Doesn't anyone consider it facinating that the world is as we know it today because of one defining event: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and forced the US into WWII against Germany, Japan and Italy? (The world today: US is the leading economic and military power, Japan is kicking everyone's ass when it comes to quality manufacturing, Europe has had to create the European Union to compete successfully with the US and Japan, China and India are coming up fast and threatening all of the established players) Ever wonder how it might be different if they hadn't? Would Germany be the world's only superpower? China? God I wish I could get my slider machine working...
Unlimited numbers of distros, each which have some different list of compatible and incompatible apps, is NOT a strength.
Choice is good but there is a limit. One thing I hate about most Linux distros, they install 30 different programs that all do the same thing. Who needs 30 different text editors? I don't even want to try 30 different text editors. Give me one mainstream program to start out with and then let me go find the alternatives. That's right, make a choice for me. Don't load up the machine with hundreds of programs I know nothing about. Instead, make it easy for me to find them and read about them and then install them if I want to try em.
Yeah, I know...bitch bitch bitch, can't make everyone happy all the time.
Nuclear fuel comment...the Moon has far more Helium 3 than Earth. Helium 3 is an ideal fuel for a fusion reactor. That should mean a viable plan would be to develop solar powered technology for mining and refining on the Moon and then technology to refine the Helium 3 for a future fusion reactor for spacecraft. There's no know technological barriers for this and should be just a matter of time (20 years?). Plus, the fusion reactor could be used on Earth as well for power and so the Moon would have a very valuable export. Anyway, it's a possibility..
They were talking about base on the surface of the Moon. Building a station orbiting the Moon before you build a base on the Moon makes no sense. A Moon base will be expensive enough; however, resources from the Moon will reduce the cost to a managable level if they do it right. A station orbiting the Moon would be far more expensive (with current tech) than building a surface base (we would have to supply all of the materials for an orbiting station from Earth -- the cost of lifting all of that mass to the Moon would probably cost more than the station itself).
It was the 60's. And not pursuing the science behind the moon program was because of political short sightedness. We still have the same problem today. Just look at the US's response to global warming or our continued dependency on oil. Some things never change...
The 1960's moon program was a (relatively) quick and dirty, politically motivated response to the USSR's efforts. We need to do it a hell of a lot smarter than that this time around. The push to a permanent moon base has to have self sustainability as one of it's primary goals (we can't afford to supply a moon base from Earth and I for one would not want to depend on a politician's whim to send me the air I need to breath). Self sustainability is much harder than simply visiting the moon.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If the moon was developed as a jumping off point for Earth, exploration of the system would be much much cheaper than it is today (especially for the outer planets). That is because the Moon could build all of the space hardware and refine the fuel so we would not have to lift that mass out of the Earth's gravitational well. Plus, the Moon would be a much better location to train astronauts (lower gravity and easier access to no grav conditions). And, it would be a much cheaper source of some very expensive stuff on Earth, such as helium 3.
It is a shame that we've waited this long to even consider it.
Because the email is addressed to them they have to open it...like having to answer the phone when it's ringing even if your caller ID says the calling number is unpublished.
We're all driven by our compulsions...learn to compulse less and you'll be a lot happier.
First of all, Microsoft tried a subscription scheme back in 2001 and no one switched, mostly because it was more expensive than the current pricing schedules (Microsoft got greedy and was trying to lock in their ridiculously high profit margins to the end of time). Plus, to make a subscription model make sense, businesses would have had to update on Microsoft's schedule. That idea will never fly with a business.
It is a very expensive and time consuming process to update the system for businesses because they have to test and probably update lots of other programs as well as the system. Some of the programs you don't find in the consumer market and there is no guarantee that the vendor has an updated version that works with the latest system. If the business is using programs in that category, then they have to either wait on the vendor to create an update or they have to switch to another program. Switching programs can create even more problems. All in all, upgrading the system when there is no real reason to do so just isn't done. Forget Windows 2000, I know of businesses still running DOS for some of their programs simply because the function the program provides still works just fine.
Bottom line, the goal of the last few Windows upgrades has been more to generate hardware sales for PC vendors and cash flow for Microsoft than it has been to introduce real innovation and savvy businesses recognise that. Longhorn doesn't look to be any more than an enhanced DRM platform that will require faster hardware at this point and that is not likely to make it a compelling upgrade for the average business (nor for an informed consumer). Microsoft is stuck in a rut, in the sense that it looks like Longhorn will be "more of the same" from Microsoft, and that just won't cut it anymore.
The thing is, I think the extra $500 or so you pay for comparable Macintosh hardware is worth it for the system, cause it's that good (that feeling has kept Apple in business for many a year).
That said, if Linux worked nearly as well as Mac OS X, then look out Apple (and Windows)...
OK, I've been reading a lot of comments about this subject and it's time to add my own speculation from a layman's point of view (just couldn't wait, could ya:). The only way Apple can supplant Linux simply because they run on the same Intel chips is if Apple can convince PC users to buy new hardware from Apple instead of a new Windows machine or instead of converting from Windows to Linux on the old Intel hardware.
