expensively & complexly put in place for Code Red apply for the next nasty to appear on the scene?
No, while @Home did a terrible job at informing it's customers and training it's own staff they did finally get the response right - heck, they really didn't have any alternatives. Just blocking the ports and getting their network traffic back under control was clearly what needed to be done and the first step for any possible response strategy.
As to support most @Home customers won't trust them to get the date right; the Dilbert cartoon about letting cable-modem support monkeys reel through their script while waiting for the point a human intellect kicks in was so @Home!
By the way the @Home pages on Code Red still just say "patch your server." No mention it's been sitting on the 'net for who knows how long beaconing out it's lack of security to everyone and is now likely thoroughly pilfered and riddled with trojan horses, new accounts, turned into a zombie. Wonder what the legal liability is for bad advice like that?
Ahhh the trappings of the BSD license, you do the work - someone else makes money by stealing it.
The point of the license is that it *wasn't* stolen.
You many not agree with the author's choices in licenses but please don't accuse others or make up stories. The authors determined what license best fit their needs and goals and Apple used it accordingly.
It's to Apple's credit that they've since maintained an Open Source distribution of this along with paying for engineers to port it to a platform they're not on, hosting the web-site, and keeping it current with their commercial distribution.
Disagreement is a fair thing, misinformation and calumny are not.
Note: You are perfectly free to choose whatever license you like when/if you produce something.
Already I occasionially get the occasionial SMS advert that my provider hasn't managed to filter. With this sort of strategy any script-kiddy with a phone could start hammering the rest of us.
I'd give it a week before an open cellphone is considered as antisocial as an open smtp relay.
This document is a great one to give to the Powers-That-Be at one's employer, school, ISP, etc.
In one credible place with annotations and links are the most common problems. Sure most of them aren't news to/.'ers but they're likely news to lots of other folks and exactly the thing to light a fire under the PHB's of the world. It's almost a checklist of "Are these implemented and if not *why* not?"-items for the semi-technical and as such is invaluable.
My thanks to the SANS Institute and the NIPC for releasing such a well-written & useful document.
The question seems more debating the value between a "Universal" education (hence University) or a trade-oriented education like, er, Trade School or vocational or other terms.
Frankly as all studies show folks changing careers several times in their lifetimes to train exclusively for one type of position seems to me to be needlessly limiting. Furthermore the assumption that an advanced education is only obtained as a means of advancing one's-self in a profession is a remarkably presumptive one.
The skills that have been invaluable in my life weren't the slot-A/tab-B mechanical stuff that seems to be advocated but rather means of thought, formulating opinions, understanding situations, making decisions, and just understanding the world generally. Knowing how to learn, resources and techniques for obtaining and structuring further knowledge, as well as familiarity with the various world-views one will interact with in life (both professionally and privately) are things that are well developed in a broad education.
That these lessons are often taught in framework makes them appear directly relevant to their subject but these are broadly applicable skills even if not always approached as such. Understanding how to manage folks gives one insights into the actions and goals of your own management. Learning certain types of finances provides an entry into understanding all other related types of finance. Exposure to a broad range of subjects allows one to make informed decisions about what is interesting or amenable to one's intellect and what is less so.
By the way, I'm an IS professional who was seduced away from college by the lure of earning good money and a more interesting life then studying topics I wasn't interested in. I don't regret the course of my life and feel that I've obtained an excellent education from my own efforts but would appreciate at some later time the opportunity to once again devote myself to less-distracted learning in an environment so amenable.
I've recently begun running into barriers resulting from my not having a degree (of any sort) and have so far been able to negotiate these but they are becoming more and more bothersome. Indeed some peers in the same situation have begun obtaining cheap degrees simply in order to appease employers.
Back to the main point however, there are many folks with different needs and goals and a vast array of institutions for learning. It seems to me there's very little chance of determining a generalized answer and everyone need rather to determine what is right for their own unique needs and goals.
Because Darwin does not add much value to the Unix/BSD world from an application developer's standpoint, the really key components of OS X are the GUI and Openstep environment (Aqua, et al.) which are closed source. Therefore, most Linux users approach OS X as a closed, proprietary system with a few open components.
