I love these assumptions. After all, if everyone has had VLC installed with any new Windows machine, Youtube would never have been necessary. It all comes down to the inaptitude of Microsoft to make a decent movie player...
The wonderful thing is that they had to create a legal framework to make it possible, vote it, and let it happen to realize this kind of abuse was possible. What is the job they are supposed to do again ? I thought they were supposed to be literate and intelligent people, specialist of laws and how they could be used in a nasty way in order to design them intelligently.
Day after day, I wonder if it would be a lot more damaging to choose MPs at random and let random people be incompetent instead of these elected buffoons. At least, the random people would be really representative of the population.
I can't help but remember Sony founder explaining how they were looking for ways of doing efficient small transistors with various materials and that they had learned from Bell labs that silicium gave very poor result so they spent minimum resources on that.
I can't help also wonder if this is a good use of "peer reviewing" which has a kind of shortage, or so I heard.
And perhaps the private sector would have gone to the moon, had they been given 150 billion dollars (apollo cost) and a mandate to go there ASAP.
Ironically, the USA gave the mandate to a single administration while the USSR put two different one in competition. That split resources and prevented the sharing of technical informations. I am not sure it was the main cause of their loss (I think the death of the head manager of their program was) but it is noteworthy. Note as well that NASA subcontracted many things to private entities. The LEM was made by a private company for instance.
I think that the regular economics theory can not really be applied on the Apollo program because it was something unique in history. It was the best possible thing to motivate engineers and scientists working together efficiently : no one knew if it was possible, it they would manage it and knew it was part of History. I think most people here will acknowledge that when it comes to such a program, this kind of motivation really trumps economical incentives.
What's happening to NASA is like an alcoholic stopping the sauce. Not only do they save a bunch of money, but they also free up a bunch of time and brainpower to pursue better things.
It may have been cheaper to have astronauts do the Apollo missions and come back, but nowadays, a one-way robotic probe could do the same and probably more. However, the gain was political as it could be seen as a first step toward colonization. For this political goal, a human was clearly needed.
The ISS is primary a lab where microgravity experiments can be made, analyzed, improved and even saved, when there is a problem, by a clever hack on site. Is this cheaper than carefully plan an automated experiment in a non-habitable satellite and have it occasionally fail ? The answer is not really clear. However, I am willing to bet than when we will have a tele-operated humanoid robot to send in orbit, the need for humans on board will be negated. Here again, the only purpose of human presence in LEO will become political.
The moon has a one second lag so telepresence is workable there. For further destination, it is possible to imagine robots with embedded intelligence and the ability to react to data, design experiments and interpret them. It is surely easier to design than an habitable spacecraft to do the earth-mars trip.
Nowadays, I believe that there is no need to put humans in a spacecraft if it is not in order to go inhabit a robot-built colony.
Robots are perceived as clumsy, slow and not very adptative. These problems are being worked on and every day progress is made. Today we are far from what a human can do in earth conditions, but a human with a spacesuit in microgravity is something modern robotics can challenge.
Wait a minute...
From what I understand, it mainly means that when a website is certified by CNNIC, it will appear in Mozilla software as being indeed certified by CNNIC. Mozilla is not in the certification and trust management business. From my point of view, I don't see why they should refuse any organization with a verifiable physical address that is not trying to fool people by using similar names like "Paypel". Users will have to learn how a trust network works and who they trust when they do transactions or secure connections. There is no way around it.
IANAL, I am not even an American citizen, but from what I understand, doesn't this decision mean that future similar cases will be a lot faster to judge ?
In fact, most people who says OpenOffice really lacks behind are those who want it to be compatible 100% with MS Office (but don't ask MS Office to be compatible with OO).
My only criticism of a missing feature is the lack of a grammar tool for the French language in OO.
When you point out to a fact that contradicts their sayings, Slashdotters won't bow and flog themselves recognizing you were right and asking for your blessing. Most of them will instead retire and meditate about this new fact before continuing to discuss. Some may even thank you. The silent crowd mods 'informative' the fact-based contradiction and mods down the occasional "Nay ! YOU are dumb" answer.
Yeah, people here have preconceptions and opinions, but compared to a lot of other places, real or virtual, they are far more inclined to change them.
So the US has had an aggressive behaviour toward Russia that cannot be put on a defensive strategy ? I say that is another argument to dump it right away
Microsoft has a special hounds training program. They train them to smell a very subtle scent that exist only when wealth and stupidity is mixed. They call this program "marketing". Open source sellers have moral qualms about it and prefer to solve stupidity which they see as a core problem. Guess who is making money ?
