I suspect something along similar lines. The borders are simply not that porous. Cover for large trucks roaming back roads is pretty scarce. I would be surprised if the engines are actually out of the country.
A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand.
And it wouldn't be the first time Israel disappeared some foreign manufactured equipment to get it "off the books" only to come up with some derivative internal products later. In fact, they have concentrated on making major components for foreign purchased platforms for years, rather than building new platforms from scratch. Most of their tech is derivative work.
It seems just as likely, given Israel's apparent lack of concern over these thefts, that they know exactly where these engines are.
Well, even that probably wouldn't work in this case. Its a different situation. Its a national park, where access is pretty difficult in most places, and you don't have a large local resident population in the park to clandestinely breed snakes.
Further, I suspect you could check hunters into the park, and out again, so you would know they entered with no snakes.
With a population estimated in tens of thousands, and a catch of only 272, the snake population is already out of control, and you might as well figure out how to deal with your new "indigenous species".
Historically, attempts to control or eradicate invasive populations intentionally or accidentally introduced to areas has met with only marginal success. Introducing predators of Cobras is probably out of the question, The mongoose being the most common predator, but is also a banned species.
A link is not the source code; it is more like an offer to provide source code later. One must do something more than provide a URL to satisfy section 3(a) of the GPLv2. For example, Debian handles it by having source packages on the same servers as the corresponding binary packages -- this satisfies Debian that the source and binary packages are on the same "medium customarily used for software interchange",
Wait, you can't have it both ways.
A link is the source code or it is not the source code, make up your mind.
If you install Debian from the net, or any other Distro, you generally do not install the source code. Most of the time it installs without it, unless you make a conscious effort to modify the default installation choices to include the source. This is true of every distro I'm aware of which supports net-based installation (as opposed to downloading an ISO that contains bote binary and source).
The distro installers (in this case) make use of nothing but links to sources on the internet. Its the same thing as these guys offering source via a link on the web page. That the link works is all that is required. It need not be on the same physical server. It just needs to be available via the internet, the "medium customarily used for software interchange", the same internet used for installation of the binary.
The violation here (if there is one_ seems to be charging 3.99, for something (an internet download) that costs them virtually nothing. If he is paying for his website out of pocket and providing source was the only purpose of this site, it might be reasonable. But if there were any other use of that site (advertising, help files), it would seem excessive.
When I see the word "strands", both in the linked story and the summary, I assume a terminal event. If the fish can get back in the water under its own power at will, it certainly does not amount to a stranding. Beached is more appropriate, but even it suggests something of an irreversible predicament.
Neither is exactly true, since there is no mention of fish deaths. The fish have the ability to get back in the water.
A poor choice of words to add sensationalism. Sort of akin to calling every human venture into the water a drowning.
Further, fish going ashore for other reasons is not that rare. Many fish spawn ashore including the Grunion. Dolphins chase fish ashore too. Which is interesting because two species are going ashore for two different reasons, one to escape, one to eat. .
The manhattan project sites in particular are an important chance to say "this war happened. This was the price we paid to end it. Don't let it happen again."
So regardless of your first sentence, it is a guilt trip after all.
Don't let it happen again? Are you serious? Did you really say that?
Did the US have vote about whether Pearl Harbor should be bombed? Did the US have a choice but to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, other than immediate surrender of the western half of the US to Japan?
"Don't let it happen again" can just as well be used to justify preventive strikes on other countries, as well as any thing else. Should we "Not let it happen again" by hitting North Korea, or Iran before they acquire launch capabilities? Should we have invaded Afghanistan when we first became aware they were harboring terrorist training camps?
Or should we scrap the Army, Navy and Airforce completely, just to make sure it wont happen again?
The Japanese paid the price to end it, and they have the shrine at ground zero. That's where it belongs.
That someone like you, trying to put the best possible face on this thing, finishes up with the admonishing phrase "Don't let it happen again" says to me that there is no way to avoid this becoming an anti-science, anti-military, anti-american, guilt trip theme park run by history revisionists.
True, but the Smithsonian doesn't try to guilt trip visitors to the Enola Gay, because its one display with lots of other aircraft.
A park dedicated to the development of atomic bombs would almost certainly devolve to a perpetual guilt trip experience, like the German death camps, the theme of which would most likely be to convey the whole science is evil, and big science is big evil thing, and gee-wiz look how evil we were.
There is a difference between a National Park and a National Historic Park. The proposed "National Park" is a National Historic Park, about 3 notches below a National Park in terms of visitors, staff, and funding.
But perhaps National Monument status would be more appropriate. Somebody to mow the grass every other week, and pick up the trash daily.