Ironically it's been my experience most MacOS X developers consider Quartz & Aqua to be a pretty face but get really excited about the Cocoa development tools. Without these MacOS X is just another BSD with a special kernel, tweaked directories and a new IO model (and some other nice features.) With these it has one of the most powerful and praised development environments ever created.
I could maintain continuity - if they don't its because they can't be bothered.
You are aware there's now an entire alternative timeline established for Enterprise? Check out whatever the official website is; it's all there and no it doesn't match up directly to anything before it.
However I doubt everything ever could be made to match up perfectly. Over the past 30 years a vast amount of material has been created and much of it is already contradictory (apparently random dates, contradictory locations, elevators going to random floors, events out of sequence, the "Klingon makeover", etc.)
Finally apparently you haven't been watching films too closely either. There are numerous continuity errors in GWTW as there are in any production. Watch Dorothy's braids (and bosom) in the Wizard of Oz if you want to really laugh!
More compilers means more techniques applied and evaluated, benefits from compare & contrast, ability to more easily identify errors specific to a compiler and not code, and possibly more generic code in a more diverse environment.\
No, your details on what caused the Hindenburg disaster aren't correct. You're sorta halfway there noting the aluminium in the paint but the spark is purely theory, the hydrogen was almost irrelevant compared to the aluminum (guess what STS boosters are made out of) and the iron oxide has nothing to do with anything.
Glad you're trying to keep up to date but please check your facts before asserting them.
This is a waste of time for the linux community...
Then don't waste your time on it.
Oh - you want to tell OTHER folks how to use their time? You offering a paycheck? You got a big stick? No? Then go worry about your own time; they'll handle their's just fine thank you.
What's happening now and what might have happened
on
Raising the Kursk
·
· Score: 5, Informative
First is the website being run by the salvage operation: http://www.kursksalvage.com. Hourly updates, diagrams, engineering plans, animations, all the official details one could ever dream for. Truly a goldmine for those interested in the hows.
Second resource is a transcript from a recent BBC program on the Kursk that reviews the various theories about the sinking of the Kursk. It discusses the Russian allegations of US sub hitting the Kursk (as nation's subs have bumped each other numerous times in the past.) It also goes into depth on the popular British theory that a torpedo ran amuck in a way similar to a 40-year old incident of theirs only recently explained. Interesting and reasonably current thinking on the why.
The fuel cells are fueled from "... methanol, natural gas, petroleum or renewable sources." That means this isn't some magic battery one can plug in anywhere.
The price has not been announced but it's predicted to be high, possibly very high. Also nobody has said anything yet about TCO - how much regular maintenance will this require, what about consumables, what's the duty cycle and what's the lifetime.
These are competing with established power generating systems. It has the advantage the it's not producing anything directly toxic (though I wonder about the various nasties already in it's fuel, it's not like the sulphers and all just go poof) but same as they it requires an infrastructure.
Local codes will have to be updated to recognize these, insurance companies will need to set premiums, fueling and venting and all of the other standards and bits of bureaucracy will need to be done. You may well be able to buy one of these reasonably soon, just not use it legitimately.
On the other hand (and this is a common myth where folks always bring up the Hindenburg) hydrogen isn't inherently any more dangerous then any other energy-rich fuel. Indeed it's probably slightly safer as it's lighter then air and so doesn't "pool" and become concentrated.
Regarding the doctor, I particularly liked his big forced smile at the end of his conversation with the Captain (I think). It made him seem like a character from another civilization that doesn't actually use the same facial expresssions to communicate emotion that we do, and he is making a conscious attempt to send the culturally appropriate signals.
Exactly!
That's a perfect example of what would make the show more interesting. In the ST-universe everyone is almost always conversant with human-history and human-culture (well, make that US-culture) and human social conventions. Sure there's a few exceptions but by and large there's less variety then one would get at any internationial gathering on Earth today.
So the Dr. answers question in a way that don't seem entirely appropriate to the crew (completely misses the implications) or gives a response that's accurate but useless (Hmmm - must work for some tech. support staffs I've known.) GREAT.
