obvious
1. Easily perceived or understood; quite apparent. See Synonyms at apparent.
2. Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety; transparent: an obvious political ploy.
3. Archaic. Standing in the way or in front.
blatant
1. Unpleasantly loud and noisy: "There are those who find the trombones blatant and the triangle silly, but both add effective color" (Musical Heritage Review). See Synonyms at vociferous.
2. Usage Problem. Totally or offensively conspicuous or obtrusive: a blatant lie.
It is that Microsoft's own development teams have always programmed with inside knowledge of the OS, able to bypass the official API whenever necessary.
This was explained to me by the director of a large bank in Brussels that abandoned a huge Windows-based project after finding that COM+ and MSMQ could not talk to each other, and this after spending time with the actual developers at Microsoft to resolve the issues.
Each Microsoft application is written "to the metal", reimplementing huge pieces of code that should be abstracted into layers.
Many of the security issues in Windows software stem from this design model: a typical Linux security issue can be fixed by a single patch in one layer, but typical Windows security issues reappear in application after application.
And this is where the Unix model is strong: it is all about layers, formal documented interfaces, and clean separation. When Microsoft decided to add MSIE to the operating system, they were not just screwing their competitors, they were setting themselves up for a fall.
Good software must be built in layers, with formal and definite separation between layers. Microsoft is learning this now, mainly because it simply cannot make its current designs secure.
Knowing old Amos, I reckon he'd be waddling around in circles with his pants around his ankles singing "that old grey mare she ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be..."
Like the priests could feed the pictures of the cute little alter boys into it and when they walk into church an alarm would sound and they'd take their viagra or lube themselves up or whatever.
It's the fact that so much resources are devoted to policing that particular law and the harshness of the penalties that are at issue. Yes it's wrong, if the law says it's wrong it generally is the case. Just like jay walking, displaying an areola in public, driving a vehicle with only one working headlight etc etc. Downloading a pirate copy of Britney Spears latest effort (or more accurately her record companies) is hardly cause for the greater society to be worried - who exactly is being deprived of what? In most cases probably no one is deprived of anything as in most cases the downloader probably would never have bought the song anyway. In the rest of cases the likely crime is that a rich talentless artist is deprived of a few cents and the record company who is simply a leeching middle man in the whole process is deprived of a lot more. The politically approved legislation and the willingness of the courts to side with the RIAA in their extragavant claims of loss is indictive of the corruption that has allowed the corporate world to infect the state infrastructure which is designed to maintain piece and harmony in our society - not to line pockets of fat cats. For this you should be concerned.
I don't think the greedy capitalists out there will let your good mind go to waste. Surely there are people/companies with a bit of dough who are willing to fund your research. From my laymans perspective there appears to be some cutting edge technologies here, pulse jet for instance, that could be pulling in bucks for someone if allowed to develop. The bankruptcy is a bit of a bummer, but it never seems to stop the white collar crims who swindle millions from continuing to run the show, you just need a good accountant to set yourself up in a puppet operation. As they say any publicity is good publicity and at the moment that's not something you're short of. Good luck and all the best.
PS. Goddard, Van Brun et al must be rolling in their graves.
I like the CD because I know that I have a lossless "master" copy of the music. This way I can encode my music to any format I want using the latest version of the encoder without worrying about the more extreme quality loss of encoding from one lossy format to another. e.g. I have a mp3 player in my car and so have currently encoded my CDs to mp3, though how much longer will mp3 be around? Encoders are out now that offer better quality/compression ratios (iTunes aac) and so maybe in 4 years my next car player will support that too and I'll re-encode my CDs with that. What if all my music was mp3s and the next player didn't support mp3? I'd have to convert mp3 to aac and end up with ever worse sounding music.
When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation. For more than 30 years America's manned space program has limited itself to low Earth orbit; indeed, everyone under the age of 31 more than 125 million Americans was born since an American last set foot on the moon.
The speech will come at a time when events are converging to force some important decisions about the future of American efforts in space. China has put a man in orbit, plans a launch of three Sinonauts together, and has announced its own lunar program. The space shuttle is grounded, and its smaller sibling, the "orbital space plane," may not be built. The International Space Station, behind schedule, over budget, and of limited utility, has been scaled back post-Columbia.
The content of the speech does not appear to be in doubt; the only question is timing. While those who have formulated it have argued that it be delivered on the anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered flight, there exists a slight possibility that it will instead be incorporated in the State of the Union address at the end of January. This has its own, less triumphant, significance, which is in the form of a chilling coincidence. Every American who has died in a spacecraft has done so within one calendar week: The Apollo 204 fire on January 27, 1967; the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986; and the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003.
