Wilkerson never attacks Bush or the administration. He is always clear that his issues are with the flaws in the current inteligence system, and how it can easily be exploited by the politically motivated.
He gives historical examples of these same politically motivated exploits being used by the Truman(D), Eisenhower(R), Kennedy(D), Johnson(D), and Reagan(R) administrations.
Why some people take this as an attack Against George W. Bush is puzzling.
The system is broken. We have been attacked (9-11), and our two major political parties still cannot see above the political squabling. They both want to capitalize on the tragedy to gain political ascendance over their rivals.
The system is broken. Our leaders have not addressed the threat that America is facing. In order to address that threat, we must fix the system. Our founding fathers gave us the methods and tools. Read your constitution, and apply its lessons. Vote the bums (both D's and R's) out of office.
When will they figure out that "Open Source is socialism' line just doesn't work?
Free and Open Source software is about as socialist as "We The People", or "E Pluribus Unum".
Free software is about a community forming and providing the solutions to their own problems. You know, "By the people, of the people, and for the people".
I guess that SAP has joined with the opposition party. They all speak with one voice. They all spread the same party line lies and propaganda. Their followers believe the lies.
What's more socialist, expecting all of your solutions from big brother named Bill, or developing them on your own? Monopolies are illegal can only continue to exist when government allows them to. They oppose democratic grass roots solutions and try to mandate solutions from the top down. They act for their own interest and not for the consumers. That pretty much describes socialism and closed source software.
Give it up already. Free and open source sofyware is a force of market economics. It is a better way to design, deliver and support software. It is lowering costs and improving the bottom line of the consumers of software. F/OSS is leading the way in the commoditization of software, and the profit margins of the closed source vendors are being threatened.
Nixon took us off the gold standard so other countries would no longer be able to screw with our economy so easily.
The words "Gold Standard" sound so great to many people. Hey, it's Gold, and it's a standard, what more could you want? Well there is nothing 'standard' about the price of gold, it fluctuates up and down just like the dollar.
Back in the 1800's the US was the biggest producer of gold in the world. A 'gold standard' made sense. If the supply of gold increased, that meant that American mining interests were making more money. If the supply decreased, the value per ounce would go up. The US controlled the supply and the value of gold could be influenced through our control of that supply.
By the 1960's The Soviet Union and The socialist leaning government in South Africa were the leading producers of gold.
The soviets could hold back on releasing gold to the market for a few months, and make the price of the dollar rise when we would harvest our crops. Buyers around the world couldn't afford to buy our produce and our economy depended on agri-business.
Then just as easily, the Soviets would release gold into the market at the worst times, causing the dollar's value to tumble, just when it would hurt us the most. The gold standard had become a way for the Soviet Union to manipulate the American economy. Nixon wanted to remove that tool from the Soviet Arsenal.
There is nothing 'standard' about the 'gold standard'. Nixon turned the US Dollar itself into a commodity. The US controls the rate of production and the US generates the base value through its productivity.
If you support the 'gold standard' you support handing control of the dollar's value to other countries.
Of course the point is moot now. We're so deep in hock to other countries because of uncontrolled deficit spending by three of the last four administrations we no longer control the dollar the way Nixon wanted.
Democrats spend too much.
Republicans spend even more!
The difference between the actual truth and the movie or tv show made is kind of like the difference between Pee Wee Herman and the James Brolin version P.W. Herman in the movie "Pee Wee's Big Adventure".
Hollywood will listen to the ideas, but they already know how to make it better.
The mathematicians were probably very accurate and precise in their descriptions. But the dialog probably wasn't snappy enough, and needed to be punched up a little.
Paging Mr. Herman. Mr. Herman, you have a phone call in the lobby.
I'm sure that in Pre-columbian Europe most people believed the world was flat. Even though Ptolemy had already proven it was spherical centuries before.
It doesn't matter how many beople say they believe something in a poll, that won't make it true if it is not true. No matter what percentage of Europeans thought the world was flat before Columbus, the world was still round.