For those who've never visited, a tour of the museums at Los Alamos (the town) is incredibly humbling and thought-provoking. Except perhaps for psychopaths, there is nothing celebratory about it. On the contrary, the atmosphere is deeply troubling and anxiety producing.
But you see, that is exactly what the debate will be about.
It was a war, an all out war. And the Bombs shortened that war. They were far from the biggest death tolls in the war.
So overwrought somberness might not be the best approach. All you do is guilt trip every visitor, and the science achievments and the historical context is lost.
There might be differing opinions about better ways to present it.
But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.
Well, it seems unlikely we could ever agree on the tone to be set. Let alone how to present it. (see my post upthread about my annoyance with chirpy park service interpreters).
When you look at the death tolls, the fire bombings of both Germany and Japan cities killed way more people.
In March 1945, 334 B-29s took off to raid on the night of 9–10 March ("Operation Meetinghouse"), with 279 of them dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more immediate deaths than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But but, you spoiled the little Hate-America-First poster boys cleverly set up one liner.
Still one has to fear the pablum that would be spat by perky Park Service summer intern "interpreters". I've seen my fair share of parks, and the drivel that flows is pretty annoying. Ask them anything off script and they are at sea.
Megaupload certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use. That may not have been a legitimate reason to shut it down (and certainly wasn't justification for the way it was done), but I don't think anyone can argue that Megavideo, for example, didn't have much, much more pirated content than, say, Youtube or Vimeo.
Yeah, source code might be portable. If you use their their compiler. If you only use their development tools. If you only use their programming language.
"For corporate users, doctors offices, plant floor, I think you will be surprised. There is more software written for x86 Wintel than all other platforms put together."
And how much of it is written to be aware of the new UI? And if you have to port your stuff to use that abortion of a GUI, why would you NOT go to an iThingy or Android? Last time I checked, most doctors, corporate users, coffee shop poseurs etc, had iSomethings, not Windows. Think TAM, not sales pitches when you develop your platform strategy or you are not going to sell very many.
-Charlie
You don't have to be aware of the new UI. Your user won't want that anyway, because it would require retraining.
That only works if you write in specific languages using specific compilers. There is a boat load of software out there that does not conform, and many compilers don't have runtimes for ARM. Further, the API calls are NOT all the same.
Meanwhile the X86 version (Surface Pro) is going to priced fairly high, BUT has the attraction of running just about any software that will run on Windows 8 Desktop (which is just about any existing Windows packages). So in, IMHO, that tablet, the Surface Pro, will sell quite well, especially in the corporate world. I wouldn't count Microsoft out just yet.
I don't see this. Surface Pro falls between Surface RT and other tablets (for media consumption, emails, etc.) and laptops that can convert to tablets (for actual content creation, running "desktop" programs, etc.). The target market is quite small.
For home users, I agree with you.
For corporate users, doctors offices, plant floor, I think you will be surprised. There is more software written for x86 Wintel than all other platforms put together. And people want to stop carting laptops to meetings. For my day job I develop for Windows customers. They ask me for iPad versions of everything (for free, mind you). People in the corporate world are moving to tablets, and they want to take their familiar CRM, manufacturing, Patient Care, scheduling, etc with them.
If the tablet is half way competent, I predict it will be a success. No iPad, no Android Tablet, but a success never the less.
Other than slashdotters crying the blues about windows 8 changing the start menu, I've yet to see a complaint about the slate tablets, other than the app store for it not being matured.
Maybe if you were searching for "Surface Tablets" instead of calling them "slate tablets" which refers to a historical product, you might find more articles.
But back on point, Windows 8 was made for tablets, and using it on a desktop computer, or laptop without a touch screen is slow and clumsy. If and when the RT version gets some apps in the Windows Store, it might sell better.
But as soon as the Pro version is released it will sell quite well, I predict.
There is a great deal of pent up demand for tablets that can run x86 windows applications. Especially in the corporate world, where a charger is readily at hand on every desk, and a 4 hour run time is not a death sentence. There are thousands of uses for this type of device.
Having acquired the x86 HP Slate 500 (yup, that's where the name slate belongs), running Windows 7, I can assure you it was barely usable for any practical purposes, either at home or for business. The x86 Surface can't help but be better.
With the surface pro's battery life at an estimated 4 hours. We can expect that to fail as well.
Well TFA (regardless of how badly the summary is written) IS about Surface (both models). So I'm a bit confused about the meaning of "fail as well".
The Surface tablet that is out is the RT version, The one that is coming is the full x86 compatible version.
