No it doesn't, barring any unforseen disasters this is very unlikley to happen.Rather than my standard of living dropping to 3rd world levels I think the standard of living in the West will simply not improve as quickly as it has over the last 1-200 years whilst the standard of living in 3rd world countries will improve much more quickly.
So, yes relativley speaking our standard of living will drop compared with that of the developing word but measured absoloutley it will continue to improve only not so quickly.
"The people of these countries will never need to demand salaries like those you are used to. Your jobs will shift..."
Well eventually they will, the reason the cost of living is more in places like the US and the UK is that we pay more in taxes to ensure that our countries have good infrastructure, health care, mandatory holidays etc.
Gradually the citizens of places like Vietnam will start to demand similar benefits from their government which will increase the cost of living and therefore require higher salaries.
All else being equal ( which I don't think it is at the moment ) in a global economy things will balance out and all the participants will reach the same level.
The Mars Express is a European venture but I think that Beagle 2 is largely a British Enterprise, OK it's partially funded by ESA and it's hitching a ride on Mars Express but I'm sure it's flying the Union Jack !
By the look of it the Mars Odyssey was supposed to pick up a signal this morning and then re-transmit it back to Earth a few hours later so I guess it's possible it's a problem with the receiving end of things than the transmission.
I think Beage 2 has a very low powered transmitter so I don't know how hard/easy that would be for an orbiter to pick up on.
When the Jodrell bank dish comes into line later on this evening seems a much more definate indication of whether the landing has failed or not.
I hope it has been a success but even if the worst has happened it was still worth a shot and no doubt there have been a lot of valuable lessons during the whole project than would have been learned if we hadn't even attempted it.
In fact they the Romans were early pioneers of pre-fabrication techniques so the wall was in fact constructed in sections in Rome and then shipped over and bolted together in situ.
Beagle 2 is named after the Beagle which is the ship which on which Charles Darwin was the naturalist and undoubtley gave him the opportunity for a lot of his later works.
It looks like the same numbers have been associated with the same words but that's not evidence of literal copying, it's just that they are the same.
I'm not a programmer but I would guess that these are fairly standard codes.
I really don't think you can claim copyright to a list of numbers and words, especially not when these numbers and words are a part of some common convention or standard.
So it's perfectly possible for Linux to have created his errno.h originally without even looking at this code let alone literally copying it across.
Almost the same thing happened to me ( using Opera on Windows 2000 ). Opera didn't crash but the window did just shut it's self down without asking and without warning.
"I'm going to assume that you're talking about the Office formats. Guess what? Done. I can save any Office file in 2003 and it's readable on both 2000 and XP with no conversions or hassle. I think Microsoft recognized that people were simply not upgrading because having to deal with clients on older versions was such a hassle."
How about opening those documents in Office 95 or 98, does that work so flawlessly ?
Why is it that Windows 2000 Access cannot properly open and modify Windows 95 Access databases ( unless you let it upgrade them to Win 2000 ) ? That's a real pain when manufacturers of other equipment ( in my case ACD systems ) use older versions of Windows NT and Access 95, 98 databases to store configuration data in. Why they do that I have no clue but when you have to 'repair' the databases every 3 months or so and the rest of the company has upgraded to Access 2000 it's more or less impossible to sort out the database.
Have you read that cnn article ? It says that the WHO is worried about the use of anti-bacterial agents in general cosmetic products but that the AMA ( whatever that is ) is stopping short of discouraging people from using them due to pressure from the cosmetic industry.
I think this is really agreeing with the parent post but illustrating that the AMA is subject to pressure from industry lobbying groups.
Seriously though, a few vials of Anthrax or Nerve gas are not weapons of mass destruction. If you wanted to turn them into viable weapons of mass destruction you'd need a pretty large infrastructure to produce and manufacture the chemicals and the delivery systems necessary to use them effectivley.
So far there has been no sign of any of this infrastructure, no one has admitted they were one of the ( presumably hundreds ) of people who worked in this infrastructure and not one factory or storage facility has been found despite the presumably massive amount of satellite surveilance which Iraq has been subjected to.
The other point is why on earth would Saddam bother to spend time and money developing this stuff when he must have been quite well aware that with the US now facing off as the enemy there would be no way he could use them and keep control of Iraq. The US didn't exactly sneak into Iraq in a surprise attack so Saddam had plenty of warning and must have realised that his time was up - if he did have any weapons then you would have thought that would be the ideal time to use them.
