I don't know where the Puget Sound is or what the geography is like there but certainly the damage caused by Tsunami's is worse in bays and coves which tend to concentrate the waves and cause it to swirl and form whirlpools which can be a lot more destructive.
I would also imagine that given any open channel to the ocean that a Tsunami of the sort talked about here could penetrate a fair way down.
"... and there are a few things that I normally have to talk about that might be top-of-mind for them that they'd like us to get some clarity on."
I think what he means to say is that some of his customers would like Microsoft to explain some things to them a bit more clearly. However I am sure that the sentence I quoted is really saying that his customers have a lot of things which they'd like Microsoft to understand more clearly.
I am not sure quite how to describe the form of English which IT companies like Microsoft, SCO and IBM seem to be using nowadays, their is definately a similarity in their written and oral style and it's incrediably annoying. I don't know why.
"It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about ? that Linux is Unix"
This annoys me for the following reasons:
"It brings up" - What brings up ? The previous sentence was about ways of integrating software and doesn't seem to relate to this sentence at all.
"...when we do this comparative analysis..." - When you do what 'comparative analysis' ? They haven't said anywhere what kind of 'comparative analysis' they have done, or are in the process of doing.
"... and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about ? that Linux is Unix" - I can't see any strong link between this last part of the sentence to the previous part. It also just strikes me as a bad way of saying "a lot of our customers and people in general think that Linux is Unix"
No one expects businesses to do anything which is selfless but in the case of IBM, Novell and others they are adopting Open Source and also supporting free and open software not because they selflessly want to help anyone out but because it makes sense from a business point of view for them to do this.
The benefits of these companies actions to everyone else is that the industry is more likely to follow open standards which is something that Microsoft has consistently refused to do.
Customers do need the right tool for the job and they don't need to be tied to any particular tools by factors not directly related to the job in hand which can definitely be a problem with Microsoft.
I think what is happening now is that large parts of the industry are listening to what their customers actually need rather than just attempting to up their sales volume by any means possible.
You seem to be implying that I somehow don't care about all the people who died in 9/11 and you think the reason I don't care is because of my over powering hatred of the US ? Obviously that is complete rubbish and makes about as much sense as the rest of your post does.
When a terrorist organisation carries out an attack on the scale of 9/11 and you realise that these terrorists are largely the same people your country was funding, arming and training in the recent past you should be considering the truth that actions have consequences and sometimes knee jerk reactions influenced by badly thought out morally guided policies are not necessarily a good thing in the long term.
The kind of terrorism espoused by Osama Bin Laden is terrorism which has no sympathy from any country anywhere - virtually nowhere is hard line enough for their fundamentalist policies, before the US became the main target they were targetting other Middle Eastern countries. It is largely because they were so ineffective at gaining any kind of popular support with their actions there that they decided they may get more support by attacking the US.
Had the US simply channelled their resources and power into getting rid of the actual terrorists themselves then everyone would be be applauding loudly and thinking the US is next best thing since sliced bread.
Instead the US administration have used "Global Terrorism" as the next big Evil against which the US can fight and are less interested in actually doing anything about terrorism as using it as an excuse to flex it's muscles and continue it's Cold War policies to build a more powerful, stronger government machine.
The main thing the Iraqui invasion has achieved with respect to global terrorism is the creation of many more terrorists and a massive increase in the popular support in the Islamic world.
From your post I can't really see what it is you are trying to say except that it is probably a good idea to force the entire Middle East to Americas will and some crap about "original sin". Possibly you are also saying that the US is justified in doing what it likes so long as it suits the US. You really need to wake up and mayeb try to think for yourself a little, learning how to do up your shoelaces would probably be a good start for you.
Right, so this is what you are really concerned with then - "How can we get revenge for 9/11".
No responsibility has been thrust on your country for anything, you decided that rather than doing anything about Osama Bin Laden and the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11 you'd first of all invade Afghanistan and then later Iraq which had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.
If you are that concerned about responsibility then you should concede that the responsibility for the socioeconomic, geopolitical and theohistoric (??) forces at work here have been to a large extent driven by American policy. Brave Afghan Freedom fighters helping us against the Evil Menace of Communism then = Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists today.
What you should have done after 9/11 is accept that terrorism can happen, try and track down the actual people responsible for that terrorism.
What you should not have done is make up this whole Al Quida global terrorist conspiracy crap and then used that as an excuse to invade Iraq, set up concentration camps on remote islands and enact a load of repressive and basically illegal laws to support your delusions.