It did not matter what the percentage was, how hard they believed, or how much faith they had in their belief. Reality doesn't care about peoples opinions.
Columbus could not get funding in the then super power of Europe, Italy. He got it from Spain and they ascended to the be the next super power.
If the citizens of the US fail to accept reality, someone else will take up the torch. There might be a lag in the advancement of society now and then, but the ignorant will not manage to extinguish the flame of knowledge and the thirst for truth.
The quest, and the rewards that go with it, will just have to move to different shores. The US has a choice, advance or wither. The small minded are too afraid to advance.
Jesuits are often praised for ther rigourous intellectual training.
At least in modern times.
The Jesuits were the Storm Troopers of the Spanish Inquisition. Not the Monty Python one, but the real one with all the torture and executions.
They were the shock troops who were charged with controlling any wayward thoughts in the general population.
It is because of this history that they now support the strong ethical and educational values they do. They feel that they have to make up for the past sins of their order.
I would suggest that everyone on slashdot check out the book "Turn Left at Orion". It is an introduction to Astronomy written by the Vatican Astronomer. The Catholic church does not change quickly, but they have come a long way from burning Bruno at the stake, and showing Galileo "The Instruments".
The Vatican was one of the first religious bodies to accept the idea of the Big Bang. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution being the mechanism God has chosen to populate the Universe with life.
The Church will not take a position that denies God, but they no longer feel that science is a threat to religion (officially at least). Every time in their long history that the Church has been at odds with science, science has always won. The Earth is flat, The Sun goes around the Earth, The other planets are not physical bodies like the Earth and are parts of a non-physical 'heaven'. In its view, the Catholic Church has learned the hard lesson that it should quit trying to dictate to God how he made the Universe, and instead study how he made the universe through the scientific process, and accept God's choices at face value.
Other Christian sects are still unwilling to accept God's work, and instead want to force God to follow some stuff written in ink on paper. Still other Christian sects were accepting of science very early in the Renaisance.
For atheists and agnostics this would all just be a nice philosophical discussion, if there weren't so many groups of people who are still acting like the Jesuits used to back in the bad old days. They don't have to reconcile their beliefs on creation with science, because they are willing to admit they don't know everything.
Here in the US they can only teach things that will not offend anyone from any group or subgroup within the US.
That pretty much means we are allowed to learn ABC and 123. Beyond that someone will start complaining.
This pretty much explains the current status of the US in the world, our rapid drop from dominance, and the bleak outlook for our future.
But you better not let any Americans hear you repeating what I have said, or we'll have to beat the crap out of you (That's about our most creative response to any situation we encounter nowdays).
Thanks for your concern, but We Americans have collectively decided that it is our turn to go the way of Britania, Spain, and other ancient powers. We will continue our decline, occasionally annoying others with a violent outburst every now and then.
So long, but do come to visit and spend your N-Zed tourist dollars after we settle down and open up a bunch of B and B's for you.
When talking to many right wing Christians, this is often a good thing to point out. Many of them are under the impression that they are the oppressed, not the oppressor!
I usually ask them how they feel about school prayer. They are for it.
Then I ask them if they know that the Supreme Court has decided that every student in America has the constitutionally guaranteed right to pray in school. They usually site examples where school prayer has been stopped. I have to take a few minutes to explain that that is prayer led, initiated, or funded by the school bureaucracy, not spontaneous prayer by the students. The Supreme Court has supported every individual student's right to pray to their own God, but has rejected the right of government bureaucrats to force children to pray a certain way.
This usually gets a nod or just a blank stare.
This is when I ask a question "Who should teach children to pray, their parents and family, or bureaucrats?" The response is quick, parents and family.
I then ask "Should government bureaucrats come between parents and children when teaching religious beliefs?" They all answer, emphatically, NO!