As a side point the US has far more chemical weaponary than anyone claims Iraq had and so far as I remember is refusing to enter any kind of international agreements where they have to decomission them. I wonder if there were really any Iraqi scientists making big strides forwards in developing chemical weaponary technology where they might be working now ?
Don't get me wrong, Saddam under lock and key is a good thing but I am very dubious about the existance of the fabled WMD.
No, a lot of people didn't think there were any WMD powerful enough to cause us any problems and were happy to let the Weapons inspectors do enough investigation to prove that was the case for definate.
Then everyone decided they needed a war anyway on the pretext of the overwhelming danger posed to us all by Saddam and his huge stockpiles of WMD.
We would now like everyone who told us about how sure they were these weapons existed to show them to us and prove it was not all a pretext to grab oil and make a bit of money at all.
So far they haven't been able to prove this and are instead trying to pretend that didn't say all those things about WMD which they did in fact say.
I disagree, it's not a technicality - for some reason or other MS have been awarded the mark "Windows" against all the laws governing trademarks.
At the time "windows" was a generally accepted generic term to used to refer to GUI operating systems, Microsoft have gained an exclusive advantage by having the sole right to use this term in their O/S product which they should not have ever been given.
I'm not saying that MS wouldn't have got where they are today if they chose not to trademark the word "Windows" but the fact that the world associates the word "Windows" with a Microsoft product today makes no difference to whether they should have been given a trademark on it in the first place.
I'm sure that the Lindows name has been chosen to deliberatley annoy Microsoft and get a lot of free publicity for themselves but that makes no difference whatsoever since they are contesting the fact that the word Windows can be trademarked in the first place.
It looks like Michael Roberts is well on his way to winning his case in the U.S. which is why MS is choosing to attack the name in other countries.
"The reason is because in the 1980s, when MS named the program Windows, the name was generic."
Yes, that's right and when they trademarked it the name was generic too which really means that they shouldn't have been able to trademark it means that they are in the wrong now when they are trying to defend a trademark which never should have been a trademark.
If that wasn't the case and the word "Windows" had never been used as a generic computing term before Microsoft trademarked "Microsoft Windows" then I'd agree with you about the Lindows affair but because of the history behind this I have to disagree that Microsoft are in the right persuing Lindows for trademark infringement.
That probably was the intention but it doesn't alter the fact that Michael Roberts has every right to call his product Lindows and Microsoft have no grounds for complaint.
Windows was a computing term long before Microsoft decided it was a good name for their product, they shouldn't have been able to trademark it in the first place and they shouldn't complain when other people decide to use the variants on the word Windows in their software products either.
There would be no problem with trademarking the word "Mercedes" for use by a perfume manufacturer since they are in an entirely different line of business to the famous Car Manufacturer also called Mercedes.
Which would be fine if the term windows wasn't already a generic term used to describe particular types of operating system which do not necessarily have anything to do with Microsoft.
Scotch did not have anything to do with tape before Scotch started to manufacture it so there is no problem with this evolving into a generic term for tape.
Microsoft have capitalised on the word "windows" becuase they hijacked an already generic term used to describe operating systems and benefitted by associating their product with this term.
For a long time Microsoft were unable to trademark the term "Windows" for exactly this reason and this was fine since anyone else could also have used the term Windows to describe their O/S and no one would gain an advantage not available to the other. By Trademarking the term "Windows" Microsoft have prevented other O/S producers from using what is a generic term for describing O/S in their products name and that is unfair.
Yes but "Ford" the trademark has nothing to do with methods of getting across rivers, if a company who's product was a method of crossing rivers by making them shallow enough to walk or ride across then that would be unfair to other companies selling the same product since they would then be unable to capitalise on the fact that a ford is a word in general usage to indicate a method of crossing a river in the same way which Ford would be doing.
Since the term windows has been a general term referring to GUI's or GUI based operating systems long before Microsoft released their Windows operating system it gives them an unfair advantage by associating their operating system, "Windows" with a generally accepted term used to refer to a particular type of GUI or GUI based operating system.
As an example when I was going my Computer Science GCSE back in the 1980's we learnt about WIMP environments which were GUI programs or Applications. WIMP stands for Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers which form the basis of all GUI's. The term Windows in this acronym does not refer to Microsofts product also called "Windows" but people could be confused into thinking this kind of design or methodology refers specifically to an operating system produced by Microsoft - which it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't, barring any unforseen disasters this is very unlikley to happen.Rather than my standard of living dropping to 3rd world levels I think the standard of living in the West will simply not improve as quickly as it has over the last 1-200 years whilst the standard of living in 3rd world countries will improve much more quickly.