And yes being awkward at all other forms of communication is great too. Giving the "big smile to communicate confidence & reassurance" when it's not appropriate is a perfect thing.
Hopefully we're not reading too much into this and they are going to be recurring elements used consistantly. If so then it bodes well for this series, show's that some thought has been put into this and it's not going to be the incessant "I want to be Human / What is it to be Human" sophmoric musings of Data & 7-of-9.
Y'know, I kinda feel bad for the Enterprise writers. They've got 5 TV series, 9 movies, a cartoon, who knows how many books plus guides and manuals and even language dictionaries out there with every ST-fanatic just drooling to be the first to catch an error.
Get over it. It's a TV show, not a coding textbook. Yes there will be inconsistencies and errors and who knows what else. Sometimes they're done for dramatic effect ("whoosh" sounds in space), sometimes they're done for convenience (ships always being shown upright 'cause it's too hard to explain to Uncle Vern why it's not *really* upside-down) and sometimes they just screw up. Or an author screwed up years ago. Or they're screwing with continuity on purpose and this will all make sense later.
Whatever the case for a premier episode it wasn't half bad. As many others have pointed out it's no worse then most other TV shows premier episodes and certianly not worse then any other ST's premier episode.
They've established the characters, given us a couple of directions for dramatic tension, showed off the fancy new (old) hardware and apparently started their first big plotline. Not bad for one show.
Sure we can all wonder if this is going to rise up to the best of the past or suck out loud like Voyager. As many others have pointed out that all of the series and movies and books and whatnot have had good stuff sprinkled amongst a lot of clunkers. Now the question is how will this new team and cast and direction play out and it's really unfair to judge from just one episode, particularly the first.
So enough nice-talk, my own opinions:
Loose the "Felicity" music. Get something that won't date *quite* so fast.
Enough with every race having weird ears and bad noses. CGI, puppetry and the popular imagination are good enough we can have a few more "Horta" races. There was a hint that the next destination will be non-humanoid, hoorah!
I like that the new Dr. is a bit bizarre. Aliens *should* be, well, at least a bit alien. I don't get the direction of thought of many SE Asians or E. Europeans right off; the thought processes of an alien should be a lot harder.
If they're going to go the morality play route then at least be bold about it, no more of these covert "the gay episode" where if there is any subtext it's so buried to be meaningless. Stand up for *something* - DS9 could've gone some interesting places with the issues of refugees and occupation and such but backed off and eventually just diluted it into oblivion.
Loose the softcore porn. I'm absolutely no prude but the jello-wrestling bit did nothing to move the story forward, the plot point could have happened anywhere else a lot more effectively. Play up the sexual tensions on the ship (close quarters, lots of stress, different cultures, different species, different cues & values etc.) if they want but make them part of something, not just there to get the boys all horny.
Finally, and this is something that Voyager finally did start to get right (if only out of desperation): Add some background characters. The person who always answers hails to Starfleet, the maintenance person usually polishing the decks late at night, the cranky supply depot supervisor who likes alien trinkets in return for good service, the flack from Starfleet PR constantly trying to hype & spin Enterprises missions, whatever. Give these folks a bit of a world to live in, not just the same faces doing *everything*.
Anyway, I'll hold my judgement for a few more episodes. At least the premier wasn't awful even though it wasn't great either. Heres to hope...
Novell (well known as the makers of Netware) rolled out their "DigitalMe" product several years ago to great disinterest (but then Novell couldn't market eternal life either.)
From their online propaganda:
The interactive nature of the Internet enables e-businesses to gather information about consumers in unprecedented amounts. While many e-businesses maintain privacy policies -- and post them for users to see -- the fact that this personal information is being collected and shared without the knowledge and permission of the consumer has some individuals and advocacy groups calling for government intervention.
Novell's digitalme is the first major effort by a large, multi-national corporation to give consumers the ability to control their personal information and manage their online relationships. With digitalme, management of online relationships is put firmly in the control of the user.