Then I point out that the type of school prayer that the religious right is supporting would do just that. It would drive a wedge between parents and children, handing the religious and moral upbringing of our children over to government bureaucrats. (OK. I'm stretching a little here, but it would add bureaucrats into the mix along side the parents and family)
This usually causes hand wringing and confusion. I try to switch the conversation to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and how the liberals of the 60's had good intentions, but their plans caused more harm than good. They didn't intend to create a barrier to advancement and a class of welfare dependent families. Their intention was to give the disadvantaged a "leg up" and help them work their way out of poverty. Their intentions were good, but "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
The religious conservatives today believe that they must turn to the socialist "Nanny -State" to enforce moral behavior in their fellow citizens. Their intentions are good, but they are still socialists using the power of the government to run the lives of the citizens. They are doomed to failure. If you want to look at some good examples of how the government handles the moral upbringing of children, there are many throughout history and in the modern world. I don't think any of them have ever produced anything resembling a 'good' moral belief system. I don't believe we would do any better.
I like to close with a paraphrase from the Bible: "Render unto Washington what is Washington's", keep religion out of government, and government out of religion.
Many of the Windows using slashdotters might not understand what the parent means about there being no good gui for Linux.
But when longhorn comes out (Real Soon Now) Windows users will have a few of the features that have been standard in Linux GUI's for a few years now, and they'll be able to see what he means
Then they will learn that, it still isn't perfect, even though Linux is a few years ahead of Windows.
Actually Microsoft is testing how quickly you can come up with a solution to a problem they have presented you with.
Judging by their products, this should be a valuable skill at Microsoft.
If you were looking for a job that required long term dedication to complete a goal and the ability to coordinate many tasks at the same time in order to achieve something coherent and complete, then you would consider the ability to achieve a Phd. in Computer Science, along with the track record of the candidate.
No, Microsoft doesn't operate that way. Sell a faulty product to the customer, get a list of problems back, dole out the list to employees, put the fixes in patches, lather, rinse, repeat.
Microsoft is trying to recruit the people who come up with a quick fix, not the people who think long term. Their recruiting techniques seem to be in line with their development techniques.
If you want long term thinking, go work for IBM's mainframe division.
Now I can dust of that old JCL book from Gary DeWard Brown and run some IEFBR14's to test it out.
Does anyone know if this comes with a copy of MVS or OS/360?
People always said MS would beat IBM one day, now they're up to the mid '70s of IBM technology. It should only take about 30 more years for them to be on par with big blue:)
For the sarcastically impared, this post is a joke.
This is either an internal relection within the camera, or an object so close to the lens it is out of focus.
My first guess is the internal reflection of some mechanism behind the camera lens. It looks just like the reflection you see of yourself when looking out of a window.
The line is too straight to be a moving object out by the shore. It is more likely a string or stick with something on the end close to the lens.
(the string would be swinging to make it straight.)
SP2 crashes about twice a day on my AMD64 3200 / 1GB Ram / 120Gb SATA machine.
SP1 crashed about once a day.
almost always the same device driver error.
I wish Windows supported cutting edge hardware better, but XP is pretty old now and is only 32bit.
Gentoo and SuSE run fine, no crashes.
Well, yeah right now most iPod users have pcs.
Of course when Longhorn arrives, there will be a little problem uploading your music, and every now and then the entire iPod memory will be wiped.
You know that MS will be working hard for a solution...
From MS marketing, 2006:
"It's probably due to Apple's implementation of some standard."
"You could get a solution quicker if you switch to our new win-Pod(TM) that implements Microsoft standards. It uses a new version of Embedded Windows Media Player(TM). Here's a coupon for %75 off your purchase price, and we have a $20.oo rebate as well."
"But we'll keep working on that i-pod 'fix', don't you worry. When the 'fix' is in, you'll know it!"
Microsoft, The job isn't done until Lotus, Novell, Netscape, iPod won't run
The American (US and Canada) shuttle had integrated engines. Fuel fed from the big external tank into those engines during lift off.
Buran was not designed with those engines. Buran was to use a modified Energia rocket to lift into space. This is a major design difference that does not show in the shots here.