If the president goes ahead with the plan to announce an ambitious new program to carry Americans beyond Earth's immediate gravitational pull, he will argue that the new lunar explorations are justified not only for what they themselves might produce but also as a means of developing the technology and skills necessary for a mission to Mars, which is expected to be mentioned, though in less-specific terms, in the address.
Observers might note a familiar ring to the proposal. On July 20, 1989, President George H. W. Bush marked the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing with a speech at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington in which he called for a permanent American presence on the moon and, ultimately, a mission to Mars.
That address led to the formation of a group called the "Space Exploration Initiative," headed by Vice President Quayle and NASA Administrator Richard Truly, which in the spring of 1991 released a report, "America at the Threshold." It set a long-term goal of landing Americans on Mars, with space activities in the interim leading up to that goal. First, it recommended, would be "Space Station Freedom" now the ISS followed by a return to the moon, in large measure to develop and test systems for keeping people alive on a Mars journey. The development of rocket boosters more powerful than the mighty Saturn V that lifted Apollo astronauts to the moon would be necessary, the report said, as would development of nuclear systems for providing power aboard in-transit spacecraft, and nuclear-powered rockets, to be employed outside Earth's atmosphere, where they could be used on long missions without the need to carry enormous supplies of conventional rocket propellant. None of the recommendations was carried out as envisioned at the time; the only one that got off the ground at all is the space station.
The president's speech could breathe new life into a moribund space program whose recent history has been beset by disappointment and failure. The space shuttle proved neither as reliable or as inexpensive as its pr
and fuck all you whinnie little "it's been done before" nerds. The guy did it HIMSELF with a consumer grade digital camera, this is not the same as using a freaking professional large format film camera, or having a government backed research ORGANISATION do it. Credit where it's due.
Slashdot Mirror
"Watch-you-talkin-bout-Willis? BITCH!! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!...."
*Blows Willis' black ass to kingdom come*
obvious
1. Easily perceived or understood; quite apparent. See Synonyms at apparent.
2. Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety; transparent: an obvious political ploy.
3. Archaic. Standing in the way or in front.
blatant
1. Unpleasantly loud and noisy: "There are those who find the trombones blatant and the triangle silly, but both add effective color" (Musical Heritage Review). See Synonyms at vociferous.
2. Usage Problem. Totally or offensively conspicuous or obtrusive: a blatant lie.
IT'S FREE!!
I'm with you
Is not about the command line or GUI.
It is that Microsoft's own development teams have always programmed with inside knowledge of the OS, able to bypass the official API whenever necessary.
This was explained to me by the director of a large bank in Brussels that abandoned a huge Windows-based project after finding that COM+ and MSMQ could not talk to each other, and this after spending time with the actual developers at Microsoft to resolve the issues.
Each Microsoft application is written "to the metal", reimplementing huge pieces of code that should be abstracted into layers.
Many of the security issues in Windows software stem from this design model: a typical Linux security issue can be fixed by a single patch in one layer, but typical Windows security issues reappear in application after application.
And this is where the Unix model is strong: it is all about layers, formal documented interfaces, and clean separation. When Microsoft decided to add MSIE to the operating system, they were not just screwing their competitors, they were setting themselves up for a fall.
Good software must be built in layers, with formal and definite separation between layers. Microsoft is learning this now, mainly because it simply cannot make its current designs secure.
Frist "does it run Linux?" psot
Knowing old Amos, I reckon he'd be waddling around in circles with his pants around his ankles singing "that old grey mare she ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be..."
unwelcome our old tyrannical ruler overlord
I think it's Bart Simpson in a clever disguise
Like the priests could feed the pictures of the cute little alter boys into it and when they walk into church an alarm would sound and they'd take their viagra or lube themselves up or whatever.
welcome our new cunning linquist overlord
It's funny because it's true, now lighten up jerk off
It's the fact that so much resources are devoted to policing that particular law and the harshness of the penalties that are at issue. Yes it's wrong, if the law says it's wrong it generally is the case. Just like jay walking, displaying an areola in public, driving a vehicle with only one working headlight etc etc. Downloading a pirate copy of Britney Spears latest effort (or more accurately her record companies) is hardly cause for the greater society to be worried - who exactly is being deprived of what? In most cases probably no one is deprived of anything as in most cases the downloader probably would never have bought the song anyway. In the rest of cases the likely crime is that a rich talentless artist is deprived of a few cents and the record company who is simply a leeching middle man in the whole process is deprived of a lot more. The politically approved legislation and the willingness of the courts to side with the RIAA in their extragavant claims of loss is indictive of the corruption that has allowed the corporate world to infect the state infrastructure which is designed to maintain piece and harmony in our society - not to line pockets of fat cats. For this you should be concerned.