This means that:
1) Apple cannot compete on any of the existing Intel hardware (and that means there are a LOT of machines Apple cannot compete on).
2) All of the existing Apple hardware is destined for Linux or some other system, once Apple stops supporting them (granted, a few years out).
Therefore, this change means the new Mac OS Xi (lol love that new moniker) is only competing with Linux on new machines bought from Apple, assuming Linux will run on the new machines (probably will). This really means that Apple still has a large row to hoe, as they will still be competing with all of the same players but with less of a distinction.
IMHO, the REAL difference depends on the ease of developing applications that run under Windows, Linux and Mac OS X all at the same time. If it becomes absolutely trivial (to the point where it's no more effort so why not) to write once and compile for all systems simply because all systems now use very similar chip designs then we can have real competition. If not, then we end up with the same old thing, except we lose one hardware platform. Since there have been various BSD systems already running on Intel hardware, I suspect that it is not trivial and therefore nothing has really changed. Here's hoping I am wrong about that.
Sorry but the army of geeks employeed at most businesses are primarily maintaining Windows machines. They ain't there cause the company has a heart of gold...
All public computers (as well as friends computers) are suspect. Never use them for anything requiring user ID and password access myself. Along the same lines, all public wireless access points are suspect as well.
I've seen web pages with a checkbox allowing you to indicate that you are on a public computer, presumably to avoid caching personal information. That would not protect against a keylogger program, however.
For XP Home edition on Dell computer: No deep hibernation allowed (computer won't wake up), no Ethernet card power down allowed (always loses the connection and has to be restarted). Everything else seems to do ok. Monitor going to sleep is good (saves screen, saves heat, better screensaver than some silly graphic acrobatics and no wasting cpu cycles). Hard drive spin down is ok as long as it doesn't happen too fast (at least one hour of inactivity). Of course, running SETI or some other background community software means your computer can't sleep.
FYI, the statistics in the report do not include home computers.
Slashdot Mirror
AOL spins the report as good news because they claim a low rate of 0.54% zombie machines per million subscribers...yeah but...
They are basing that on 21.7 million total subscribers. I wonder what their rate would be if they only counted broadband subscribers?
Doesn't anyone consider it facinating that the world is as we know it today because of one defining event: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and forced the US into WWII against Germany, Japan and Italy? (The world today: US is the leading economic and military power, Japan is kicking everyone's ass when it comes to quality manufacturing, Europe has had to create the European Union to compete successfully with the US and Japan, China and India are coming up fast and threatening all of the established players) Ever wonder how it might be different if they hadn't? Would Germany be the world's only superpower? China? God I wish I could get my slider machine working...
Must be getting closer then, right? :) Kind of like infinity plus 1...
Unlimited numbers of distros, each which have some different list of compatible and incompatible apps, is NOT a strength.
Choice is good but there is a limit. One thing I hate about most Linux distros, they install 30 different programs that all do the same thing. Who needs 30 different text editors? I don't even want to try 30 different text editors. Give me one mainstream program to start out with and then let me go find the alternatives. That's right, make a choice for me. Don't load up the machine with hundreds of programs I know nothing about. Instead, make it easy for me to find them and read about them and then install them if I want to try em.
Yeah, I know...bitch bitch bitch, can't make everyone happy all the time.
Nuclear fuel comment...the Moon has far more Helium 3 than Earth. Helium 3 is an ideal fuel for a fusion reactor. That should mean a viable plan would be to develop solar powered technology for mining and refining on the Moon and then technology to refine the Helium 3 for a future fusion reactor for spacecraft. There's no know technological barriers for this and should be just a matter of time (20 years?). Plus, the fusion reactor could be used on Earth as well for power and so the Moon would have a very valuable export. Anyway, it's a possibility..
They were talking about base on the surface of the Moon. Building a station orbiting the Moon before you build a base on the Moon makes no sense. A Moon base will be expensive enough; however, resources from the Moon will reduce the cost to a managable level if they do it right. A station orbiting the Moon would be far more expensive (with current tech) than building a surface base (we would have to supply all of the materials for an orbiting station from Earth -- the cost of lifting all of that mass to the Moon would probably cost more than the station itself).
It was the 60's. And not pursuing the science behind the moon program was because of political short sightedness. We still have the same problem today. Just look at the US's response to global warming or our continued dependency on oil. Some things never change...
Unless they come up with a "retire to the Moon" incentive...
The 1960's moon program was a (relatively) quick and dirty, politically motivated response to the USSR's efforts. We need to do it a hell of a lot smarter than that this time around. The push to a permanent moon base has to have self sustainability as one of it's primary goals (we can't afford to supply a moon base from Earth and I for one would not want to depend on a politician's whim to send me the air I need to breath). Self sustainability is much harder than simply visiting the moon.
