Thats now. What about 20 years from now then other nations have their own subs and can destroy NORAD, Washington, et al with only 5 minutes warning?
Thats when it might be useful to have orbital weapons. And hopefully whatever R&D goes into orbital offensive weapons will also overlap with ABM systems.
Realize that it takes time to develop something radically new like orbital weapons, wich is why the USAF would like to start now before we begin to fall behind.
And you don't think the USA is rotting away from the inside as well?
But thats beside the point. The fact remains that, internal-rotting asside, Rome was not prepared to defend themselves. I'm not a history buff, but I am sure there are probably better examples... Rome is just the most famous.
But of this I am sure: "Keep your guard up or be conquered" is clearly a case of "Survival of the fittest."
Nay, the question is "How should China feel about this?"
And the answer is: envious
Enemies are always demonized, because it's ok to kill an enemy.
Enemies are demonized because they need to be fought.
As for it being ok to kill them, my personal philosophy is that it is only ok to kill someone if they started trying to kill you first.
And I think most military men would agree on this point. Nobody likes war, but you have to keep your guard up. If you don't, well... even Rome fell to barbarians in the end.
Because, unfortunately Jefferson's "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies as much to matters of war as internal politics.
Also, space based weaponry works pretty good as a deterent. Once places like China and Korea start getting more WMD weapons we'll need something else to keep them from rattling their sabers.
> So does a man standing next to, you holding a gun to your head, saying "INDENT THOSE BLOCKS!".
Certainly, but somehow Python doesn't make me feel quite as nervous.
Besides, there are too many availeability and cost issues with men-standing-next-to-you-holding-gun-to-your-head, whereas Python is 100% free, which I've found to be much more convenient.
Nah, you don't want to appear uncaring || unmotivated.
Whatever you do end up saying, make CERTAIN you are pleasant and calm about it. As the submitter said, you don't want to sound like you are whinning || complaining.
Pure bollocks. NeXTSTEP for x86 existed when Windows 3.1 existed - and looked and ran better.
That may have been true then, but it is hardly relevant now. I was comparing OS X to WinXP.
>>Windows XP would look elegant by comparison >Flamebait.
That is only a partial quote of what I said, but call it whatever you like, its my opinion and I think its pretty solid conclusion based on the facts I was alluding to.
Now wrt recompiling commercial software, I think this guy explains it best. (mods: mod him insightful)
>>You OSX-for-x86 folks are so naive, it ceased to be funny a long time ago. >Flamebait
Yeah, so? It may be inflamatory, but I'd welcome a response that shows why it ain't so. You, sir, seem informed and educated enough, but you're making the assumption that past *STEP experiences on an x86 platform are 100% relevant to OSX-on-x86.
You make some interesting points, but let me respond to a few that I think are false:
Your protestations that a huge amount of work would have to be done to port everything over to x86 simply betray that you haven't written code to compile cleanly on multiple systems.
Actually, I personally *have* written code that compiles cleanly on multiple systems. It is the people who make commercial Apple software that presumably *have not* written portable code.
> All the applications that Apple depends on were originally written for the real computer market -- MS Office, Adobe, etc, and ported only as a way of squeezing a few more sales out of them.
Granted, but you are ignoring the fact that the original code written for x86 does not use Cocoa or whatever other GUI/API's OSX for x86 would offer.
Now suppose it would take 6 months to port something like MS Office or Photoshop to OSX-on-x86.
Even ignoring the obvious conflicts of interest, do you think companies like Microsoft and Adobe are willing to spend time, money, and effort to re(design,compile,test,market) their products when Windows is the de facto x86 standard? Hell no.
Here's what I've gotten so far from doing a "view source" while the page is loading. Not sure if it's the whole article, but it's something:
Sun has offered a frank response to the open letter from Eric S, Raymond, President, Open Source Initiative, in which he called on Sun to make its Java platform Open Source and described the company's Open Source strategy as 'spotty' and 'confused'.
'I'd say this is 100 per cent rant,' Sun's Chief Technology Evangelist, Simon Phipps told us. 'His simplistic accusations don't hold water... If this is the way that Open Source treats its friends, I'd hate to see how it treats its enemies.'
Raymond's first line of attack was to dispute whether CEO Scott McNealy's claim that 'the open-source model is our friend,' has any substance when at the same time Sun is filling the coffers of Linux litigator SCO through licensing deals and still keeps Java under 'tight control'.
'It's pretty difficult to respond to this. He's so out of touch,' said Phipps. 'To even begin one must first address the error in his world view: He has taken quotes given by Scott McNealy to analysts and attacked them as if they were spoken to the Open Source community.