This design by the soviets lowered the cost of developing their shuttle, and would give Buran more cargo space and load capacity. However the soviet design would need new engines for each launch. The American design reuses the engines for several launches.
The Soviets could have copied the general shape of the shuttle in order to implement a known working aerodynamic design. This is not the same thing the first poster is saying. They could have spent money developing a completely new working aerodynamic design, but chose to copy instead of innovate. The USSR wasn't exactly swimming in cash during this period, so I can see why they chose the cheaper route.
The post was really a feeble attempt at humor, but since you bring it up...
What I've read about NX is that it is more like x11 than it is like a VPN. Linux does have several VPN implementations to choose from, but NX is really a lightweight windowing client / server protocol.
Microsoft might have tried something like this back in the Win 3.11 days, but all they did there was make some of the office products client / server capable. After the shift to NT based os's, and their move to a peer to peer network, I think that they pretty much closed the door on something like X11 or NX (that's not a criticism, going client server has as many issues as going peer to peer, just different ones).
Besides, as Microsoft has shown us innovation is for losers. Winners let the Apples and Suns of the world innovate. Then the winners merely implement the stuff when it becomes a common standard. That way you don't waste time and money on R&D.
Slashdot Mirror
Wilkerson never attacks Bush or the administration. He is always clear that his issues are with the flaws in the current inteligence system, and how it can easily be exploited by the politically motivated.
He gives historical examples of these same politically motivated exploits being used by the Truman(D), Eisenhower(R), Kennedy(D), Johnson(D), and Reagan(R) administrations.
Why some people take this as an attack Against George W. Bush is puzzling.
The system is broken. We have been attacked (9-11), and our two major political parties still cannot see above the political squabling. They both want to capitalize on the tragedy to gain political ascendance over their rivals.
The system is broken. Our leaders have not addressed the threat that America is facing. In order to address that threat, we must fix the system. Our founding fathers gave us the methods and tools. Read your constitution, and apply its lessons. Vote the bums (both D's and R's) out of office.
When I first read the words "about the size of a ups box" I pictured one of those big brown metal boxes you put packages in for pickup by UPS.
If I wanted something that huge for storage, I'd get an AS/400.
So I'm sorry I misunderstood you Hemos. When you said UPS box, you meant UPS box, not UPS box. My mistake.
When will they figure out that "Open Source is socialism' line just doesn't work?
Free and Open Source software is about as socialist as "We The People", or "E Pluribus Unum".
Free software is about a community forming and providing the solutions to their own problems. You know, "By the people, of the people, and for the people".
I guess that SAP has joined with the opposition party. They all speak with one voice. They all spread the same party line lies and propaganda. Their followers believe the lies.
What's more socialist, expecting all of your solutions from big brother named Bill, or developing them on your own? Monopolies are illegal can only continue to exist when government allows them to. They oppose democratic grass roots solutions and try to mandate solutions from the top down. They act for their own interest and not for the consumers. That pretty much describes socialism and closed source software.
Give it up already. Free and open source sofyware is a force of market economics. It is a better way to design, deliver and support software. It is lowering costs and improving the bottom line of the consumers of software. F/OSS is leading the way in the commoditization of software, and the profit margins of the closed source vendors are being threatened.
Too bad!
Compete fairly or get out of the game.
If they had called it the theory of 'Intelligent Decline' that would have been a masterpiece.
As it is, it was good fun. Thanks for the link.
Not just new here... He must be new to planet Earth.
For funding we will leverage our current investnments in the golden gate and brooklyn bridges, which we just bought off some guy.
Nixon took us off the gold standard so other countries would no longer be able to screw with our economy so easily.
The words "Gold Standard" sound so great to many people. Hey, it's Gold, and it's a standard, what more could you want? Well there is nothing 'standard' about the price of gold, it fluctuates up and down just like the dollar.
Back in the 1800's the US was the biggest producer of gold in the world. A 'gold standard' made sense. If the supply of gold increased, that meant that American mining interests were making more money. If the supply decreased, the value per ounce would go up. The US controlled the supply and the value of gold could be influenced through our control of that supply.