So, yes relativley speaking our standard of living will drop compared with that of the developing word but measured absoloutley it will continue to improve only not so quickly.
That's right and it will hardly effect trade or commerce at all.
Well eventually they will, the reason the cost of living is more in places like the US and the UK is that we pay more in taxes to ensure that our countries have good infrastructure, health care, mandatory holidays etc.
Gradually the citizens of places like Vietnam will start to demand similar benefits from their government which will increase the cost of living and therefore require higher salaries.
All else being equal ( which I don't think it is at the moment ) in a global economy things will balance out and all the participants will reach the same level.
The Mars Express is a European venture but I think that Beagle 2 is largely a British Enterprise, OK it's partially funded by ESA and it's hitching a ride on Mars Express but I'm sure it's flying the Union Jack !
I don't think the martians would be too keen on us firing huge steel nuclear devices at them, it could mean War !
By the look of it the Mars Odyssey was supposed to pick up a signal this morning and then re-transmit it back to Earth a few hours later so I guess it's possible it's a problem with the receiving end of things than the transmission.
I think Beage 2 has a very low powered transmitter so I don't know how hard/easy that would be for an orbiter to pick up on.
When the Jodrell bank dish comes into line later on this evening seems a much more definate indication of whether the landing has failed or not.
I hope it has been a success but even if the worst has happened it was still worth a shot and no doubt there have been a lot of valuable lessons during the whole project than would have been learned if we hadn't even attempted it.
In fact they the Romans were early pioneers of pre-fabrication techniques so the wall was in fact constructed in sections in Rome and then shipped over and bolted together in situ.
Beagle 2 is named after the Beagle which is the ship which on which Charles Darwin was the naturalist and undoubtley gave him the opportunity for a lot of his later works.
It looks like the same numbers have been associated with the same words but that's not evidence of literal copying, it's just that they are the same.
I'm not a programmer but I would guess that these are fairly standard codes.
I really don't think you can claim copyright to a list of numbers and words, especially not when these numbers and words are a part of some common convention or standard.
So it's perfectly possible for Linux to have created his errno.h originally without even looking at this code let alone literally copying it across.
Almost the same thing happened to me ( using Opera on Windows 2000 ). Opera didn't crash but the window did just shut it's self down without asking and without warning.
How about opening those documents in Office 95 or 98, does that work so flawlessly ?
Why is it that Windows 2000 Access cannot properly open and modify Windows 95 Access databases ( unless you let it upgrade them to Win 2000 ) ? That's a real pain when manufacturers of other equipment ( in my case ACD systems ) use older versions of Windows NT and Access 95, 98 databases to store configuration data in. Why they do that I have no clue but when you have to 'repair' the databases every 3 months or so and the rest of the company has upgraded to Access 2000 it's more or less impossible to sort out the database.
Have you read that cnn article ? It says that the WHO is worried about the use of anti-bacterial agents in general cosmetic products but that the AMA ( whatever that is ) is stopping short of discouraging people from using them due to pressure from the cosmetic industry.
I think this is really agreeing with the parent post but illustrating that the AMA is subject to pressure from industry lobbying groups.
Seriously though, a few vials of Anthrax or Nerve gas are not weapons of mass destruction. If you wanted to turn them into viable weapons of mass destruction you'd need a pretty large infrastructure to produce and manufacture the chemicals and the delivery systems necessary to use them effectivley.
So far there has been no sign of any of this infrastructure, no one has admitted they were one of the ( presumably hundreds ) of people who worked in this infrastructure and not one factory or storage facility has been found despite the presumably massive amount of satellite surveilance which Iraq has been subjected to.
The other point is why on earth would Saddam bother to spend time and money developing this stuff when he must have been quite well aware that with the US now facing off as the enemy there would be no way he could use them and keep control of Iraq. The US didn't exactly sneak into Iraq in a surprise attack so Saddam had plenty of warning and must have realised that his time was up - if he did have any weapons then you would have thought that would be the ideal time to use them.
As a side point the US has far more chemical weaponary than anyone claims Iraq had and so far as I remember is refusing to enter any kind of international agreements where they have to decomission them. I wonder if there were really any Iraqi scientists making big strides forwards in developing chemical weaponary technology where they might be working now ?