"... commonly reported forms of torture included beatings (82%), electric shocks (64%), being suspended or restrained in painful positions (60%) witnessing others being tortured (22%) burned with hot objects such as cigarettes (11%), exposure to extreme temperatures (11%), being forced to stare at the sun (11%), sleep deprivation (9%), mock execution (7%), blood drawn against the individual's will."
Is that a quote from the US Militaries approved guide for 'safeguarding the welfare of illegal combatatents and terrorists' ?
At least 3 of those techniques - tortures - are definitley in regular use by the US.
So the US employs torture techniques and locks people up without a trial if it thinks they might be a threat but maybe not on quite the same scale as it may happen in China. The only real difference appears to be in scale.
No doubt at some point in China there will also be investigations but investigation hasn't stopped the US carrying out a variety of illegal and nasty actions in the here and now and isn't likely to stop China in the here and now either.
It has been decalred illegal in the UK to hold people without trial based on evidence they cant' be told about and yet those people are still in prison with no immediate propect of release.
Usually I'm not averse to having a crack at Americans but in this instance I think you're being daft - ITV news in the UK is largely speaking to British people and covering the resorts where the Brits are likely to be but that is totally to be expected.
Obviously Americans are going to be more interested in other Americans caught in the disaster ( friends, families etc on holidays there ) just as Brits are more interested in the fate other Brits and the Irish in the fate of their countrymen.
At this stage it's not in poor taste at all, later on we will all be more interested in the rebuilding effort and the people who live their but now most people are going to immediately worry about any people they know in those areas.
I think the brightly coloured shirts, large cameras around the neck and loud complaining will already tip off most airport personnel as to the identity of most US Citizens.
Yes, I agree. My definition of an 'effective' exo-skeleton is one which does not require a significant quantity of fuel and does not break down. Practically this may well be impossible to achieve.
I agree, what I was describing is powered armour and not a 'mech'
I guess if you could develop better localised defences, e.g. intercepting cannon shells, rockets etc before they hit you - leaping quickly out of the way of incoming materiel etc then mechs might have a place on the battlefueld.
However I don't think they would ever be versatile enough on different terrain since all the weight is going to be concetrated into their feet which would limit their area of operations to hard rocky areas which can bear that kind of weight.
Helicopters and other flying things are very dangerous and if you could protect yourself as mentioned above more effectively would also become even more dangerous - I guess the problem with aircraft at the moment is that although they are very manueverable they can be targetted from a fairly long way off.
Perhaps super gigantic land tanks would be the way to go but they may be more susepitble to stuff dropped on them from space. Choices, choices
I'm not too sure where that figure of 20ft for the height comes from.
I don't think there is any inherent reason why powered exo-skeletons would need to be anything like that big and provided they are reliable and able to cope with much the same terrain as general infantry I think they'd be quite effective in any battle situation.
I would guess the benefits an effective exo-skeleton could bring are in increased carrying capacity for the solider allowing them to carry more food, ammunition etc which would allow them to operate longer in the field with less reliance on supply lines.
Another aim would be to design a skeleton which enabled the solider to move more quickly and over longer distances than would normally be possible and maybe provide some increased protection from unfriendly weaponary.
I don't think anyone is suggesting building giant robots because as you say they would just be too easy to target and destroy.
I am guessing again that the key components in such a suit would be a lightweight, reliable powersource which preferably doesn't need a massive amount of fuel and strong lightweight materials for the skeleton it's self - this is in addition to all the wizzery needed to actually get the skeleton to function in the first place.
Any army which does develop an effective exo skeleton would be able to field a very dangerous weapon indeed, something capable of deploying powerful firepower, fielded in dispersed units of hard to hit small units, capable of sustained attacks into your territory, able to be inserted quickly and secretly in helicopters, parachutes etc.
I can't see anything wrong in a government or coalition of governments determining what and what is not allowed in their jurisdiction, that is surely the main things governments do.
Companies don't have any inalienable rights, they have the rights given to them by the law and it is down to Microsofts violation of those laws that it is in the situation it's in now.
The EU has recognised the problem Microsoft is causing in the market and unlike the US is taking practical steps to repair and mitigate the damage caused.
It's not at all ridiculous, Microsoft is a recognised monopoly and have been using their packaging of WMP in Windows to extend their reach in the media player market on the back of their monopoly position in the OS market.
Apple isn't doesn't have a monopoly in the OS market and therefore can't use it's packaging of Quicktime in quite the same way to damage it's competitors in the market.
