What a beautifully telling Intel quote that is, "You can get a 40 to 50 percent increase in clock speed with no further improvements". Just keep ramping it up boys.
The Concorde was a complete and total economic failure because flying fast wasn't worth enough money to enough people.
Bang on, with emphasis on the "was". When Concorde began service, it was too early for that market - the world moves much faster today than it did in the 70s. Unfortunately, the old design plane has too many problems to keep in service, and besides, many people just want speed rather than extravagance (which wasn't up to some current luxury standards anyway). Oh, and they should have charged more.
Or to put it another way, we have to wait for AI to catch up. It'll get there. It's probably possible to code a machine to put together aesthetically pleasing tunes already. Sort of an audio version of AARON the painting robot.
I find it interesting when people talk about computers like that. It gets into the AI arena, but they always stop at say 2050 when computers have finally reached the capacity of the human brain. I find it more fascinating to ponder what happens after that, when they have surpassed us.
Re:Failure Reborn
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There is no point.
2 hours sitting on a plane vs 23 hours sitting on a plane. That's the point. That's worth a lot of money to some people, including myself
What part of that don't you understand?
Re:Failure Reborn
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I disagree. Flying halfway around the world is a PITA, even at the fast-ish speeds the current crop of jet-liners can fly at.
Go to any international airport and take a look at the travellers who have spent 12 hours on a flight, with 8 more ahead of them after their stopover.
Trust me on this - if they have the money, people will pay for this high-speed service. Even if it means an "economy" seat for the price of business class, it's worth it to shave 15 hours off your travel time.
I would look very seriously at SuSE in this situation. They have a good range of both Desktop and Enterprise versions, and Linux being Linux, any tricky/custom stuff you have setup should be easy to move to the new distro. I think their product is slicker than RedHat, in both setup and desktop.
I've been a happy SuSE customer previously, but moved systems to RedHat to use a particular vendor's application environment/server. Since the RedHat announcement, this vendor now supports SuSE - and we will be shifting back early next year.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. I simply didn't read the article with the presumptions that you read it with. Try reading it without "knowing" there is ice under there somewhere.
There was nothing in the referenced article to suggest that water is there - note the wording, "If there is water at the lunar poles...". So to keep an open mind, there may or may not be, but we just don't know. You however are pulling a Dubya, and saying it's there but we can't find it, and offer no proof to back it up. As they say, you can't prove a negative, so I can't prove it's not there, and obviously you must be right...
So, I quote your post, "...but the recent discovery of 100,000,000 tons of water near the lunar South Pole..." You state this as fact, so where are your references to the discovery of vast reserves of H2O on the Moon?
Lawyers will argue that, in order to use the copyrighted firmware in the camera, you must be licensed to do so.
Just like you need a license to read a copyrighted book. How they can use the above argument is beyond me.
Nobody signs an "EULA" before buying one of these cameras, so any argument about its usage is just a bunch of babies whining because their business model had a flaw it - one that the market has found and used to its advantage. And I think it's important to keep in mind is that people are buying a camera - not licensing any software. If this "unauthorised use" bollocks is deemed enforcable, how long before GM can sue you if you fix your car yourself?
Note also that it's their customers doing this - not their competitors, who I would expect would have a much more profitable use for it.
For less expereienced users, I'd say go SuSE. Pay a few dollars and get a slick easy to use product.
For folks with more compiles under their belt and who don't mind getting dirty hands, Debian is pretty sweet, and Gentoo is a very cool option as well.
Exactly. Take isopropal alcohol for example - good way to clean mice, or ingredient in speed manufacture? Both are uses, but ban the "bad" use, not the product.
why do you think you have the god given right to circumvent the copyright protection somebody places on their work?
Because I can. I'm not going to limit myself to some arbitrary level of stupidity just because you say it's "protected". Obviously if I can crack it, then it's not done well enough, is it? If it's that important, it shouldn't be on the 'net, and copies should be tracable to the original purchaser.