Quoting TFA:
The Surface device currently on the market runs Windows RT, a version of Windows 8 designed for devices powered by ARM architecture, which dominates the mobility segment. While Windows RT looks exactly like Windows 8, it can’t run Windows programs built for x86 processors, limiting users to what they can download from the built-in Windows Store app hub.
And there is the problem. The Windows Store has very little to offer for the ARM version, and the market is small enough that there will be trouble attracting developers for several years.
Meanwhile the X86 version (Surface Pro) is going to priced fairly high, BUT has the attraction of running just about any software that will run on Windows 8 Desktop (which is just about any existing Windows packages). So in, IMHO, that tablet, the Surface Pro, will sell quite well, especially in the corporate world. I wouldn't count Microsoft out just yet.
The EU press release says that people can still sue for civil remedies, as these aren't preempted by the fine, and that the EU decision can be used as a proof of fact in court. I assume there will be something like class action suits now, or does Europe not have these?
And with other countries piling on, the goal here is clearly to bankrupt these companies.
Are governments inefficient? Yes. Does that mean the money disappears? No.
I have this bridge that I own, it crosses the Tarn valley. I would like to sell it to you. You could pay for it out of the fees you will earn by adding toll booths.
This is what governments are for, to protect the people with legislation (treaties in EU case) and uphold them. One of those being price fixing, collusion and anti-trust.
So, they upheld their treaties by punishing those that broke them. They did their job.
The problem is, that the people are not protected. All of this happened back in the 90's and anyone who bought a tube monitor or TV has already been impacted by this. But waiting 20 years to fine these guys (they are also being fined by the US, Korea, Japan), does nothing to put money back in your pocket. It will all go to government, and be squandered on something that doesn't offset any of the tax you pay.
Meanwhile, these companies are no longer making tubes, some are near bankruptcy anyway, and the others can pay this out of chump change.
Where were these concerned government officials when everyone was selling CRTs at virtually identical prices?
Slashdot Mirror
Most of everyone's tech is derivative. But somehow, it's only bad if the Jews do it?
I never meant to imply it was "bad" in any sense of the word.
I suspect something along similar lines. The borders are simply not that porous. Cover for large trucks roaming back roads is pretty scarce. I would be surprised if the engines are actually out of the country.
A lot easier and cheaper to do R&D with a working prototype in hand.
And it wouldn't be the first time Israel disappeared some foreign manufactured equipment to get it "off the books" only to come up with some derivative internal products later. In fact, they have concentrated on making major components for foreign purchased platforms for years, rather than building new platforms from scratch. Most of their tech is derivative work.
It seems just as likely, given Israel's apparent lack of concern over these thefts, that they know exactly where these engines are.
Well, even that probably wouldn't work in this case. Its a different situation.
Its a national park, where access is pretty difficult in most places, and you don't have a large local resident population in the park to clandestinely breed snakes.
Further, I suspect you could check hunters into the park, and out again, so you would know they entered with no snakes.
With a population estimated in tens of thousands, and a catch of only 272, the snake population is already out of control, and you might as well figure out how to deal with your new "indigenous species".
Historically, attempts to control or eradicate invasive populations intentionally or accidentally introduced to areas has met with only marginal success. Introducing predators of Cobras is probably out of the question, The mongoose being the most common predator, but is also a banned species.
A link is not the source code; it is more like an offer to provide source code later. One must do something more than provide a URL to satisfy section 3(a) of the GPLv2. For example, Debian handles it by having source packages on the same servers as the corresponding binary packages -- this satisfies Debian that the source and binary packages are on the same "medium customarily used for software interchange",
Wait, you can't have it both ways.
A link is the source code or it is not the source code, make up your mind.
If you install Debian from the net, or any other Distro, you generally do not install the source code. Most of the time it installs without it, unless you make a conscious effort to modify the default installation choices to include the source. This is true of every distro I'm aware of which supports net-based installation (as opposed to downloading an ISO that contains bote binary and source).
The distro installers (in this case) make use of nothing but links to sources on the internet. Its the same thing as these guys offering source via a link on the web page. That the link works is all that is required. It need not be on the same physical server. It just needs to be available via the internet, the "medium customarily used for software interchange", the same internet used for installation of the binary.
The violation here (if there is one_ seems to be charging 3.99, for something (an internet download) that costs them virtually nothing. If he is paying for his website out of pocket and providing source was the only purpose of this site, it might be reasonable. But if there were any other use of that site (advertising, help files), it would seem excessive.
When I see the word "strands", both in the linked story and the summary, I assume a terminal event. If the fish can get back in the water under its own power at will, it certainly does not amount to a stranding. Beached is more appropriate, but even it suggests something of an irreversible predicament.