Due to Microsofts behaviour in the past they are not allowed to do anything off the back of their OS monopoly to damage other companies in markets they wish to move in on, such as the Media Player market. That's the law and now that the EU has determined they are breaking that law it is only right that MS is asked to pay the penalty for their behaviour.
In English money that would mean an all day bus pass for just 60p whereas it in fact costs £2.50 or $4.80 ( mind you it can be used on any of the buses in the West Midlands ).
I used to work with one of those, it was old even then and most of the front casing had fallen off ( like in that image ) so I could rest cups of tea and coffee on the bottom drive in the case.
No, I think Le Guin has exactly as much obligation to protect her work as she judges fit.
In this case she negotiated a deal with no real control on her part and the end result was something she didn't like.
I didn't read any moans by her in either of the articles about the studio not doing what she wanted, what I did read were her opinions on the finished article and I believe she has every right to express opinions on what they have done without it being necessarily construed as whinging or moaning.
You're right she has cut herself out of the loop and the studio can do whatever it likes from that point on.
However I think she still has every right to comment on the final product, in this case she obviously didn't like it but because she was out of the loop she is under no obligation to go along with marketing the series or to agree with the studios statements that the series has been "true to her intentions in the book"
Yes she has sold the rights in order to get some cash for herself and in doing so given the studio full rein to do what it likes but no where has she given up her rights to an opinion on the finished product.
She probably had little choice, I doubt she is in the position where producers are beating a path to her door wanting to make films out of her books.
What would you do ? Wait until someone approached you with an offer which would allow you have full control over any movie or tv series which may not ever materialise or relinquish all control in return for some money right now ?
Given that she has taken the second course of action I still think she is within her rights to comment on the end result, plus she probably feels some responsibility to her readers and fans who might otherwise be under the impression this series is done with her entire consent.
Neither of those articles are particulary whinging about nasty TV companies ruining her work, they are more just her comments on the end result which like I said I think is fair enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, worth giving it a try though eh. What's the worst that can happen ?
I don't know where the Puget Sound is or what the geography is like there but certainly the damage caused by Tsunami's is worse in bays and coves which tend to concentrate the waves and cause it to swirl and form whirlpools which can be a lot more destructive.
I would also imagine that given any open channel to the ocean that a Tsunami of the sort talked about here could penetrate a fair way down.
"... and there are a few things that I normally have to talk about that might be top-of-mind for them that they'd like us to get some clarity on."
I think what he means to say is that some of his customers would like Microsoft to explain some things to them a bit more clearly. However I am sure that the sentence I quoted is really saying that his customers have a lot of things which they'd like Microsoft to understand more clearly.
I am not sure quite how to describe the form of English which IT companies like Microsoft, SCO and IBM seem to be using nowadays, their is definately a similarity in their written and oral style and it's incrediably annoying. I don't know why.
"It brings up another interesting misperception that we see a lot when we do this comparative analysis between Unix and Linux, and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about ? that Linux is Unix"
This annoys me for the following reasons:
"It brings up" - What brings up ? The previous sentence was about ways of integrating software and doesn't seem to relate to this sentence at all.
"...when we do this comparative analysis..." - When you do what 'comparative analysis' ? They haven't said anywhere what kind of 'comparative analysis' they have done, or are in the process of doing.
"... and often we hear customers and folks in the marketplace talk about ? that Linux is Unix" - I can't see any strong link between this last part of the sentence to the previous part. It also just strikes me as a bad way of saying "a lot of our customers and people in general think that Linux is Unix"
How can we make this stop ?
No one expects businesses to do anything which is selfless but in the case of IBM, Novell and others they are adopting Open Source and also supporting free and open software not because they selflessly want to help anyone out but because it makes sense from a business point of view for them to do this.
The benefits of these companies actions to everyone else is that the industry is more likely to follow open standards which is something that Microsoft has consistently refused to do.
Customers do need the right tool for the job and they don't need to be tied to any particular tools by factors not directly related to the job in hand which can definitely be a problem with Microsoft.
I think what is happening now is that large parts of the industry are listening to what their customers actually need rather than just attempting to up their sales volume by any means possible.
Either way you are still charged with dangerous driving or manslaughter and have to face the consequences of your actions - not your intentions.
You seem to be implying that I somehow don't care about all the people who died in 9/11 and you think the reason I don't care is because of my over powering hatred of the US ? Obviously that is complete rubbish and makes about as much sense as the rest of your post does.