By the 1960's The Soviet Union and The socialist leaning government in South Africa were the leading producers of gold.
The soviets could hold back on releasing gold to the market for a few months, and make the price of the dollar rise when we would harvest our crops. Buyers around the world couldn't afford to buy our produce and our economy depended on agri-business.
Then just as easily, the Soviets would release gold into the market at the worst times, causing the dollar's value to tumble, just when it would hurt us the most. The gold standard had become a way for the Soviet Union to manipulate the American economy. Nixon wanted to remove that tool from the Soviet Arsenal.
There is nothing 'standard' about the 'gold standard'. Nixon turned the US Dollar itself into a commodity. The US controls the rate of production and the US generates the base value through its productivity.
If you support the 'gold standard' you support handing control of the dollar's value to other countries.
Of course the point is moot now. We're so deep in hock to other countries because of uncontrolled deficit spending by three of the last four administrations we no longer control the dollar the way Nixon wanted.
Democrats spend too much.
Republicans spend even more!
The difference between the actual truth and the movie or tv show made is kind of like the difference between Pee Wee Herman and the James Brolin version P.W. Herman in the movie "Pee Wee's Big Adventure".
Hollywood will listen to the ideas, but they already know how to make it better.
The mathematicians were probably very accurate and precise in their descriptions. But the dialog probably wasn't snappy enough, and needed to be punched up a little.
Paging Mr. Herman. Mr. Herman, you have a phone call in the lobby.
I'm sure that in Pre-columbian Europe most people believed the world was flat. Even though Ptolemy had already proven it was spherical centuries before.
It doesn't matter how many beople say they believe something in a poll, that won't make it true if it is not true. No matter what percentage of Europeans thought the world was flat before Columbus, the world was still round.
It did not matter what the percentage was, how hard they believed, or how much faith they had in their belief. Reality doesn't care about peoples opinions.
Columbus could not get funding in the then super power of Europe, Italy. He got it from Spain and they ascended to the be the next super power.
If the citizens of the US fail to accept reality, someone else will take up the torch. There might be a lag in the advancement of society now and then, but the ignorant will not manage to extinguish the flame of knowledge and the thirst for truth.
The quest, and the rewards that go with it, will just have to move to different shores. The US has a choice, advance or wither. The small minded are too afraid to advance.
Jesuits are often praised for ther rigourous intellectual training.
At least in modern times.
The Jesuits were the Storm Troopers of the Spanish Inquisition. Not the Monty Python one, but the real one with all the torture and executions.
They were the shock troops who were charged with controlling any wayward thoughts in the general population.
It is because of this history that they now support the strong ethical and educational values they do. They feel that they have to make up for the past sins of their order.
I would suggest that everyone on slashdot check out the book "Turn Left at Orion". It is an introduction to Astronomy written by the Vatican Astronomer. The Catholic church does not change quickly, but they have come a long way from burning Bruno at the stake, and showing Galileo "The Instruments".
The Vatican was one of the first religious bodies to accept the idea of the Big Bang. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution being the mechanism God has chosen to populate the Universe with life.
The Church will not take a position that denies God, but they no longer feel that science is a threat to religion (officially at least). Every time in their long history that the Church has been at odds with science, science has always won. The Earth is flat, The Sun goes around the Earth, The other planets are not physical bodies like the Earth and are parts of a non-physical 'heaven'. In its view, the Catholic Church has learned the hard lesson that it should quit trying to dictate to God how he made the Universe, and instead study how he made the universe through the scientific process, and accept God's choices at face value.
Other Christian sects are still unwilling to accept God's work, and instead want to force God to follow some stuff written in ink on paper. Still other Christian sects were accepting of science very early in the Renaisance.
For atheists and agnostics this would all just be a nice philosophical discussion, if there weren't so many groups of people who are still acting like the Jesuits used to back in the bad old days. They don't have to reconcile their beliefs on creation with science, because they are willing to admit they don't know everything.
