Sorry, you're wrong. The energy sopurce of that ship was wind, which itself is driven by the sun's heat, which is generated by nuclear fusion in the sun. Now the sun generates a lot of waste in form of the so-called solar wind (it's even dangerous; fortunately we have an atmosphere and a magnetic field to protect us from it). Therefore it's clearly not zero emission, the emission is just moved to a different place (the sun).
Even worse, it's already known that one day the real power source for that ship (i.e. the sun) will fail, and during failure will completely destroy the whole earth. You wouldn't call such an energy source exactly environment friendly, would you?
Space is essentially the only frontier we have left
Not really. I've once heared that about the deep sea there is much less known than about space. So why not do a deep sea program, complete with a manned deep sea station etc.?
That's not the answer to the question. It's an answer to "why ask Google to remove that image?" But the question you "answered" to was: "Why to do so publically instead of just privately to Google?"
Did you ever look at Google Groups? Every single page has a copyright Google on the bottom, despite the fact that the main part is definitely not copyright by them, but by the respective author of the posting.
Well, Slashdot's moderation system is an example of "a little more control": Comments are moderated by users, and while comments may get moderated down, they are not deleted (you can even read comments at -1).
I could imagine a "credit" system for Wikipedia, where users earn "credit" (similar to Slashdor Karma) through moderations of changes. Also single edits would have a credibility. It would start with the credibility of the author, but it could be increased by approval by a person with higher credibility. This would have the effect to increase the credibility of the change to that of the approver, and in addition increase the credibility of the contributer (unless it's an anonymous contribution) by some amount (which may be fixed, or maybe itself depend on the credibility of the approver). There would also be the possibility to disapprove (which reduces the credibility of the change and of the author).
This could be accompanied by a read leven where the content of the page depends on the selected level. Changes would be seen only if they are approved to at least the credibility level. If there is no change at the given credibility level, the page would be shown anyway using the lower-level changes, but with a credibility warning.
With that argumentation, there are a lot if things which don't work.
Supermarkets, for example. It's ludicrious to assume that people, when given the chance, wouldn't just take the stuff and walk away without paying. Oh, and the fact that supermarklets have to employ cameras, detectives etc. to prevent shoplifting, and it happens anyway, is proof enough that the whole concept of a supermarked is doomed, isn't it?
Also, public parking space. Look, everyone could go to a car on a public parking space and either steal or damage it. And indeed that happens. The mere fact that you have to put locks and alarm systems on cars shows that the whole concept of public parking space just cannot work, right?
And of course Slashdot. Isn't it just ludicrious to assume that if random people are allowed to comment, and even to moderate just because they got modded up themselves often enough? And isn't the fact that stupid comments and stupid moderations indeed happen a clear sign that the whole Slashdot comment failed?
It would be easy to find more examples, but I guess the above three are already enough to make my point.
I don't think you're right. If the standard of living is going down, I suspect many people will look for getting money as early as possible, which means not graduating.
Well, your "good coder" actually introduced a bug: Now he doesn't add up to the outer variable total (the declaration of which is not shown in the examples), but declares a loop-local variable with the same name. That't not what I'd expect from a good programmer...
Actually a really good coder would write it as
total = number*(number-1)/2
if he can prove that this won't overflow, and something like
total = (number % 2)? (number-1)/2*number : number/2*(number-1)
otherwise (if this one overflows, the original loop does so as well).
But with the Foundation holding the relevant IP rights, even a Mozilla Corporation going evil will not do too much harm. Also, aren't the CEOs bound to do with the company whatever the company owners want?
If the proper binding contracts are not put in place before hand, then we can say good buy to the popup blockers.
If the Mozilla Corporation should go wrong, the Foundation can just re-start to release the official Firefox/Thunderbird versions themselves, including any improvements dome by the Corporation in the mean time. That's the power of Open Source: Even if the corporation gets evil, it cannot suddenly remove the code. The only possible weak point would be the trademark, but I hope the trademark rights remain at the Foundation.
ASCII had happy and sad faces? At what code points? Or did you mix this up with the IBM PC character set extension which mapped (IIRC) ^A and ^B to faces (but IIRC it was not happy and sad, but light and dark)?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you're wrong. The energy sopurce of that ship was wind, which itself is driven by the sun's heat, which is generated by nuclear fusion in the sun. Now the sun generates a lot of waste in form of the so-called solar wind (it's even dangerous; fortunately we have an atmosphere and a magnetic field to protect us from it). Therefore it's clearly not zero emission, the emission is just moved to a different place (the sun).