We call this new orientation toward consumer empowerment, meBusiness, and it ushers in a revolutionary new age of commerce on the Internet. A world where every person is empowered to manage their relationships with individuals and businesses by controlling how their personal information is shared, used and maintained on the Net. A world where every e-business is systematically enabled to responsibly use, and on request, purge customer information. All of which is designed to lead to less intrusive marketing, more trust in online relationships, respect for personal privacy and greater acceptance of e-commerce as a viable alternative to brick and mortar retailing.
Aside from the icky overheated writing style (and pathetically bad Gen-X look of the website) the idea seems to be the same as all of the others: We'll escrow your information and dole it out. The question is of course always how and to whom and with or without my permission. They've also got a dynamic address-book function and a web form-filler - woohoo.
When this thing launched I seem to recall Novell positioning it as a universal login to websites through online authentication. Now that seems to be dropped and a simple keychain function used instead. Whatever the case it's all built on Novell's awesome NDS (called "eDirectory" this week) technology which gives it some street-cred. NDS is the most mature directory service out there and scales awesomely, very flexible and at this point pretty mature. MS's projects are, well lets just say "quality is a journey" at MS and with Sun, well Jini sure is nifty!
Anyway, an interesting third example of this increasingly debated service.
Slashdot Mirror
These multimillion-dollar simulators are built and supported by contractors who own their internals. It's not unlikely the US DOD has access to the code but the developers have no interest in giving it away; particularly when other governments are also willing to pay for this technology.
Honestly I can't imagine who would be suprised by this or how the originial question got scored so high.
Are these adaptions useful? Sure, particularly for those with a significent investment in an existing Mac. If one's box is already tricked out, running well and has the oomph to run MacOS X 10.1 properly then this is a great thing. But for folks thinking "heeey, I'll just pick up an old junker Mac and cobble MacOS X onto it" you're probably not making a good investment of time or money.
Wintel hardware has an optimum lifespan of 24-36 months, 48 months is still ok but you're running into diminishing results. Sure folks still use 5 year old Wintel hardware but rarely as a desktop system and even more rarely do they go out and buy it just to put a new OS onto.
On the other hand lots of Mac folks are perfectly happy running 5 year old Mac hardware and are in no hurry to move on. They paid a premium and got a box that has lasted well and is only now going to be a problem if they want to jump to the new MacOS X. Selling for 10 cents on the dollar isn't how the old Apple hardware market works: There are folks out there still willing to pay serious money for extra PCI slots or built-in SCSI or whatever.
So, if you're looking to play with MacOS X borrow a friend's. Or buy a cheap new box. Or throw Darwin onto your Wintel and play with the underpinnings. But going the buy-an-old-Mac-&-fix-'er-up route isn't really worth it unlesss you've already got one laying around.
For a new iMac preloaded with MacOS X 10.1 (& therefore MacOS 9.21 also) you'll pay $799, about the same as for an older box with a kluged MacOS X, no USB, a couple generations-ago video, etc.
Discliamer: I worked for a previous incarnation of the company many years ago on a different product line.
This allows calendar sharing (though it barely works even as this) but completely leaves out any of the nifty optimization/rescheduling/reservations stuff typically used.
In short it would cost HP lots to give away something unusable and likely not worth fixing up.
That said for folks in a suburban situation it's not too difficult to set up a neighborhood LAN. Run a cable or even 802.11b between the houses. Cut a deal with an ISP where they support all of the local folks. Will it cost? Yeah but one can proablably get some deals; figure it over 2 years and it's reasonable.
Aside from that - if ya can't pay for it you don't get it. I don't know how much economic development the State of Maine would get out of subsidizing folk's high-speed internet acess that wouldn't be better invested in roads or schoolbooks (or even the Governor's laptops in schools plan.)
What else could have been done?
@Home managed a patchwork network with 1.35 million customers. There's no way they could have quickly rolled out a response to Code Red on the scale required. As it was parts of their network were beginning to saturate before the block was put in place and with much of the activity now dampened they've removed the block.