(I was a bit leary of running this story initially, but have been able to confirm that it is legitimate through sources at Java.net - Ed.)
Mac OS X for x86 would suck. Unless they put a lot of money into driver support or emulation of Win32 drivers, which is risky and inelegant.
The reason why OSX "just works" on Apple computers is because Apple has complete control over the hardware.
The x86 world is so heterogeneous that if an OSX for x86 was released, it would have so many compatibility problems that Windows XP would look elegant by comparison.
And before you say "If Linux can run well on the desktop OSX should be able to as well", the answer is NO, Linux does not work well as a desktop platform yet precisely because of all the unsupported hardware and software.
And before you say "OSX has a fairly large number of commercial software availeable that could give it an edge over Linux as an alternative x86 desktop", the answer is NO, all that software would have to be redesigned, recompiled and retested for x86 which would take a very LONG time.
You OSX-for-x86 folks are so naive, it ceased to be funny a long time ago.
Apple's current business model of making their own hardware _AND_ software is working very well. It is the only way they can stay alive in a Redmond dominated world, and still compete with free (libre) alternatives like Linux.
From TFA: "NTT will also continue its research and development of a writable media and drive configuration so that the Info-MICA storage method can be used for re-writable applications."
This I don't understand. How can it be readable if it is uncopyable?
Re:Pharmaceutical Industry?
on
Cyberchondria
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Don't forget the extremely vague and universal symptoms listed in the advertisements
And thats not even my favorite part... It's crazy how most of those ads show 'happy images' for like 60 seconds while listing off the potential side effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats now. What about 20 years from now then other nations have their own subs and can destroy NORAD, Washington, et al with only 5 minutes warning?
Thats when it might be useful to have orbital weapons. And hopefully whatever R&D goes into orbital offensive weapons will also overlap with ABM systems.
Realize that it takes time to develop something radically new like orbital weapons, wich is why the USAF would like to start now before we begin to fall behind.
No, they would have to include source or information for all the services they are running.
Most of the exploits to Linux-based systems happen at the application level rather than kernel.
And you don't think the USA is rotting away from the inside as well?
But thats beside the point. The fact remains that, internal-rotting asside, Rome was not prepared to defend themselves. I'm not a history buff, but I am sure there are probably better examples... Rome is just the most famous.
But of this I am sure: "Keep your guard up or be conquered" is clearly a case of "Survival of the fittest."
> Unless, of course, if you are user 1000000. Who will be that lucky bastard!?
Um.... Regis Philbin?
w00t, I got 20669.. funny stuff
So why should China view this differently?
Nay, the question is "How should China feel about this?"
And the answer is: envious
Enemies are always demonized, because it's ok to kill an enemy.
Enemies are demonized because they need to be fought.
As for it being ok to kill them, my personal philosophy is that it is only ok to kill someone if they started trying to kill you first.
And I think most military men would agree on this point. Nobody likes war, but you have to keep your guard up. If you don't, well... even Rome fell to barbarians in the end.
> a toy that no self-respecting geek can go without
Apparently I am not very self-respecting!
If China put some weapons into space it would be seen as a threat by the USA and probably most of NATO as well.
As for "Humane", I believe that is missing from China's lexicon, not ours.
Well then I guess I am a dumbass =\
Because, unfortunately Jefferson's "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" applies as much to matters of war as internal politics.
Also, space based weaponry works pretty good as a deterent. Once places like China and Korea start getting more WMD weapons we'll need something else to keep them from rattling their sabers.
Not many people do, yet not being prepared to defend yourself would be foolish.
Yes, it is meant for war.
So what?
After watching it, can any of you audiophiles pick out which hampster is which melody/rythm ?
That would be kinda cool if you could.
> You mean implied oral consent?
Is that naughtier?
>> Python enforces clarity
,
> So does a man standing next to, you holding a gun to your head, saying "INDENT THOSE BLOCKS!".
Certainly, but somehow Python doesn't make me feel quite as nervous.
Besides, there are too many availeability and cost issues with men-standing-next-to-you-holding-gun-to-your-head
whereas Python is 100% free, which I've found to be much more convenient.
Nah, you don't want to appear uncaring || unmotivated.
Whatever you do end up saying, make CERTAIN you are pleasant and calm about it. As the submitter said, you don't want to sound like you are whinning || complaining.
Pure bollocks. NeXTSTEP for x86 existed when Windows 3.1 existed - and looked and ran better.
