So we drop the cargo down with a sky crane/inflatable combination/retro rocket system then land the crew with something like the LEM.
It's not like we don't have experience landing small, rocket-powred craft on airless low-gravity environments, and that was 40 years ago.
We put Curiosity down onto the surface intact using a sky crane flown remotely (with automatic systems handling key bits due to time delay). It's not like we can't land car-sized objects on Mars already.
But no, that sort of "we can't possibly do it" thinking is exactly what we need in space exploration. Keep it up.
You are correct - I read this earlier and had taken that Ikea asked her before to remove the ads, but I didm;t read it carefully enough it seems, since it was during lunch.
Yeah, I went back and re-read the article on Ars, which I seem to have misremembered - it pretty much says what the slashdot summary says.
I had taken from the Ars piece that they had asked her previously to remove the adverts, but it seems I was incorrect. I read it during luck and I guess I didn't give it enough attention.
I read this on Ars earlier in the day. The site has been up for eight years, and the C&D came recently, since the owner didn't want to take down the Ikea-style branding or the ads (Ikea said that it would be fine without the advertising if the owner ran the site as a non-commercial entity).
It's classic trademark/trade dress infringement, that has been either flying under the radar or simply hasn't been a concern to Ikea until recently - perhaps the ads being served alongside what could be confused for their branding changed, or maybe a new guy is in charge of legal over there now?
I think the actual question being "Is Android on Linux really Unix?" should cause very little heat since most people wouldn't care or think "No" is pretty obvious.
Tell that to the guy in a parallel thread to this one who thinks that because "any standard that doesn't include Linux is not a standard" and that because he doesn't think that the Open Group deserves to control what is and isn't Unix that he is taking the term for himself and declaring that it means whatever he wants it to mean.
They spent eight years trying to convince the site to use something that didn't infringe IKEA's trademark, and only after all that did they finally decide to actually use the courts.
So, maybe waiting 8 years and trying to work it out with these guys without suing them was the boneheaded move?
That's pretty much thread over right there. Again, you can complain and scrunch your eyes up and wish real hard, but you're trying to twist facts to suit your argument. Remember, this started with you saying that "any standard that doesn't include Linux is not a standard" in a laughably arrogant and stupid statement, and now you're trying to claim Unix for your own to support your silly statement.
Given Linux's intellectual and usage dominance I'd say that the old Open Systems approach clearly no longer works. A standard that excludes Linux is not a standard. So I'm coming down that POSIX / Open Group should not be the definition of UNIX.
Just because you wish it really hard doesn't make it so.
Like it or not, "UNIX" has a specific meaning, both in terms of branding and adhering to a defined standard. You can't just decide to claim that standard as your own even if you don't meet it.
"Any standard that excludes Linux is not a standard" is just an absurdly arrogant and silly thing to say.
Since you're totally ok with claiming that the Open Group no longer gets to define what UNIX is because you say so, I'll also take claim of what GNU means, since any standard that excludes Apple and Microsoft is not a standard. OS X and Windows will now be called GNU/OS X and GNU Windows. Seems fair to me.
In other words, if they trade patents on a design and Tesla is all open and friendly, but $EVIL-CAR-COMPANY plays along at first then sues Tesla for using some patented tech then Tesla can fight back.
The map only shows supercharger stations, and not the more regular (and already more numerate) EV charging stations.
One of the goals of this opening up is to try and encourage other manufacturers to also build supercharger stations so they spread more quickly.
As the statement says right now - Tesla is small and sells only a small number of vehicles, relatively, so expecting them to blanket the entire US in supercharger stations - especially in areas where market research has likely told them they will not sell many Model S's - is somewhat unreasonable at this stage. These are the "sweeten the deal" parts of the car - free, rapid charging. The more readily available EV charging (that you have to pay for) is still there, and also growing rapidly.
A clearer statement than "we took our plaques off our wall" is needed, but assuming there is a clear statement from Tesla that they will only use these patents defensively, anyone who takes them at their word should be safe.
Telsa should have the CEO publicly post such a statement where Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology. This will be quickly picked up by tech blogs and linked to the statement.
You should read the whole statement on the website. It's much clearer than the small, random part of it quoted in the slashdot summary.
Are all Apple public statements this arrogant? They're running those horrid (and long) commercials right now showing people using iDevices in all kinds of contrived circumstances, too.
It was a joke. It was really obviously not serious.
Slashdot Mirror
So we drop the cargo down with a sky crane/inflatable combination/retro rocket system then land the crew with something like the LEM.
It's not like we don't have experience landing small, rocket-powred craft on airless low-gravity environments, and that was 40 years ago.
We put Curiosity down onto the surface intact using a sky crane flown remotely (with automatic systems handling key bits due to time delay). It's not like we can't land car-sized objects on Mars already.
But no, that sort of "we can't possibly do it" thinking is exactly what we need in space exploration. Keep it up.
Gravity is also only 40% of Earth's on average, which helps to negate some of those downsides.
Doesn't seem to have hurt Samsung, who were caught bait and switching by faking smartphone benchmarks.
This will be quietly forgotten.
You are correct - I read this earlier and had taken that Ikea asked her before to remove the ads, but I didm;t read it carefully enough it seems, since it was during lunch.
I was incorrect.
Yeah, I went back and re-read the article on Ars, which I seem to have misremembered - it pretty much says what the slashdot summary says.