If someone puts a digital copy of something out into the world, it's fair game. Sorry, but that's life - if I'm not acquiring a copy illegally, I'll do what I want with it thanks. If I figure out a decryption scheme, yay for me, and what difference is it to you? I wasn't going to pay for what ever it was so you didn't lose a sale. You still have the original, it's not like I broke into a safe and stole your painting. Jeez, if you want to stop people using infomormation that you are selling or providing online, either get better protection or provide your customers with the tools to access it without resorting to a DIY approach.
It's not a problem. You're donating the expense of running a CPU (or many CPUs) - More electricity == more tax break, and if it's 100% used for that you might get depreciation back too. Fiar is tax breaks proportional to costs, not "per person".
Uh, yeh, that's what it means outside the US. But the original post said, "When they did their first
demo in Europe going on about 'Boinking in FoxPro'
The audience went slackjawed." Which suggests use of the term in the US does not imply sex. But if not that, then what?
I was thinking about the IE is default/popular/everywhere argument, and the thought occurs... In a work environment, why do admins leave it accessable on the machines at all? I run Mozilla on our network, and although the odd page fails ("Currently you are using a browser that does not support the features of the Land Rover New Zealand website."... bite me - I'll buy an X5 instead) we've got a solution that doesn't suck and won't trash the network due to a "malicously constructed webpage". I assume the folks running these MS-only shops are MSCEs, but even so, when a product has 30+ KNOWN VULNERABILITIES, it's got to be incompetence to keep running it!
I wondered about that too. Also, half of the apps out there depend on its HTML renderer, so no IE means broken applications. I don't like the way this going.
We all know Micrsoft is Goliath, but maybe Eolas' other name is David.
Slashdot Mirror
What a beautifully telling Intel quote that is, "You can get a 40 to 50 percent increase in clock speed with no further improvements". Just keep ramping it up boys.
The Concorde was a complete and total economic failure because flying fast wasn't worth enough money to enough people.
Bang on, with emphasis on the "was". When Concorde began service, it was too early for that market - the world moves much faster today than it did in the 70s. Unfortunately, the old design plane has too many problems to keep in service, and besides, many people just want speed rather than extravagance (which wasn't up to some current luxury standards anyway). Oh, and they should have charged more.
Or to put it another way, we have to wait for AI to catch up. It'll get there. It's probably possible to code a machine to put together aesthetically pleasing tunes already. Sort of an audio version of AARON the painting robot.
I find it interesting when people talk about computers like that. It gets into the AI arena, but they always stop at say 2050 when computers have finally reached the capacity of the human brain. I find it more fascinating to ponder what happens after that, when they have surpassed us.
There is no point.
2 hours sitting on a plane vs 23 hours sitting on a plane. That's the point. That's worth a lot of money to some people, including myself
What part of that don't you understand?
I disagree. Flying halfway around the world is a PITA, even at the fast-ish speeds the current crop of jet-liners can fly at.
Go to any international airport and take a look at the travellers who have spent 12 hours on a flight, with 8 more ahead of them after their stopover.
Trust me on this - if they have the money, people will pay for this high-speed service. Even if it means an "economy" seat for the price of business class, it's worth it to shave 15 hours off your travel time.
Seems to be the way for the whole EU... So tell me why the currency is so strong?
They don't give a rats ass anyway. Even if they don't win elections, they still get funding/bribes/kickbacks/etc for the next one.
I would look very seriously at SuSE in this situation. They have a good range of both Desktop and Enterprise versions, and Linux being Linux, any tricky/custom stuff you have setup should be easy to move to the new distro. I think their product is slicker than RedHat, in both setup and desktop.
I've been a happy SuSE customer previously, but moved systems to RedHat to use a particular vendor's application environment/server. Since the RedHat announcement, this vendor now supports SuSE - and we will be shifting back early next year.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. I simply didn't read the article with the presumptions that you read it with. Try reading it without "knowing" there is ice under there somewhere.