:-)
Even worse, it's already known that one day the real power source for that ship (i.e. the sun) will fail, and during failure will completely destroy the whole earth. You wouldn't call such an energy source exactly environment friendly, would you?
SCNR
Not really. I've once heared that about the deep sea there is much less known than about space. So why not do a deep sea program, complete with a manned deep sea station etc.?
Ok, so they should paint those lines on the top of the nuclear reactor? A really interesting idea.
Will this also work with military satellites? Then maybe all military sites should write on their roofs:
User-agent: enemy
Disallow: /
That's not the answer to the question. It's an answer to "why ask Google to remove that image?" But the question you "answered" to was: "Why to do so publically instead of just privately to Google?"
Did you ever look at Google Groups? Every single page has a copyright Google on the bottom, despite the fact that the main part is definitely not copyright by them, but by the respective author of the posting.
Sure, because without Google, no one will ever find out the location of the white house ... :-)
Well, Slashdot's moderation system is an example of "a little more control": Comments are moderated by users, and while comments may get moderated down, they are not deleted (you can even read comments at -1).
I could imagine a "credit" system for Wikipedia, where users earn "credit" (similar to Slashdor Karma) through moderations of changes. Also single edits would have a credibility. It would start with the credibility of the author, but it could be increased by approval by a person with higher credibility. This would have the effect to increase the credibility of the change to that of the approver, and in addition increase the credibility of the contributer (unless it's an anonymous contribution) by some amount (which may be fixed, or maybe itself depend on the credibility of the approver). There would also be the possibility to disapprove (which reduces the credibility of the change and of the author).
This could be accompanied by a read leven where the content of the page depends on the selected level. Changes would be seen only if they are approved to at least the credibility level. If there is no change at the given credibility level, the page would be shown anyway using the lower-level changes, but with a credibility warning.
With that argumentation, there are a lot if things which don't work.
Supermarkets, for example. It's ludicrious to assume that people, when given the chance, wouldn't just take the stuff and walk away without paying. Oh, and the fact that supermarklets have to employ cameras, detectives etc. to prevent shoplifting, and it happens anyway, is proof enough that the whole concept of a supermarked is doomed, isn't it?
Also, public parking space. Look, everyone could go to a car on a public parking space and either steal or damage it. And indeed that happens. The mere fact that you have to put locks and alarm systems on cars shows that the whole concept of public parking space just cannot work, right?
And of course Slashdot. Isn't it just ludicrious to assume that if random people are allowed to comment, and even to moderate just because they got modded up themselves often enough? And isn't the fact that stupid comments and stupid moderations indeed happen a clear sign that the whole Slashdot comment failed?
It would be easy to find more examples, but I guess the above three are already enough to make my point.
I don't think you're right. If the standard of living is going down, I suspect many people will look for getting money as early as possible, which means not graduating.
Except that I changed my modem twice under Linux without having to recompile my kernel.
The question of course is: Why did this get on slashdot's front page?
Don't forget the planet-moving angels!
Then please add the following theory, too:
:-)
The earth was built by the mice to find the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything.
I really think that theory should be given equal class time!
If god is the source of all things, he's also the source of pure chance. So where is the problem?
Well, since being able to do anything has no weight at all (an ability is not a physical thing!), it's weight in gold is worth absolutely nothing
Why would he want to run Windows? ... :-)
Ok, so you may not have heared about that obscure OS called Linux
But speculating afterwards would be quite pointless, wouldn't it?
One reason may be that if you wear glasses (e.g. for being short-sighted), the polarizer glasses have to fit in addition to them.
Actually a really good coder would write it asif he can prove that this won't overflow, and something likeotherwise (if this one overflows, the original loop does so as well).
Post to the correct discussion
But with the Foundation holding the relevant IP rights, even a Mozilla Corporation going evil will not do too much harm.
Also, aren't the CEOs bound to do with the company whatever the company owners want?
If the Mozilla Corporation should go wrong, the Foundation can just re-start to release the official Firefox/Thunderbird versions themselves, including any improvements dome by the Corporation in the mean time. That's the power of Open Source: Even if the corporation gets evil, it cannot suddenly remove the code. The only possible weak point would be the trademark, but I hope the trademark rights remain at the Foundation.
G) Sell an over-engineered $149 ten button + 3D scroll mouse. Then no one can complain about too few mouse buttons any more. :-)
No, it will be followed by 802.11{
ASCII had happy and sad faces? At what code points?
Or did you mix this up with the IBM PC character set extension which mapped (IIRC) ^A and ^B to faces (but IIRC it was not happy and sad, but light and dark)?