When a terrorist organisation carries out an attack on the scale of 9/11 and you realise that these terrorists are largely the same people your country was funding, arming and training in the recent past you should be considering the truth that actions have consequences and sometimes knee jerk reactions influenced by badly thought out morally guided policies are not necessarily a good thing in the long term.
The kind of terrorism espoused by Osama Bin Laden is terrorism which has no sympathy from any country anywhere - virtually nowhere is hard line enough for their fundamentalist policies, before the US became the main target they were targetting other Middle Eastern countries. It is largely because they were so ineffective at gaining any kind of popular support with their actions there that they decided they may get more support by attacking the US.
Had the US simply channelled their resources and power into getting rid of the actual terrorists themselves then everyone would be be applauding loudly and thinking the US is next best thing since sliced bread.
Instead the US administration have used "Global Terrorism" as the next big Evil against which the US can fight and are less interested in actually doing anything about terrorism as using it as an excuse to flex it's muscles and continue it's Cold War policies to build a more powerful, stronger government machine.
The main thing the Iraqui invasion has achieved with respect to global terrorism is the creation of many more terrorists and a massive increase in the popular support in the Islamic world.
From your post I can't really see what it is you are trying to say except that it is probably a good idea to force the entire Middle East to Americas will and some crap about "original sin". Possibly you are also saying that the US is justified in doing what it likes so long as it suits the US. You really need to wake up and mayeb try to think for yourself a little, learning how to do up your shoelaces would probably be a good start for you.
Right, so this is what you are really concerned with then - "How can we get revenge for 9/11".
No responsibility has been thrust on your country for anything, you decided that rather than doing anything about Osama Bin Laden and the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11 you'd first of all invade Afghanistan and then later Iraq which had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.
If you are that concerned about responsibility then you should concede that the responsibility for the socioeconomic, geopolitical and theohistoric (??) forces at work here have been to a large extent driven by American policy. Brave Afghan Freedom fighters helping us against the Evil Menace of Communism then = Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists today.
What you should have done after 9/11 is accept that terrorism can happen, try and track down the actual people responsible for that terrorism.
What you should not have done is make up this whole Al Quida global terrorist conspiracy crap and then used that as an excuse to invade Iraq, set up concentration camps on remote islands and enact a load of repressive and basically illegal laws to support your delusions.
Well maybe it will hit something else.
"... commonly reported forms of torture included beatings (82%), electric shocks (64%), being suspended or restrained in painful positions (60%) witnessing others being tortured (22%) burned with hot objects such as cigarettes (11%), exposure to extreme temperatures (11%), being forced to stare at the sun (11%), sleep deprivation (9%), mock execution (7%), blood drawn against the individual's will."
Is that a quote from the US Militaries approved guide for 'safeguarding the welfare of illegal combatatents and terrorists' ?
At least 3 of those techniques - tortures - are definitley in regular use by the US.
So the US employs torture techniques and locks people up without a trial if it thinks they might be a threat but maybe not on quite the same scale as it may happen in China. The only real difference appears to be in scale.
No doubt at some point in China there will also be investigations but investigation hasn't stopped the US carrying out a variety of illegal and nasty actions in the here and now and isn't likely to stop China in the here and now either.
It has been decalred illegal in the UK to hold people without trial based on evidence they cant' be told about and yet those people are still in prison with no immediate propect of release.
Usually I'm not averse to having a crack at Americans but in this instance I think you're being daft - ITV news in the UK is largely speaking to British people and covering the resorts where the Brits are likely to be but that is totally to be expected.
Obviously Americans are going to be more interested in other Americans caught in the disaster ( friends, families etc on holidays there ) just as Brits are more interested in the fate other Brits and the Irish in the fate of their countrymen.
At this stage it's not in poor taste at all, later on we will all be more interested in the rebuilding effort and the people who live their but now most people are going to immediately worry about any people they know in those areas.
I think the brightly coloured shirts, large cameras around the neck and loud complaining will already tip off most airport personnel as to the identity of most US Citizens.
I think he means hand luggage, in fact that is what he specifically said.
Well yeah, but they haven't delivered on the Monlith front and still no bloomin' star child so I reckon all bets are off now.
Yes, I agree. My definition of an 'effective' exo-skeleton is one which does not require a significant quantity of fuel and does not break down. Practically this may well be impossible to achieve.
I agree, what I was describing is powered armour and not a 'mech'
I guess if you could develop better localised defences, e.g. intercepting cannon shells, rockets etc before they hit you - leaping quickly out of the way of incoming materiel etc then mechs might have a place on the battlefueld.