There was nothing in the referenced article to suggest that water is there - note the wording, " If there is water at the lunar poles...". So to keep an open mind, there may or may not be, but we just don't know. You however are pulling a Dubya, and saying it's there but we can't find it, and offer no proof to back it up. As they say, you can't prove a negative, so I can't prove it's not there, and obviously you must be right...
So, I quote your post, "...but the recent discovery of 100,000,000 tons of water near the lunar South Pole..." You state this as fact, so where are your references to the discovery of vast reserves of H2O on the Moon?
Lawyers will argue that, in order to use the copyrighted firmware in the camera, you must be licensed to do so.
Just like you need a license to read a copyrighted book. How they can use the above argument is beyond me.
Nobody signs an "EULA" before buying one of these cameras, so any argument about its usage is just a bunch of babies whining because their business model had a flaw it - one that the market has found and used to its advantage. And I think it's important to keep in mind is that people are buying a camera - not licensing any software. If this "unauthorised use" bollocks is deemed enforcable, how long before GM can sue you if you fix your car yourself?
Note also that it's their customers doing this - not their competitors, who I would expect would have a much more profitable use for it.
For less expereienced users, I'd say go SuSE. Pay a few dollars and get a slick easy to use product.
For folks with more compiles under their belt and who don't mind getting dirty hands, Debian is pretty sweet, and Gentoo is a very cool option as well.
Not according to this article dated 12 Nov 2003: http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/031112190119.o85meb 5z.html
Hasn't Novell had this functionality for years?
I don't think you'll have to worry about Global Warming - millions of mulit-KW ExaHertz PCs around the planet should take care of that just fine.
Now where are the numbers to back it up?
Take one in the ass you anal freak. This is Slashdot, and typos are both expected and assured.
Exactly. Take isopropal alcohol for example - good way to clean mice, or ingredient in speed manufacture? Both are uses, but ban the "bad" use, not the product.
why do you think you have the god given right to circumvent the copyright protection somebody places on their work?
Because I can. I'm not going to limit myself to some arbitrary level of stupidity just because you say it's "protected". Obviously if I can crack it, then it's not done well enough, is it? If it's that important, it shouldn't be on the 'net, and copies should be tracable to the original purchaser.
If someone puts a digital copy of something out into the world, it's fair game. Sorry, but that's life - if I'm not acquiring a copy illegally, I'll do what I want with it thanks. If I figure out a decryption scheme, yay for me, and what difference is it to you? I wasn't going to pay for what ever it was so you didn't lose a sale. You still have the original, it's not like I broke into a safe and stole your painting. Jeez, if you want to stop people using infomormation that you are selling or providing online, either get better protection or provide your customers with the tools to access it without resorting to a DIY approach.
And here's your list of valid uses...
It's not a problem. You're donating the expense of running a CPU (or many CPUs) - More electricity == more tax break, and if it's 100% used for that you might get depreciation back too. Fiar is tax breaks proportional to costs, not "per person".
Hmmm. That could certainly cause some confusion...
Uh, yeh, that's what it means outside the US. But the original post said, "When they did their first demo in Europe going on about 'Boinking in FoxPro' The audience went slackjawed." Which suggests use of the term in the US does not imply sex. But if not that, then what?
Intelligent life, yes. Social life, probably not.
OK, so what DOES it mean inside the US?
I was thinking about the IE is default/popular/everywhere argument, and the thought occurs... In a work environment, why do admins leave it accessable on the machines at all? I run Mozilla on our network, and although the odd page fails ("Currently you are using a browser that does not support the features of the Land Rover New Zealand website."... bite me - I'll buy an X5 instead) we've got a solution that doesn't suck and won't trash the network due to a "malicously constructed webpage". I assume the folks running these MS-only shops are MSCEs, but even so, when a product has 30+ KNOWN VULNERABILITIES, it's got to be incompetence to keep running it!
I wondered about that too. Also, half of the apps out there depend on its HTML renderer, so no IE means broken applications. I don't like the way this going.
We all know Micrsoft is Goliath, but maybe Eolas' other name is David.