Don't get me wrong, Saddam under lock and key is a good thing but I am very dubious about the existance of the fabled WMD.
Yeah how dare you ( stamps foot and begins to scream )
What we really needed was a Groklaw keeping tabs on everything all our leaders were saying.
No, a lot of people didn't think there were any WMD powerful enough to cause us any problems and were happy to let the Weapons inspectors do enough investigation to prove that was the case for definate.
Then everyone decided they needed a war anyway on the pretext of the overwhelming danger posed to us all by Saddam and his huge stockpiles of WMD.
We would now like everyone who told us about how sure they were these weapons existed to show them to us and prove it was not all a pretext to grab oil and make a bit of money at all.
So far they haven't been able to prove this and are instead trying to pretend that didn't say all those things about WMD which they did in fact say.
SCUD's aren't weapons of mass destruction. Why believe anyone who isn't telling you what you want to hear ?
I disagree, it's not a technicality - for some reason or other MS have been awarded the mark "Windows" against all the laws governing trademarks.
At the time "windows" was a generally accepted generic term to used to refer to GUI operating systems, Microsoft have gained an exclusive advantage by having the sole right to use this term in their O/S product which they should not have ever been given.
I'm not saying that MS wouldn't have got where they are today if they chose not to trademark the word "Windows" but the fact that the world associates the word "Windows" with a Microsoft product today makes no difference to whether they should have been given a trademark on it in the first place.
I'm sure that the Lindows name has been chosen to deliberatley annoy Microsoft and get a lot of free publicity for themselves but that makes no difference whatsoever since they are contesting the fact that the word Windows can be trademarked in the first place.
It looks like Michael Roberts is well on his way to winning his case in the U.S. which is why MS is choosing to attack the name in other countries.
Yes, that's right and when they trademarked it the name was generic too which really means that they shouldn't have been able to trademark it means that they are in the wrong now when they are trying to defend a trademark which never should have been a trademark.
If that wasn't the case and the word "Windows" had never been used as a generic computing term before Microsoft trademarked "Microsoft Windows" then I'd agree with you about the Lindows affair but because of the history behind this I have to disagree that Microsoft are in the right persuing Lindows for trademark infringement.
That probably was the intention but it doesn't alter the fact that Michael Roberts has every right to call his product Lindows and Microsoft have no grounds for complaint.
Windows was a computing term long before Microsoft decided it was a good name for their product, they shouldn't have been able to trademark it in the first place and they shouldn't complain when other people decide to use the variants on the word Windows in their software products either.
There would be no problem with trademarking the word "Mercedes" for use by a perfume manufacturer since they are in an entirely different line of business to the famous Car Manufacturer also called Mercedes.
Which would be fine if the term windows wasn't already a generic term used to describe particular types of operating system which do not necessarily have anything to do with Microsoft.
Scotch did not have anything to do with tape before Scotch started to manufacture it so there is no problem with this evolving into a generic term for tape.
Microsoft have capitalised on the word "windows" becuase they hijacked an already generic term used to describe operating systems and benefitted by associating their product with this term.
For a long time Microsoft were unable to trademark the term "Windows" for exactly this reason and this was fine since anyone else could also have used the term Windows to describe their O/S and no one would gain an advantage not available to the other. By Trademarking the term "Windows" Microsoft have prevented other O/S producers from using what is a generic term for describing O/S in their products name and that is unfair.
Yes but "Ford" the trademark has nothing to do with methods of getting across rivers, if a company who's product was a method of crossing rivers by making them shallow enough to walk or ride across then that would be unfair to other companies selling the same product since they would then be unable to capitalise on the fact that a ford is a word in general usage to indicate a method of crossing a river in the same way which Ford would be doing.
Since the term windows has been a general term referring to GUI's or GUI based operating systems long before Microsoft released their Windows operating system it gives them an unfair advantage by associating their operating system, "Windows" with a generally accepted term used to refer to a particular type of GUI or GUI based operating system.
As an example when I was going my Computer Science GCSE back in the 1980's we learnt about WIMP environments which were GUI programs or Applications. WIMP stands for Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers which form the basis of all GUI's. The term Windows in this acronym does not refer to Microsofts product also called "Windows" but people could be confused into thinking this kind of design or methodology refers specifically to an operating system produced by Microsoft - which it doesn't.
Heh,heh just because you can't SEE it doesn't mean it's doesn't exist ;-)
"They want to hit what's being aimed at, and nothing else"
;-)
Like their allies for instance, or other parts of their own army