Neither is exactly true, since there is no mention of fish deaths. The fish have the ability to get back in the water.
A poor choice of words to add sensationalism. Sort of akin to calling every human venture into the water a drowning.
Further, fish going ashore for other reasons is not that rare. Many fish spawn ashore including the Grunion. Dolphins chase fish ashore too. Which is interesting because two species are going ashore for two different reasons, one to escape, one to eat.
.
The manhattan project sites in particular are an important chance to say "this war happened. This was the price we paid to end it. Don't let it happen again."
So regardless of your first sentence, it is a guilt trip after all.
Don't let it happen again? Are you serious? Did you really say that?
Did the US have vote about whether Pearl Harbor should be bombed?
Did the US have a choice but to go to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor, other than immediate surrender of the western half of the US to Japan?
"Don't let it happen again" can just as well be used to justify preventive strikes on other countries, as well as any thing else.
Should we "Not let it happen again" by hitting North Korea, or Iran before they acquire launch capabilities? Should we have invaded
Afghanistan when we first became aware they were harboring terrorist training camps?
Or should we scrap the Army, Navy and Airforce completely, just to make sure it wont happen again?
The Japanese paid the price to end it, and they have the shrine at ground zero. That's where it belongs.
That someone like you, trying to put the best possible face on this thing, finishes up with the admonishing phrase "Don't let it happen again"
says to me that there is no way to avoid this becoming an anti-science, anti-military, anti-american, guilt trip theme park run by
history revisionists.
True, but the Smithsonian doesn't try to guilt trip visitors to the Enola Gay, because its one display with lots of other aircraft.
A park dedicated to the development of atomic bombs would almost certainly devolve to a perpetual guilt trip experience, like the German death camps,
the theme of which would most likely be to convey the whole science is evil, and big science is big evil thing, and gee-wiz look how evil we were.
The more I think about it, the less upside I see.
There is a difference between a National Park and a National Historic Park. The proposed "National Park" is a National Historic Park, about 3 notches below a National Park in terms of visitors, staff, and funding.
But perhaps National Monument status would be more appropriate. Somebody to mow the grass every other week, and pick up the trash daily.
For those who've never visited, a tour of the museums at Los Alamos (the town) is incredibly humbling and thought-provoking. Except perhaps for psychopaths, there is nothing celebratory about it. On the contrary, the atmosphere is deeply troubling and anxiety producing.
But you see, that is exactly what the debate will be about.
It was a war, an all out war. And the Bombs shortened that war. They were far from the biggest death tolls in the war.
So overwrought somberness might not be the best approach. All you do is guilt trip every visitor, and the science achievments and
the historical context is lost.
There might be differing opinions about better ways to present it.
But it all depends on the execution. As with any museum/park/etc. how you structure it sets the tone.
Well, it seems unlikely we could ever agree on the tone to be set.
Let alone how to present it. (see my post upthread about my annoyance with chirpy park service interpreters).
When you look at the death tolls, the fire bombings of both Germany and Japan cities killed way more people.
In March 1945, 334 B-29s took off to raid on the night of 9–10 March ("Operation Meetinghouse"), with 279 of them dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost. Approximately 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more immediate deaths than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But but, you spoiled the little Hate-America-First poster boys cleverly set up one liner.
Still one has to fear the pablum that would be spat by perky Park Service summer intern "interpreters".
I've seen my fair share of parks, and the drivel that flows is pretty annoying.
Ask them anything off script and they are at sea.
Megaupload certainly had legitimate uses, but piracy was a major, major use. That may not have been a legitimate reason to shut it down (and certainly wasn't justification for the way it was done), but I don't think anyone can argue that Megavideo, for example, didn't have much, much more pirated content than, say, Youtube or Vimeo.
Well, by all accounts the shutdown actually HURT box office sales. It was also reported here on Slashdot.
Maybe it was just nerd rage, refusing to go to the movies ever again!
Its just not necessary.
Buttons push. Tap a field, the keyborad pops up on screen, (unless it has a keyboard connected).
You might WANT to retool, but you don't HAVE to retool. It just works.
You've apparently never seen Win8 on a touch screen have you? Yet you feel competent to call others names?
So will you next month when the x86 wintel Surface is released.
Here's an idea, visit Microsoft.com someday.
Yeah, source code might be portable.
If you use their their compiler.
If you only use their development tools.
If you only use their programming language.
But the world is bigger than that.
Nope.
"For corporate users, doctors offices, plant floor, I think you will be surprised. There is more software written for x86 Wintel than all other platforms put together."