No, while @Home did a terrible job at informing it's customers and training it's own staff they did finally get the response right - heck, they really didn't have any alternatives. Just blocking the ports and getting their network traffic back under control was clearly what needed to be done and the first step for any possible response strategy.
As to support most @Home customers won't trust them to get the date right; the Dilbert cartoon about letting cable-modem support monkeys reel through their script while waiting for the point a human intellect kicks in was so @Home!
By the way the @Home pages on Code Red still just say "patch your server." No mention it's been sitting on the 'net for who knows how long beaconing out it's lack of security to everyone and is now likely thoroughly pilfered and riddled with trojan horses, new accounts, turned into a zombie. Wonder what the legal liability is for bad advice like that?
The point of the license is that it *wasn't* stolen.
You many not agree with the author's choices in licenses but please don't accuse others or make up stories. The authors determined what license best fit their needs and goals and Apple used it accordingly.
It's to Apple's credit that they've since maintained an Open Source distribution of this along with paying for engineers to port it to a platform they're not on, hosting the web-site, and keeping it current with their commercial distribution.
Disagreement is a fair thing, misinformation and calumny are not.
Note: You are perfectly free to choose whatever license you like when/if you produce something.
I'd give it a week before an open cellphone is considered as antisocial as an open smtp relay.
In one credible place with annotations and links are the most common problems. Sure most of them aren't news to /.'ers but they're likely news to lots of other folks and exactly the thing to light a fire under the PHB's of the world. It's almost a checklist of "Are these implemented and if not *why* not?"-items for the semi-technical and as such is invaluable.
My thanks to the SANS Institute and the NIPC for releasing such a well-written & useful document.
As to the timeline, check it out here.
Frankly you come off as a know-it-all kid loudly boasting he can do something better - what have you done?
Frankly as all studies show folks changing careers several times in their lifetimes to train exclusively for one type of position seems to me to be needlessly limiting. Furthermore the assumption that an advanced education is only obtained as a means of advancing one's-self in a profession is a remarkably presumptive one.
The skills that have been invaluable in my life weren't the slot-A/tab-B mechanical stuff that seems to be advocated but rather means of thought, formulating opinions, understanding situations, making decisions, and just understanding the world generally. Knowing how to learn, resources and techniques for obtaining and structuring further knowledge, as well as familiarity with the various world-views one will interact with in life (both professionally and privately) are things that are well developed in a broad education.
That these lessons are often taught in framework makes them appear directly relevant to their subject but these are broadly applicable skills even if not always approached as such. Understanding how to manage folks gives one insights into the actions and goals of your own management. Learning certain types of finances provides an entry into understanding all other related types of finance. Exposure to a broad range of subjects allows one to make informed decisions about what is interesting or amenable to one's intellect and what is less so.
By the way, I'm an IS professional who was seduced away from college by the lure of earning good money and a more interesting life then studying topics I wasn't interested in. I don't regret the course of my life and feel that I've obtained an excellent education from my own efforts but would appreciate at some later time the opportunity to once again devote myself to less-distracted learning in an environment so amenable.
I've recently begun running into barriers resulting from my not having a degree (of any sort) and have so far been able to negotiate these but they are becoming more and more bothersome. Indeed some peers in the same situation have begun obtaining cheap degrees simply in order to appease employers.
Back to the main point however, there are many folks with different needs and goals and a vast array of institutions for learning. It seems to me there's very little chance of determining a generalized answer and everyone need rather to determine what is right for their own unique needs and goals.
Ironically it's been my experience most MacOS X developers consider Quartz & Aqua to be a pretty face but get really excited about the Cocoa development tools. Without these MacOS X is just another BSD with a special kernel, tweaked directories and a new IO model (and some other nice features.) With these it has one of the most powerful and praised development environments ever created.
You are aware there's now an entire alternative timeline established for Enterprise? Check out whatever the official website is; it's all there and no it doesn't match up directly to anything before it.
However I doubt everything ever could be made to match up perfectly. Over the past 30 years a vast amount of material has been created and much of it is already contradictory (apparently random dates, contradictory locations, elevators going to random floors, events out of sequence, the "Klingon makeover", etc.)
