I've been through that. But the key line over here is not "throw money at the problem"; it is "Any price that will take the problem off our hands". Perversely, it may not be the highest.
We once had to buy, for regulatory reasons, a specialised software for the evaluation of financial options. Of the three contenders, one was good, the others were on the rainy side of lousy. Problem was, the guys building the best programs, which was the priciest, actually INSISTED on seeing their program used well, which meant trying to see how well our company knew the matter, meeting with the PHB responsible, the operatives guys, etc.
Now guess: the field is down to two contenders, and they are not one of those two.
Conceptually, something akin to a bistatic radar (http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~seminar/archive/2003/s em-0048.html) could work in malls, etc. A single sound source ("ping") could help the vision impaired locate objects, and also help them to locate themselves relative to the sound source.
I don't agree with that. since most of the OS sales are pre-loads by OEM's, the final customer wouldn't see a great benefit, since hardware prices are going down anyway and 50 or 60 bucks don't mean much. In fact, that's part of the problem that drives MS to a annual fee model: people are not upgrading like they used to.
Moreover, an upgrade cycle is drive by applications, and what's the added value of Office XP against office 97?
You may have a point, but remember that strategic surprise is not a viable objective per se. I very much doubt that good ole US of A will not let its displeasure be known to any rogue country much before resorting to force, so there would be ample time to move forces between theaters. Anyhow, gaining strategic surprise is a chancy exercise in itself. Don't you think that there's someone peeking in the straits between the Indian ocean and the Philippine sea?
First off: Yes it's a "typo" in that i am European(we use . for thousands, comma for point)
the 1,000 (....) NM bubble is the OFFENSIVE capability. For example, a carrier in the med is able to threaten most of the coastline simply by standing still.
Defense is a different matter. the critical point is not the range of shipborne surface-to-air missiles, but the continous presence of Airborne Early Warning Aircrafts, because a sea skimming missile is becomes visible at around 20 NM.
the AEW -F14D - aim54C phoenix combo
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/mis siles/wep-phoe.html can face multiple threats up to 200 NM off the carrier
First of all, the secondary steam is closed-circuit. You feed the distilled water back into the heat exchanger after condensation. the energy cost of producing steam to feed a bank of jets would be too great. After this the noise induced by this bank of appendages under the hull would be huge.
The second observation is that there's no need for a high speed aircraft carrier. The NIMITZ-class CVN do 33 knots, and the attack planes they carry cruise at 450 knots. No contest. Aircraft Carriers need to do 30+ knots only for take off and landing operations, where the speed-induced wind across the deck is needed.
As for patrolling a larger area, the bubble around the carrier is a 1.000 nautical miles radius (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/airc raft/air-fa18.html), so what's the point of making 35 more miles in an hour?
The missile carrying ship you described has been an on-again, off-again navy project for a long time, as a latter day capital ship like the USS IOWA.
The drones you talk about are a fine point, but:
1. they're called tomahawks, and they go for about half a mil apiece; 2. there's no point in putting them all on a ship, let alone a fast one.
As for the UCAVs, see this link: http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html
what I meant was that in such an environment (no undocumented APIs,etc.) an openoffice version for windows would be very visible in terms of market share, probably enough to start some movement towards wrenching control of document formats away from MS towards an open format.
while MS makes the most outregious money on msoffice, it does that only because it controls the operating system.
Many thanks to the US judiciary, for falling asleep at the wheel.If the original idea of splitting MS for good had gone ahead, how many months to an openoffice version for windows?
the wind will REALLY change when a couple of them will quit using m$ internally for good. how about submitting DOD bids on paper that says: " this bidding doc was NOT prepared on MSOffice"?
Excuse me, but I think that we forgot our beloved ally in populating desktops with linux, i.e. windows XP.
Someone in the thread rightly pointed that many machines work on pirated M$ apps, namely old windows versions, office and the like. Individual users, mom-and-pop outfits, will eventually have to decide if they want to expose themselves to Microsoft, AND start coughing up, year....after year...after year, or stay put with what they have.
Enters Big Blue, that still has the credibility to sell to large corporates Hardware + software + services + assistance, and says to large accounts: "What say you if I told you I'm changing INTERNALLY all my boxen to linux/KDE/OSS/, and i'm trying to find someone to share the bill?"
M$ should be scared s***less not on the end user side, but on the large account/software houses side. if only 10 of the fortune 500 companies try this on for size, we'll eventually have a working, ungeek-friendly GUI in a short time, WITH ALL THE COMMON APPS PREPACKAGED, from all the major vendors. M$ profit margins are too good not to be a good target for the Dells of this world.
I would disagree on the E-mail product.
I work for a company that uses Lotus Notes as an E-mail client, and I have Eudora at home.That goes on to prove that even PHB's perceive E-mail as a different application per se, and are prepared to use something else, even on the client side.
Besides, even the great unwashed have reasons to believe that, on the virus side, the M$ product line makes for a very juicy target (Wide installed base + security flaws + clueless users = Bonanza!).
... if only Us of A had kept to the original legal decision, i.e. split operating system/ applications, we wouldn't have this many porblems, since i gather that is unusually difficult to write programs for windows if you're not MS.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been through that.
But the key line over here is not "throw money at the problem"; it is "Any price that will take the problem off our hands". Perversely, it may not be the highest.