And how much of it is written to be aware of the new UI? And if you have to port your stuff to use that abortion of a GUI, why would you NOT go to an iThingy or Android? Last time I checked, most doctors, corporate users, coffee shop poseurs etc, had iSomethings, not Windows. Think TAM, not sales pitches when you develop your platform strategy or you are not going to sell very many.
-Charlie
You don't have to be aware of the new UI. Your user won't want that anyway, because it would require retraining.
That only works if you write in specific languages using specific compilers.
There is a boat load of software out there that does not conform, and many compilers don't have runtimes for ARM.
Further, the API calls are NOT all the same.
So don't believe all the advertising mumbo-jumbo.
I don't see this. Surface Pro falls between Surface RT and other tablets (for media consumption, emails, etc.) and laptops that can convert to tablets (for actual content creation, running "desktop" programs, etc.). The target market is quite small.
For home users, I agree with you.
For corporate users, doctors offices, plant floor, I think you will be surprised. There is more software written for x86 Wintel than all other platforms put together.
And people want to stop carting laptops to meetings. For my day job I develop for Windows customers. They ask me for iPad versions of everything (for free, mind you). People in the corporate world are moving to tablets, and they want to take their familiar CRM, manufacturing, Patient Care, scheduling, etc with them.
If the tablet is half way competent, I predict it will be a success. No iPad, no Android Tablet, but a success never the less.
Other than slashdotters crying the blues about windows 8 changing the start menu, I've yet to see a complaint about the slate tablets, other than the app store for it not being matured.
Maybe if you were searching for "Surface Tablets" instead of calling them "slate tablets" which refers to a historical product, you might find more articles.
But back on point, Windows 8 was made for tablets, and using it on a desktop computer, or laptop without a touch screen is slow and clumsy.
If and when the RT version gets some apps in the Windows Store, it might sell better.
But as soon as the Pro version is released it will sell quite well, I predict.
There is a great deal of pent up demand for tablets that can run x86 windows applications. Especially in the corporate world, where a charger is readily at hand on every desk, and a 4 hour run time is not a death sentence. There are thousands of uses for this type of device.
Having acquired the x86 HP Slate 500 (yup, that's where the name slate belongs), running Windows 7, I can assure you it was barely usable for any practical purposes, either at home or for business. The x86 Surface can't help but be better.
With the surface pro's battery life at an estimated 4 hours. We can expect that to fail as well.
Well TFA (regardless of how badly the summary is written) IS about Surface (both models). So I'm a bit confused about the meaning of "fail as well".
The Surface tablet that is out is the RT version, The one that is coming is the full x86 compatible version.
Quoting TFA:
The Surface device currently on the market runs Windows RT, a version of Windows 8 designed for devices powered by ARM architecture, which dominates the mobility segment. While Windows RT looks exactly like Windows 8, it can’t run Windows programs built for x86 processors, limiting users to what they can download from the built-in Windows Store app hub.
And there is the problem. The Windows Store has very little to offer for the ARM version, and the market is small enough that there will be trouble attracting developers for several years.
Meanwhile the X86 version (Surface Pro) is going to priced fairly high, BUT has the attraction of running just about any software that will run on Windows 8 Desktop (which is just about any existing Windows packages). So in, IMHO, that tablet, the Surface Pro, will sell quite well, especially in the corporate world. I wouldn't count Microsoft out just yet.
The EU press release says that people can still sue for civil remedies, as these aren't preempted by the fine, and that the EU decision can be used as a proof of fact in court. I assume there will be something like class action suits now, or does Europe not have these?
And with other countries piling on, the goal here is clearly to bankrupt these companies.
Are governments inefficient? Yes. Does that mean the money disappears? No.
I have this bridge that I own, it crosses the Tarn valley. I would like to sell it to you.
You could pay for it out of the fees you will earn by adding toll booths.
This is what governments are for, to protect the people with legislation (treaties in EU case) and uphold them. One of those being price fixing, collusion and anti-trust.
So, they upheld their treaties by punishing those that broke them. They did their job.
The problem is, that the people are not protected. All of this happened back in the 90's and anyone who bought a tube monitor or TV
has already been impacted by this. But waiting 20 years to fine these guys (they are also being fined by the US, Korea, Japan), does nothing
to put money back in your pocket. It will all go to government, and be squandered on something that doesn't offset any of the tax you pay.
Meanwhile, these companies are no longer making tubes, some are near bankruptcy anyway, and the others can pay this out of chump change.
Where were these concerned government officials when everyone was selling CRTs at virtually identical prices?