Finally apparently you haven't been watching films too closely either. There are numerous continuity errors in GWTW as there are in any production. Watch Dorothy's braids (and bosom) in the Wizard of Oz if you want to really laugh!
I guess we can't all be as perfect as you.
More compilers means more techniques applied and evaluated, benefits from compare & contrast, ability to more easily identify errors specific to a compiler and not code, and possibly more generic code in a more diverse environment.\
Glad you're trying to keep up to date but please check your facts before asserting them.
Then don't waste your time on it.
Oh - you want to tell OTHER folks how to use their time? You offering a paycheck? You got a big stick? No? Then go worry about your own time; they'll handle their's just fine thank you.
Second resource is a transcript from a recent BBC program on the Kursk that reviews the various theories about the sinking of the Kursk. It discusses the Russian allegations of US sub hitting the Kursk (as nation's subs have bumped each other numerous times in the past.) It also goes into depth on the popular British theory that a torpedo ran amuck in a way similar to a 40-year old incident of theirs only recently explained. Interesting and reasonably current thinking on the why.
(Is it considered part of the pre-IPO quiet period to be featured on a nationial television special?)
Exactly!
That's a perfect example of what would make the show more interesting. In the ST-universe everyone is almost always conversant with human-history and human-culture (well, make that US-culture) and human social conventions. Sure there's a few exceptions but by and large there's less variety then one would get at any internationial gathering on Earth today.
So the Dr. answers question in a way that don't seem entirely appropriate to the crew (completely misses the implications) or gives a response that's accurate but useless (Hmmm - must work for some tech. support staffs I've known.) GREAT.
And yes being awkward at all other forms of communication is great too. Giving the "big smile to communicate confidence & reassurance" when it's not appropriate is a perfect thing.
Hopefully we're not reading too much into this and they are going to be recurring elements used consistantly. If so then it bodes well for this series, show's that some thought has been put into this and it's not going to be the incessant "I want to be Human / What is it to be Human" sophmoric musings of Data & 7-of-9.
(What I could do with those full, sensual lips...)
Get over it. It's a TV show, not a coding textbook. Yes there will be inconsistencies and errors and who knows what else. Sometimes they're done for dramatic effect ("whoosh" sounds in space), sometimes they're done for convenience (ships always being shown upright 'cause it's too hard to explain to Uncle Vern why it's not *really* upside-down) and sometimes they just screw up. Or an author screwed up years ago. Or they're screwing with continuity on purpose and this will all make sense later.
Whatever the case for a premier episode it wasn't half bad. As many others have pointed out it's no worse then most other TV shows premier episodes and certianly not worse then any other ST's premier episode.
They've established the characters, given us a couple of directions for dramatic tension, showed off the fancy new (old) hardware and apparently started their first big plotline. Not bad for one show.
Sure we can all wonder if this is going to rise up to the best of the past or suck out loud like Voyager. As many others have pointed out that all of the series and movies and books and whatnot have had good stuff sprinkled amongst a lot of clunkers. Now the question is how will this new team and cast and direction play out and it's really unfair to judge from just one episode, particularly the first.
So enough nice-talk, my own opinions:
Anyway, I'll hold my judgement for a few more episodes. At least the premier wasn't awful even though it wasn't great either. Heres to hope...
From their online propaganda:
Aside from the icky overheated writing style (and pathetically bad Gen-X look of the website) the idea seems to be the same as all of the others: We'll escrow your information and dole it out. The question is of course always how and to whom and with or without my permission. They've also got a dynamic address-book function and a web form-filler - woohoo.When this thing launched I seem to recall Novell positioning it as a universal login to websites through online authentication. Now that seems to be dropped and a simple keychain function used instead. Whatever the case it's all built on Novell's awesome NDS (called "eDirectory" this week) technology which gives it some street-cred. NDS is the most mature directory service out there and scales awesomely, very flexible and at this point pretty mature. MS's projects are, well lets just say "quality is a journey" at MS and with Sun, well Jini sure is nifty!
Anyway, an interesting third example of this increasingly debated service.