We once had to buy, for regulatory reasons, a specialised software for the evaluation of financial options. Of the three contenders, one was good, the others were on the rainy side of lousy. Problem was, the guys building the best programs, which was the priciest, actually INSISTED on seeing their program used well, which meant trying to see how well our company knew the matter, meeting with the PHB responsible, the operatives guys, etc.
Now guess: the field is down to two contenders, and they are not one of those two.
Conceptually, something akin to a bistatic radar (http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~seminar/archive/2003/s em-0048.html) could work in malls, etc. A single sound source ("ping") could help the vision impaired locate objects, and also help them to locate themselves relative to the sound source.
"[...]On one hand, you've got a spare engine if one dies, but you're 2x as likely to have a failure..."
True. But remember, the plane goes down only goes down if BOTH engines quit, and:
IF
Probability of one engine quitting=P(x)=0.4% per thousand flight hours
THEN
Probability of TWO engines quitting AT THE SAME TIME is not 2*P(x), but P(x)*P(x),
Which means, in this example, that the value is 0,000016%, not 0,08% (a 5.000 times difference)
I don't agree with that. since most of the OS sales are pre-loads by OEM's, the final customer wouldn't see a great benefit, since hardware prices are going down anyway and 50 or 60 bucks don't mean much. In fact, that's part of the problem that drives MS to a annual fee model: people are not upgrading like they used to.
Moreover, an upgrade cycle is drive by applications, and what's the added value of Office XP against office 97?
You know, I used to believe that. then I bought Mustang Ranch at the IPO.
You may have a point, but remember that strategic surprise is not a viable objective per se. I very much doubt that good ole US of A will not let its displeasure be known to any rogue country much before resorting to force, so there would be ample time to move forces between theaters. Anyhow, gaining strategic surprise is a chancy exercise in itself. Don't you think that there's someone peeking in the straits between the Indian ocean and the Philippine sea?
....How do you say, 2.54 centimeters deep and 1.609 Kilometers wide? ;-)
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/mis siles/wep-phoe.html can face multiple threats up to 200 NM off the carrier
Nice but problematic.
c raft/air-fa18.html), so what's the point of making 35 more miles in an hour?
First of all, the secondary steam is closed-circuit. You feed the distilled water back into the heat exchanger after condensation. the energy cost of producing steam to feed a bank of jets would be too great. After this the noise induced by this bank of appendages under the hull would be huge.
The second observation is that there's no need for a high speed aircraft carrier. The NIMITZ-class CVN do 33 knots, and the attack planes they carry cruise at 450 knots. No contest. Aircraft Carriers need to do 30+ knots only for take off and landing operations, where the speed-induced wind across the deck is needed.
As for patrolling a larger area, the bubble around the carrier is a 1.000 nautical miles radius (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/air
The missile carrying ship you described has been an on-again, off-again navy project for a long time, as a latter day capital ship like the USS IOWA.
The drones you talk about are a fine point, but:
1. they're called tomahawks, and they go for about half a mil apiece;
2. there's no point in putting them all on a ship, let alone a fast one.
As for the UCAVs, see this link:
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html
Sorry, the post was not very clear.
what I meant was that in such an environment (no undocumented APIs,etc.) an openoffice version for windows would be very visible in terms of market share, probably enough to start some movement towards wrenching control of document formats away from MS towards an open format.
...so,back to the original idea:
while MS makes the most outregious money on msoffice, it does that only because it controls the operating system.
Many thanks to the US judiciary, for falling asleep at the wheel.If the original idea of splitting MS for good had gone ahead, how many months to an openoffice version for windows?
the wind will REALLY change when a couple of them will quit using m$ internally for good.
how about submitting DOD bids on paper that says: " this bidding doc was NOT prepared on MSOffice"?
Excuse me, but I think that we forgot our beloved ally in populating desktops with linux, i.e. windows XP.
Someone in the thread rightly pointed that many machines work on pirated M$ apps, namely old windows versions, office and the like. Individual users, mom-and-pop outfits, will eventually have to decide if they want to expose themselves to Microsoft, AND start coughing up, year....after year...after year, or stay put with what they have.
Enters Big Blue, that still has the credibility to sell to large corporates Hardware + software + services + assistance, and says to large accounts:
"What say you if I told you I'm changing INTERNALLY all my boxen to linux/KDE/OSS/, and i'm trying to find someone to share the bill?"
M$ should be scared s***less not on the end user side, but on the large account/software houses side. if only 10 of the fortune 500 companies try this on for size, we'll eventually have a working, ungeek-friendly GUI in a short time, WITH ALL THE COMMON APPS PREPACKAGED, from all the major vendors. M$ profit margins are too good not to be a good target for the Dells of this world.
I would disagree on the E-mail product. I work for a company that uses Lotus Notes as an E-mail client, and I have Eudora at home.That goes on to prove that even PHB's perceive E-mail as a different application per se, and are prepared to use something else, even on the client side. Besides, even the great unwashed have reasons to believe that, on the virus side, the M$ product line makes for a very juicy target (Wide installed base + security flaws + clueless users = Bonanza!).
... if only Us of A had kept to the original legal decision, i.e. split operating system/ applications, we wouldn't have this many porblems, since i gather that is unusually difficult to write programs for windows if you're not MS.