Now the important question : am I trollish, insighful, funny or CowboyNeal ?
The (i think ?) only anti-missile system used frequently today has a success rate between 10% and 40% depending on the sources you ask about. The Russians already sell missiles to bypass the anti-missile shield, and anything less than a 100% percent rate makes it possible to bypass by building just more missiles.
The current administration is looking at projects to cut in order to save money, this one seems as straightforward as the Constellation program.
I know of a probable failure of a North Korean launch, but what do you mean about Russia. The last time I checked, they were #1 when it comes to build missiles. Theirs have long range, counter-measures and even include anti-laser protection. What is the failure you are refering to ?
I don't pretend I know the answers to the questions I asked. I myself took the habit of writing as exactly as possible even when I don't write in my native language, as is the case for this post. I am sorry I made these mistakes because I feel it is politeness to express oneself correctly in a language, but I wonder if these mistakes really impaired the comprehension of the points I am trying to make ?
Anyway, I am willing to learn:
- Is that true ? Isn't that one of these differences between UK and US ? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsoletes
- Sorry about this one.
- Hmmm, but that sounds like something I already heard. The correct expression is maybe "skills have this idea attached that..." ? Sorry about that one.
- IMHO and lol were humorous in intent.
Currently, younger generations have been texting and chatting on internet as soon as they began to be able to write phonetically. To their great joy, communication worked well between them even without this fancy 'grammar' grown-ups brag about. We were told that one should not write unless he writes correctly, because the writing skills we were given have the idea that you always write for some kind of "serious" publication. We never were taught to write for text messages.
I am not sure whether this indicates a lowering of level or just a change in the way the world works. Latin got obsoleted in "serious" scientific publications. Could correct English become obsolete in the same way ? As long as the arguments themselves are well constructed, I see no qualms in that. As long as communication works, the preservation of language for the sake of it serves no purpose, IMHO (if you allow me to use such acronyms, lol).
Slashdot Mirror
Everything in Europe has been traditionally unlocked and unsubsidized phones.
No. At least here in France the mess is equally frustrating as in US.
I love these assumptions. After all, if everyone has had VLC installed with any new Windows machine, Youtube would never have been necessary. It all comes down to the inaptitude of Microsoft to make a decent movie player...
Yes this summary claims are laughable.
The most vulnerable equipment in my mind is a router or a switch. THAT could be nasty
The wonderful thing is that they had to create a legal framework to make it possible, vote it, and let it happen to realize this kind of abuse was possible. What is the job they are supposed to do again ? I thought they were supposed to be literate and intelligent people, specialist of laws and how they could be used in a nasty way in order to design them intelligently.
Day after day, I wonder if it would be a lot more damaging to choose MPs at random and let random people be incompetent instead of these elected buffoons. At least, the random people would be really representative of the population.
I still have some faith the Google has now too much OSS developers on its staff for this to happen without serious efforts made at mending the gap.
But with a bottom-up design instead of a top-down. Safety and innovation will be the winners there.
closed code ? Maybe Google will finally provide a good argument for people wanting to switch the license to GPL v3
I can't help but remember Sony founder explaining how they were looking for ways of doing efficient small transistors with various materials and that they had learned from Bell labs that silicium gave very poor result so they spent minimum resources on that.
I can't help also wonder if this is a good use of "peer reviewing" which has a kind of shortage, or so I heard.
My understanding is that while brain-to-CPU is now quite advanced, direct feedback is missing.
And perhaps the private sector would have gone to the moon, had they been given 150 billion dollars (apollo cost) and a mandate to go there ASAP.
Ironically, the USA gave the mandate to a single administration while the USSR put two different one in competition. That split resources and prevented the sharing of technical informations. I am not sure it was the main cause of their loss (I think the death of the head manager of their program was) but it is noteworthy. Note as well that NASA subcontracted many things to private entities. The LEM was made by a private company for instance.
I think that the regular economics theory can not really be applied on the Apollo program because it was something unique in history. It was the best possible thing to motivate engineers and scientists working together efficiently : no one knew if it was possible, it they would manage it and knew it was part of History. I think most people here will acknowledge that when it comes to such a program, this kind of motivation really trumps economical incentives.
What's happening to NASA is like an alcoholic stopping the sauce. Not only do they save a bunch of money, but they also free up a bunch of time and brainpower to pursue better things.
And they'll be pretty irritable for a while.
It may have been cheaper to have astronauts do the Apollo missions and come back, but nowadays, a one-way robotic probe could do the same and probably more. However, the gain was political as it could be seen as a first step toward colonization. For this political goal, a human was clearly needed.