I don't think the greedy capitalists out there will let your good mind go to waste. Surely there are people/companies with a bit of dough who are willing to fund your research. From my laymans perspective there appears to be some cutting edge technologies here, pulse jet for instance, that could be pulling in bucks for someone if allowed to develop. The bankruptcy is a bit of a bummer, but it never seems to stop the white collar crims who swindle millions from continuing to run the show, you just need a good accountant to set yourself up in a puppet operation. As they say any publicity is good publicity and at the moment that's not something you're short of. Good luck and all the best. PS. Goddard, Van Brun et al must be rolling in their graves.
shot down before it got a chance to get off the ground
What's the matter, no mention of SCO? Anyway, 347 replies says you're wrong
I like the CD because I know that I have a lossless "master" copy of the music. This way I can encode my music to any format I want using the latest version of the encoder without worrying about the more extreme quality loss of encoding from one lossy format to another. e.g. I have a mp3 player in my car and so have currently encoded my CDs to mp3, though how much longer will mp3 be around? Encoders are out now that offer better quality/compression ratios (iTunes aac) and so maybe in 4 years my next car player will support that too and I'll re-encode my CDs with that. What if all my music was mp3s and the next player didn't support mp3? I'd have to convert mp3 to aac and end up with ever worse sounding music.
by software. Thank you, come again!
Can't you stupid nerds read, it's about SCO, start modding!
In latest news, McBride is claiming to have invented the integrated circuit
She laid you huh? Next time get her to whip off the strap-on and plug her one yourself
Yeah we don't wanna confuse the IT Managers do we, perhaps some magnets would help them.
ZOLPIDEM TARTRATE that is, get sum inta ya!
Returning to the new frontier.
By Dennis E. Powell
When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation. For more than 30 years America's manned space program has limited itself to low Earth orbit; indeed, everyone under the age of 31 more than 125 million Americans was born since an American last set foot on the moon.
The speech will come at a time when events are converging to force some important decisions about the future of American efforts in space. China has put a man in orbit, plans a launch of three Sinonauts together, and has announced its own lunar program. The space shuttle is grounded, and its smaller sibling, the "orbital space plane," may not be built. The International Space Station, behind schedule, over budget, and of limited utility, has been scaled back post-Columbia.
The content of the speech does not appear to be in doubt; the only question is timing. While those who have formulated it have argued that it be delivered on the anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered flight, there exists a slight possibility that it will instead be incorporated in the State of the Union address at the end of January. This has its own, less triumphant, significance, which is in the form of a chilling coincidence. Every American who has died in a spacecraft has done so within one calendar week: The Apollo 204 fire on January 27, 1967; the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986; and the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003.
If the president goes ahead with the plan to announce an ambitious new program to carry Americans beyond Earth's immediate gravitational pull, he will argue that the new lunar explorations are justified not only for what they themselves might produce but also as a means of developing the technology and skills necessary for a mission to Mars, which is expected to be mentioned, though in less-specific terms, in the address.
Observers might note a familiar ring to the proposal. On July 20, 1989, President George H. W. Bush marked the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing with a speech at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington in which he called for a permanent American presence on the moon and, ultimately, a mission to Mars.
That address led to the formation of a group called the "Space Exploration Initiative," headed by Vice President Quayle and NASA Administrator Richard Truly, which in the spring of 1991 released a report, "America at the Threshold." It set a long-term goal of landing Americans on Mars, with space activities in the interim leading up to that goal. First, it recommended, would be "Space Station Freedom" now the ISS followed by a return to the moon, in large measure to develop and test systems for keeping people alive on a Mars journey. The development of rocket boosters more powerful than the mighty Saturn V that lifted Apollo astronauts to the moon would be necessary, the report said, as would development of nuclear systems for providing power aboard in-transit spacecraft, and nuclear-powered rockets, to be employed outside Earth's atmosphere, where they could be used on long missions without the need to carry enormous supplies of conventional rocket propellant. None of the recommendations was carried out as envisioned at the time; the only one that got off the ground at all is the space station.
The president's speech could breathe new life into a moribund space program whose recent history has been beset by disappointment and failure. The space shuttle proved neither as reliable or as inexpensive as its pr
and fuck all you whinnie little "it's been done before" nerds. The guy did it HIMSELF with a consumer grade digital camera, this is not the same as using a freaking professional large format film camera, or having a government backed research ORGANISATION do it. Credit where it's due.