If the moon was developed as a jumping off point for Earth, exploration of the system would be much much cheaper than it is today (especially for the outer planets). That is because the Moon could build all of the space hardware and refine the fuel so we would not have to lift that mass out of the Earth's gravitational well. Plus, the Moon would be a much better location to train astronauts (lower gravity and easier access to no grav conditions). And, it would be a much cheaper source of some very expensive stuff on Earth, such as helium 3.
It is a shame that we've waited this long to even consider it.
Because the email is addressed to them they have to open it...like having to answer the phone when it's ringing even if your caller ID says the calling number is unpublished.
We're all driven by our compulsions...learn to compulse less and you'll be a lot happier.
First of all, Microsoft tried a subscription scheme back in 2001 and no one switched, mostly because it was more expensive than the current pricing schedules (Microsoft got greedy and was trying to lock in their ridiculously high profit margins to the end of time). Plus, to make a subscription model make sense, businesses would have had to update on Microsoft's schedule. That idea will never fly with a business.
It is a very expensive and time consuming process to update the system for businesses because they have to test and probably update lots of other programs as well as the system. Some of the programs you don't find in the consumer market and there is no guarantee that the vendor has an updated version that works with the latest system. If the business is using programs in that category, then they have to either wait on the vendor to create an update or they have to switch to another program. Switching programs can create even more problems. All in all, upgrading the system when there is no real reason to do so just isn't done. Forget Windows 2000, I know of businesses still running DOS for some of their programs simply because the function the program provides still works just fine.
Bottom line, the goal of the last few Windows upgrades has been more to generate hardware sales for PC vendors and cash flow for Microsoft than it has been to introduce real innovation and savvy businesses recognise that. Longhorn doesn't look to be any more than an enhanced DRM platform that will require faster hardware at this point and that is not likely to make it a compelling upgrade for the average business (nor for an informed consumer). Microsoft is stuck in a rut, in the sense that it looks like Longhorn will be "more of the same" from Microsoft, and that just won't cut it anymore.
The thing is, I think the extra $500 or so you pay for comparable Macintosh hardware is worth it for the system, cause it's that good (that feeling has kept Apple in business for many a year).
That said, if Linux worked nearly as well as Mac OS X, then look out Apple (and Windows)...
I always set mine on the wide, flat end.
OK, I've been reading a lot of comments about this subject and it's time to add my own speculation from a layman's point of view (just couldn't wait, could ya :). The only way Apple can supplant Linux simply because they run on the same Intel chips is if Apple can convince PC users to buy new hardware from Apple instead of a new Windows machine or instead of converting from Windows to Linux on the old Intel hardware.
This means that:
1) Apple cannot compete on any of the existing Intel hardware (and that means there are a LOT of machines Apple cannot compete on).
2) All of the existing Apple hardware is destined for Linux or some other system, once Apple stops supporting them (granted, a few years out).
Therefore, this change means the new Mac OS Xi (lol love that new moniker) is only competing with Linux on new machines bought from Apple, assuming Linux will run on the new machines (probably will). This really means that Apple still has a large row to hoe, as they will still be competing with all of the same players but with less of a distinction.
IMHO, the REAL difference depends on the ease of developing applications that run under Windows, Linux and Mac OS X all at the same time. If it becomes absolutely trivial (to the point where it's no more effort so why not) to write once and compile for all systems simply because all systems now use very similar chip designs then we can have real competition. If not, then we end up with the same old thing, except we lose one hardware platform. Since there have been various BSD systems already running on Intel hardware, I suspect that it is not trivial and therefore nothing has really changed. Here's hoping I am wrong about that.
Sorry but the army of geeks employeed at most businesses are primarily maintaining Windows machines. They ain't there cause the company has a heart of gold...
Pay as in money? Or pay as in time? After all, time is money...
In 20 year's time, computers will be running Human v2.3.
As long as we have a free (as in speech) and open Internet.
Although I still consider slashdot to be a reputable news site[...]
Man, that's rich. What are you, a comedian?
Does that only apply to spaceships from Earth or does it include alien spacecraft?
Not to mention fat from eating all those cakes...
Or a hardware keylogger hidden deep in the machine...
All public computers (as well as friends computers) are suspect. Never use them for anything requiring user ID and password access myself. Along the same lines, all public wireless access points are suspect as well.
I've seen web pages with a checkbox allowing you to indicate that you are on a public computer, presumably to avoid caching personal information. That would not protect against a keylogger program, however.
For XP Home edition on Dell computer: No deep hibernation allowed (computer won't wake up), no Ethernet card power down allowed (always loses the connection and has to be restarted). Everything else seems to do ok. Monitor going to sleep is good (saves screen, saves heat, better screensaver than some silly graphic acrobatics and no wasting cpu cycles). Hard drive spin down is ok as long as it doesn't happen too fast (at least one hour of inactivity). Of course, running SETI or some other background community software means your computer can't sleep.
FYI, the statistics in the report do not include home computers.