That may have been true then, but it is hardly relevant now. I was comparing OS X to WinXP.
>>Windows XP would look elegant by comparison
>Flamebait.
That is only a partial quote of what I said, but call it whatever you like, its my opinion and I think its pretty solid conclusion based on the facts I was alluding to.
Now wrt recompiling commercial software, I think this guy explains it best. (mods: mod him insightful)
>>You OSX-for-x86 folks are so naive, it ceased to be funny a long time ago.
>Flamebait
Yeah, so? It may be inflamatory, but I'd welcome a response that shows why it ain't so. You, sir, seem informed and educated enough, but you're making the assumption that past *STEP experiences on an x86 platform are 100% relevant to OSX-on-x86.
I'm afraid that's not the case.
Ah yes, you've said everything I was thinking but just didn't have the time/inclination to articulate.
+5 Insightful should go to you, my post was just venting.
You make some interesting points, but let me respond to a few that I think are false:
Your protestations that a huge amount of work would have to be done to port everything over to x86 simply betray that you haven't written code to compile cleanly on multiple systems.
Actually, I personally *have* written code that compiles cleanly on multiple systems. It is the people who make commercial Apple software that presumably *have not* written portable code.
> All the applications that Apple depends on were originally written for the real computer market -- MS Office, Adobe, etc, and ported only as a way of squeezing a few more sales out of them.
Granted, but you are ignoring the fact that the original code written for x86 does not use Cocoa or whatever other GUI/API's OSX for x86 would offer.
Now suppose it would take 6 months to port something like MS Office or Photoshop to OSX-on-x86.
Even ignoring the obvious conflicts of interest, do you think companies like Microsoft and Adobe are willing to spend time, money, and effort to re(design,compile,test,market) their products when Windows is the de facto x86 standard? Hell no.
Here's what I've gotten so far from doing a "view source" while the page is loading. Not sure if it's the whole article, but it's something:
Sun has offered a frank response to the open letter from Eric S, Raymond, President, Open Source Initiative, in which he called on Sun to make its Java platform Open Source and described the company's Open Source strategy as 'spotty' and 'confused'.
'I'd say this is 100 per cent rant,' Sun's Chief Technology Evangelist, Simon Phipps told us. 'His simplistic accusations don't hold water... If this is the way that Open Source treats its friends, I'd hate to see how it treats its enemies.'
Raymond's first line of attack was to dispute whether CEO Scott McNealy's claim that 'the open-source model is our friend,' has any substance when at the same time Sun is filling the coffers of Linux litigator SCO through licensing deals and still keeps Java under 'tight control'.
'It's pretty difficult to respond to this. He's so out of touch,' said Phipps. 'To even begin one must first address the error in his world view: He has taken quotes given by Scott McNealy to analysts and attacked them as if they were spoken to the Open Source community.
(I was a bit leary of running this story initially, but have been able to confirm that it is legitimate through sources at Java.net - Ed.)
Mac OS X for x86 would suck. Unless they put a lot of money into driver support or emulation of Win32 drivers, which is risky and inelegant.
The reason why OSX "just works" on Apple computers is because Apple has complete control over the hardware.
The x86 world is so heterogeneous that if an OSX for x86 was released, it would have so many compatibility problems that Windows XP would look elegant by comparison.
And before you say "If Linux can run well on the desktop OSX should be able to as well", the answer is NO, Linux does not work well as a desktop platform yet precisely because of all the unsupported hardware and software.
And before you say "OSX has a fairly large number of commercial software availeable that could give it an edge over Linux as an alternative x86 desktop", the answer is NO, all that software would have to be redesigned, recompiled and retested for x86 which would take a very LONG time.
You OSX-for-x86 folks are so naive, it ceased to be funny a long time ago.
Apple's current business model of making their own hardware _AND_ software is working very well. It is the only way they can stay alive in a Redmond dominated world, and still compete with free (libre) alternatives like Linux.
Too much work, especially for those of us who don't play games for hours on end and tend to enter/exit erratically.
So its no different than a CD or DVD ROM ?
I'm sure recorders of some sort or another will be released if the format ever becomes popular, ala CDR and DVDR's.
From TFA: "NTT will also continue its research and development of a writable media and drive configuration so that the Info-MICA storage method can be used for re-writable applications."
So yes, it is still in the ROM stage.
This I don't understand. How can it be readable if it is uncopyable?
Don't forget the extremely vague and universal symptoms listed in the advertisements
And thats not even my favorite part... It's crazy how most of those ads show 'happy images' for like 60 seconds while listing off the potential side effects.