I had taken from the Ars piece that they had asked her previously to remove the adverts, but it seems I was incorrect. I read it during luck and I guess I didn't give it enough attention.
Yes, so I see after re-reading it. I could have sworn the original stated that they asked her to take the ads down before, but I guess not.
Like a man in orthopaedic shoes, I stand corrected.
You don't have a citation, and you resort to ad hominem when called out for it. "jo_ham" is about as anonymous as it gets. Faggot.
Error 404: logical fallacy not found. Ad hominem attack not detected. Please log in and try again.
Citation needed on IKEA having spent eight years trying to come to an agreement.
Error 404: citation not found. User not logged in. Please try again without the "post anonymously" box checked.
I read this on Ars earlier in the day. The site has been up for eight years, and the C&D came recently, since the owner didn't want to take down the Ikea-style branding or the ads (Ikea said that it would be fine without the advertising if the owner ran the site as a non-commercial entity).
It's classic trademark/trade dress infringement, that has been either flying under the radar or simply hasn't been a concern to Ikea until recently - perhaps the ads being served alongside what could be confused for their branding changed, or maybe a new guy is in charge of legal over there now?
Who knows.
I think the actual question being "Is Android on Linux really Unix?" should cause very little heat since most people wouldn't care or think "No" is pretty obvious.
Tell that to the guy in a parallel thread to this one who thinks that because "any standard that doesn't include Linux is not a standard" and that because he doesn't think that the Open Group deserves to control what is and isn't Unix that he is taking the term for himself and declaring that it means whatever he wants it to mean.
"Thuggish" is trying to work it out with these guys for 8 years before finally taking them to court?
Man, the thugs in your neighbourhood must be really polite.
They spent eight years trying to convince the site to use something that didn't infringe IKEA's trademark, and only after all that did they finally decide to actually use the courts.
So, maybe waiting 8 years and trying to work it out with these guys without suing them was the boneheaded move?
UNIX is a registered trademark.
That's pretty much thread over right there. Again, you can complain and scrunch your eyes up and wish real hard, but you're trying to twist facts to suit your argument. Remember, this started with you saying that "any standard that doesn't include Linux is not a standard" in a laughably arrogant and stupid statement, and now you're trying to claim Unix for your own to support your silly statement.
UNIX is literally a brand. Like I said, you can't just wish really hard that it's not. It is a registered trademark of the Open Group.
You can disagree as much as you like, but it doesn't alter actual, verifiable facts.
It is - they bought a UNIX licence back in the NeXT days I believe.
OS X is POSIX compliant and ostensibly the core pieces of NeXT.
Given Linux's intellectual and usage dominance I'd say that the old Open Systems approach clearly no longer works. A standard that excludes Linux is not a standard. So I'm coming down that POSIX / Open Group should not be the definition of UNIX.
Just because you wish it really hard doesn't make it so.
Like it or not, "UNIX" has a specific meaning, both in terms of branding and adhering to a defined standard. You can't just decide to claim that standard as your own even if you don't meet it.
"Any standard that excludes Linux is not a standard" is just an absurdly arrogant and silly thing to say.
Since you're totally ok with claiming that the Open Group no longer gets to define what UNIX is because you say so, I'll also take claim of what GNU means, since any standard that excludes Apple and Microsoft is not a standard. OS X and Windows will now be called GNU/OS X and GNU Windows. Seems fair to me.
Now there's a can of worms. I think the question "Is Linux really Unix?" is a guaranteed heat-generator.
It means they will sue defensively if necessary.
In other words, if they trade patents on a design and Tesla is all open and friendly, but $EVIL-CAR-COMPANY plays along at first then sues Tesla for using some patented tech then Tesla can fight back.
The map only shows supercharger stations, and not the more regular (and already more numerate) EV charging stations.
One of the goals of this opening up is to try and encourage other manufacturers to also build supercharger stations so they spread more quickly.
As the statement says right now - Tesla is small and sells only a small number of vehicles, relatively, so expecting them to blanket the entire US in supercharger stations - especially in areas where market research has likely told them they will not sell many Model S's - is somewhat unreasonable at this stage. These are the "sweeten the deal" parts of the car - free, rapid charging. The more readily available EV charging (that you have to pay for) is still there, and also growing rapidly.
A clearer statement than "we took our plaques off our wall" is needed, but assuming there is a clear statement from Tesla that they will only use these patents defensively, anyone who takes them at their word should be safe.
Telsa should have the CEO publicly post such a statement where Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use their technology. This will be quickly picked up by tech blogs and linked to the statement.
You should read the whole statement on the website. It's much clearer than the small, random part of it quoted in the slashdot summary.
Proof?
APL has been caught lying so many times, I'd like to see someone else do an in depth analysis proving that it is impossible.
Log in, then maybe someone will provide some.
Otherwise, why bother?
Dear Halster,
Whoooooooooooooooooooooosh.
Kind regards,
Apple.
(I assume you watched the video?)
Actually, he was telling a joke.
Really? I don't know what to say about that..
That you didn't get the joke?
You should probably watch the section of the video.
It's being presented as a serious statement of fact, but it was an extremely flippant and obvious joke.
Still, it serves as a great way to enrage the apple haters though.
Are all Apple public statements this arrogant? They're running those horrid (and long) commercials right now showing people using iDevices in all kinds of contrived circumstances, too.
It was a joke. It was really obviously not serious.
The frothing over this is hilarious.