Coryoth,
Here in the US they can only teach things that will not offend anyone from any group or subgroup within the US.
That pretty much means we are allowed to learn ABC and 123. Beyond that someone will start complaining.
This pretty much explains the current status of the US in the world, our rapid drop from dominance, and the bleak outlook for our future.
But you better not let any Americans hear you repeating what I have said, or we'll have to beat the crap out of you (That's about our most creative response to any situation we encounter nowdays).
Thanks for your concern, but We Americans have collectively decided that it is our turn to go the way of Britania, Spain, and other ancient powers. We will continue our decline, occasionally annoying others with a violent outburst every now and then.
So long, but do come to visit and spend your N-Zed tourist dollars after we settle down and open up a bunch of B and B's for you.
You make a good point.
When talking to many right wing Christians, this is often a good thing to point out. Many of them are under the impression that they are the oppressed, not the oppressor!
I usually ask them how they feel about school prayer. They are for it.
Then I ask them if they know that the Supreme Court has decided that every student in America has the constitutionally guaranteed right to pray in school. They usually site examples where school prayer has been stopped. I have to take a few minutes to explain that that is prayer led, initiated, or funded by the school bureaucracy, not spontaneous prayer by the students. The Supreme Court has supported every individual student's right to pray to their own God, but has rejected the right of government bureaucrats to force children to pray a certain way.
This usually gets a nod or just a blank stare.
This is when I ask a question "Who should teach children to pray, their parents and family, or bureaucrats?" The response is quick, parents and family.
I then ask "Should government bureaucrats come between parents and children when teaching religious beliefs?" They all answer, emphatically, NO!
Then I point out that the type of school prayer that the religious right is supporting would do just that. It would drive a wedge between parents and children, handing the religious and moral upbringing of our children over to government bureaucrats. (OK. I'm stretching a little here, but it would add bureaucrats into the mix along side the parents and family)
This usually causes hand wringing and confusion. I try to switch the conversation to Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and how the liberals of the 60's had good intentions, but their plans caused more harm than good. They didn't intend to create a barrier to advancement and a class of welfare dependent families. Their intention was to give the disadvantaged a "leg up" and help them work their way out of poverty. Their intentions were good, but "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
The religious conservatives today believe that they must turn to the socialist "Nanny -State" to enforce moral behavior in their fellow citizens. Their intentions are good, but they are still socialists using the power of the government to run the lives of the citizens. They are doomed to failure. If you want to look at some good examples of how the government handles the moral upbringing of children, there are many throughout history and in the modern world. I don't think any of them have ever produced anything resembling a 'good' moral belief system. I don't believe we would do any better.
I like to close with a paraphrase from the Bible: "Render unto Washington what is Washington's", keep religion out of government, and government out of religion.
Many of the Windows using slashdotters might not understand what the parent means about there being no good gui for Linux. But when longhorn comes out (Real Soon Now) Windows users will have a few of the features that have been standard in Linux GUI's for a few years now, and they'll be able to see what he means Then they will learn that, it still isn't perfect, even though Linux is a few years ahead of Windows.
Actually Microsoft is testing how quickly you can come up with a solution to a problem they have presented you with.
Judging by their products, this should be a valuable skill at Microsoft.
If you were looking for a job that required long term dedication to complete a goal and the ability to coordinate many tasks at the same time in order to achieve something coherent and complete, then you would consider the ability to achieve a Phd. in Computer Science, along with the track record of the candidate.
No, Microsoft doesn't operate that way. Sell a faulty product to the customer, get a list of problems back, dole out the list to employees, put the fixes in patches, lather, rinse, repeat.
Microsoft is trying to recruit the people who come up with a quick fix, not the people who think long term. Their recruiting techniques seem to be in line with their development techniques.
If you want long term thinking, go work for IBM's mainframe division.
Wow!
An IBM '360' that fits on top of my TV.
Now I can dust of that old JCL book from Gary DeWard Brown and run some IEFBR14's to test it out.
Does anyone know if this comes with a copy of MVS or OS/360?