However I don't think they would ever be versatile enough on different terrain since all the weight is going to be concetrated into their feet which would limit their area of operations to hard rocky areas which can bear that kind of weight.
Helicopters and other flying things are very dangerous and if you could protect yourself as mentioned above more effectively would also become even more dangerous - I guess the problem with aircraft at the moment is that although they are very manueverable they can be targetted from a fairly long way off.
Perhaps super gigantic land tanks would be the way to go but they may be more susepitble to stuff dropped on them from space. Choices, choices
I'm not too sure where that figure of 20ft for the height comes from.
I don't think there is any inherent reason why powered exo-skeletons would need to be anything like that big and provided they are reliable and able to cope with much the same terrain as general infantry I think they'd be quite effective in any battle situation.
I would guess the benefits an effective exo-skeleton could bring are in increased carrying capacity for the solider allowing them to carry more food, ammunition etc which would allow them to operate longer in the field with less reliance on supply lines.
Another aim would be to design a skeleton which enabled the solider to move more quickly and over longer distances than would normally be possible and maybe provide some increased protection from unfriendly weaponary.
I don't think anyone is suggesting building giant robots because as you say they would just be too easy to target and destroy.
I am guessing again that the key components in such a suit would be a lightweight, reliable powersource which preferably doesn't need a massive amount of fuel and strong lightweight materials for the skeleton it's self - this is in addition to all the wizzery needed to actually get the skeleton to function in the first place.
Any army which does develop an effective exo skeleton would be able to field a very dangerous weapon indeed, something capable of deploying powerful firepower, fielded in dispersed units of hard to hit small units, capable of sustained attacks into your territory, able to be inserted quickly and secretly in helicopters, parachutes etc.
I can't see anything wrong in a government or coalition of governments determining what and what is not allowed in their jurisdiction, that is surely the main things governments do.
Companies don't have any inalienable rights, they have the rights given to them by the law and it is down to Microsofts violation of those laws that it is in the situation it's in now.
The EU has recognised the problem Microsoft is causing in the market and unlike the US is taking practical steps to repair and mitigate the damage caused.
It's not at all ridiculous, Microsoft is a recognised monopoly and have been using their packaging of WMP in Windows to extend their reach in the media player market on the back of their monopoly position in the OS market.
Apple isn't doesn't have a monopoly in the OS market and therefore can't use it's packaging of Quicktime in quite the same way to damage it's competitors in the market.
Due to Microsofts behaviour in the past they are not allowed to do anything off the back of their OS monopoly to damage other companies in markets they wish to move in on, such as the Media Player market. That's the law and now that the EU has determined they are breaking that law it is only right that MS is asked to pay the penalty for their behaviour.
In English money that would mean an all day bus pass for just 60p whereas it in fact costs £2.50 or $4.80 ( mind you it can be used on any of the buses in the West Midlands ).
The lady in the purple sweater looks nice but I am disturbed that everyone else in the room appears to be just staring at her holding their crotches.
I used to work with one of those, it was old even then and most of the front casing had fallen off ( like in that image ) so I could rest cups of tea and coffee on the bottom drive in the case.
No, I think Le Guin has exactly as much obligation to protect her work as she judges fit.
In this case she negotiated a deal with no real control on her part and the end result was something she didn't like.
I didn't read any moans by her in either of the articles about the studio not doing what she wanted, what I did read were her opinions on the finished article and I believe she has every right to express opinions on what they have done without it being necessarily construed as whinging or moaning.
You're right she has cut herself out of the loop and the studio can do whatever it likes from that point on.
However I think she still has every right to comment on the final product, in this case she obviously didn't like it but because she was out of the loop she is under no obligation to go along with marketing the series or to agree with the studios statements that the series has been "true to her intentions in the book"
Yes she has sold the rights in order to get some cash for herself and in doing so given the studio full rein to do what it likes but no where has she given up her rights to an opinion on the finished product.
She probably had little choice, I doubt she is in the position where producers are beating a path to her door wanting to make films out of her books.
What would you do ? Wait until someone approached you with an offer which would allow you have full control over any movie or tv series which may not ever materialise or relinquish all control in return for some money right now ?
Given that she has taken the second course of action I still think she is within her rights to comment on the end result, plus she probably feels some responsibility to her readers and fans who might otherwise be under the impression this series is done with her entire consent.
Neither of those articles are particulary whinging about nasty TV companies ruining her work, they are more just her comments on the end result which like I said I think is fair enough.