The ISS is primary a lab where microgravity experiments can be made, analyzed, improved and even saved, when there is a problem, by a clever hack on site. Is this cheaper than carefully plan an automated experiment in a non-habitable satellite and have it occasionally fail ? The answer is not really clear. However, I am willing to bet than when we will have a tele-operated humanoid robot to send in orbit, the need for humans on board will be negated. Here again, the only purpose of human presence in LEO will become political.
The moon has a one second lag so telepresence is workable there. For further destination, it is possible to imagine robots with embedded intelligence and the ability to react to data, design experiments and interpret them. It is surely easier to design than an habitable spacecraft to do the earth-mars trip.
Nowadays, I believe that there is no need to put humans in a spacecraft if it is not in order to go inhabit a robot-built colony.
Robots are perceived as clumsy, slow and not very adptative. These problems are being worked on and every day progress is made. Today we are far from what a human can do in earth conditions, but a human with a spacesuit in microgravity is something modern robotics can challenge.
Wait a minute...
From what I understand, it mainly means that when a website is certified by CNNIC, it will appear in Mozilla software as being indeed certified by CNNIC. Mozilla is not in the certification and trust management business. From my point of view, I don't see why they should refuse any organization with a verifiable physical address that is not trying to fool people by using similar names like "Paypel". Users will have to learn how a trust network works and who they trust when they do transactions or secure connections. There is no way around it.
IANAL, I am not even an American citizen, but from what I understand, doesn't this decision mean that future similar cases will be a lot faster to judge ?
In fact, most people who says OpenOffice really lacks behind are those who want it to be compatible 100% with MS Office (but don't ask MS Office to be compatible with OO).
My only criticism of a missing feature is the lack of a grammar tool for the French language in OO.
For the two people here who don't get the reference : http://xkcd.com/670/
Lying and fraud is soooooo 90. Nowadays marketing departments also use extortion.
When you point out to a fact that contradicts their sayings, Slashdotters won't bow and flog themselves recognizing you were right and asking for your blessing. Most of them will instead retire and meditate about this new fact before continuing to discuss. Some may even thank you. The silent crowd mods 'informative' the fact-based contradiction and mods down the occasional "Nay ! YOU are dumb" answer.
Yeah, people here have preconceptions and opinions, but compared to a lot of other places, real or virtual, they are far more inclined to change them.
So the US has had an aggressive behaviour toward Russia that cannot be put on a defensive strategy ? I say that is another argument to dump it right away
Microsoft has a special hounds training program. They train them to smell a very subtle scent that exist only when wealth and stupidity is mixed. They call this program "marketing". Open source sellers have moral qualms about it and prefer to solve stupidity which they see as a core problem. Guess who is making money ?
Now the important question : am I trollish, insighful, funny or CowboyNeal ?
The (i think ?) only anti-missile system used frequently today has a success rate between 10% and 40% depending on the sources you ask about. The Russians already sell missiles to bypass the anti-missile shield, and anything less than a 100% percent rate makes it possible to bypass by building just more missiles.
The current administration is looking at projects to cut in order to save money, this one seems as straightforward as the Constellation program.
I know of a probable failure of a North Korean launch, but what do you mean about Russia. The last time I checked, they were #1 when it comes to build missiles. Theirs have long range, counter-measures and even include anti-laser protection. What is the failure you are refering to ?
But there are few alternatives to show your discontentment : Pirate Party
I don't pretend I know the answers to the questions I asked. I myself took the habit of writing as exactly as possible even when I don't write in my native language, as is the case for this post. I am sorry I made these mistakes because I feel it is politeness to express oneself correctly in a language, but I wonder if these mistakes really impaired the comprehension of the points I am trying to make ?
:
Anyway, I am willing to learn
- Is that true ? Isn't that one of these differences between UK and US ? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsoletes
- Sorry about this one.
- Hmmm, but that sounds like something I already heard. The correct expression is maybe "skills have this idea attached that..." ? Sorry about that one.
- IMHO and lol were humorous in intent.
Currently, younger generations have been texting and chatting on internet as soon as they began to be able to write phonetically. To their great joy, communication worked well between them even without this fancy 'grammar' grown-ups brag about. We were told that one should not write unless he writes correctly, because the writing skills we were given have the idea that you always write for some kind of "serious" publication. We never were taught to write for text messages.
I am not sure whether this indicates a lowering of level or just a change in the way the world works. Latin got obsoleted in "serious" scientific publications. Could correct English become obsolete in the same way ? As long as the arguments themselves are well constructed, I see no qualms in that. As long as communication works, the preservation of language for the sake of it serves no purpose, IMHO (if you allow me to use such acronyms, lol).