People always said MS would beat IBM one day, now they're up to the mid '70s of IBM technology. It should only take about 30 more years for them to be on par with big blue :)
For the sarcastically impared, this post is a joke.
This is either an internal relection within the camera, or an object so close to the lens it is out of focus.
My first guess is the internal reflection of some mechanism behind the camera lens. It looks just like the reflection you see of yourself when looking out of a window.
The line is too straight to be a moving object out by the shore. It is more likely a string or stick with something on the end close to the lens. (the string would be swinging to make it straight.)
I'm going with internal reflection.
SP2 crashes about twice a day on my AMD64 3200 / 1GB Ram / 120Gb SATA machine. SP1 crashed about once a day. almost always the same device driver error. I wish Windows supported cutting edge hardware better, but XP is pretty old now and is only 32bit. Gentoo and SuSE run fine, no crashes.
MS: So, Caldera, you say you want to sue us for using your "Unix(tm) IP" in our Windows(r) Services for Unix(r)(tm) Product?
Caldera: Yeah, and we're suing other big bullies too.
MS: What if we give you $6.66 Million dollars for an "intellectual property license", Will that make the law suit go away?
Caldera: Oh yeah! Now you're talking my language.
MS: You say you want to sue other big guys too? If we give you $10 Million more, could you make it IBM and drag Linux in with them?
Caldera: Sure thing boss, where do I sign?
MS: Don't call me that. Sign here, initial here, here and here.
Yes, in blood please.
Mission Accomplished!
We can now all return to our normal lives.
Thank you for your patience.
Heck Joe,
I did that on an AppleII (back in the day)!
Of course Appletalk seemed fast in the late 80's.
Well, yeah right now most iPod users have pcs. Of course when Longhorn arrives, there will be a little problem uploading your music, and every now and then the entire iPod memory will be wiped.
You know that MS will be working hard for a solution...
From MS marketing, 2006:
"It's probably due to Apple's implementation of some standard."
"You could get a solution quicker if you switch to our new win-Pod(TM) that implements Microsoft standards. It uses a new version of Embedded Windows Media Player(TM). Here's a coupon for %75 off your purchase price, and we have a $20.oo rebate as well."
"But we'll keep working on that i-pod 'fix', don't you worry. When the 'fix' is in, you'll know it!"
Microsoft, The job isn't done until Lotus, Novell, Netscape, iPod won't run
Re-elected? Is he running for govenor in Texas again?
I didn't hear that he had dropped out of the presidential race.
The shape is the same, but not too much else.
The American (US and Canada) shuttle had integrated engines. Fuel fed from the big external tank into those engines during lift off. Buran was not designed with those engines. Buran was to use a modified Energia rocket to lift into space. This is a major design difference that does not show in the shots here.
This design by the soviets lowered the cost of developing their shuttle, and would give Buran more cargo space and load capacity. However the soviet design would need new engines for each launch. The American design reuses the engines for several launches.
The Soviets could have copied the general shape of the shuttle in order to implement a known working aerodynamic design. This is not the same thing the first poster is saying. They could have spent money developing a completely new working aerodynamic design, but chose to copy instead of innovate. The USSR wasn't exactly swimming in cash during this period, so I can see why they chose the cheaper route.
The post was really a feeble attempt at humor, but since you bring it up...
What I've read about NX is that it is more like x11 than it is like a VPN. Linux does have several VPN implementations to choose from, but NX is really a lightweight windowing client / server protocol.
Microsoft might have tried something like this back in the Win 3.11 days, but all they did there was make some of the office products client / server capable. After the shift to NT based os's, and their move to a peer to peer network, I think that they pretty much closed the door on something like X11 or NX (that's not a criticism, going client server has as many issues as going peer to peer, just different ones).
Besides, as Microsoft has shown us innovation is for losers. Winners let the Apples and Suns of the world innovate. Then the winners merely implement the stuff when it becomes a common standard. That way you don't waste time and money on R&D.
Didn't Sweet do a song based on the comic 'Evangeline' as well?