Third party add on and service industry guy versus primary product that people actually want - it's no contest IMHO. I'm not knocking McAfee, just your comparison. Apples to Aardvarks.
Funny how you've replied to a statement suggesting someone get over themselves with "Get over yourself". While some people have to be handled carefully because they consider themselves as some sort of 21st century royalty there is no reason to respect them for the extra effort they demand. Being excellent at X doesn't mean you should not be disliked when you lord over people that are excellent for Y.
Go to a scientific or technical conference on just about anything and you'll meet people who are "more important" than RMS or a movie star yet act like reasonable human beings. We don't need blind hero worship of our peers. We need to consider and respect their views on merit instead of licking at their feet.
However with all that said I suspect RMS is describing an ideal instead of a mandatory minimum condition, so we are probably arguing about whether to put up with an inflexible strawman or not. We're probably getting a skewed view because rants and exaggeration run a mile before the truth can get it's boots on.
Yeah, and meanwhile we're still waiting for Richard Stallman to answer questions we asked February 26th [slashdot.org].
Just read one of his old interviews and you'll get exactly the same content that can be expected here. He "sticks to his guns" is the polite way to put it - the questions won't matter because the "answer" will be whatever he is pushing this year with the same wording as on other occasions.
Very wrong - MS Exchange is a mail server plus a LOT of other things.
Early on (eg. before the 2003 version) the mail server and database to hold email were IMHO the main functions of the collection. Both were IMHO far below the usual Microsoft release quality and an utter joke but obviously some work went on for the 2003 version.
If you're using exchange and outlook just for email you utterly fail at IT
Or your users have not shown much interest in the calendar functions etc.
Zimbra, google whatever or even just plain old sendmail can replace MS Exchange depending on what subset of the features the users are actually using. If they are using 100% of the features in MS Exchange then it's a good fit and there is no point in exchanging it for something else, but some places only use a tiny fraction of what is in there and can go with something else.
My guess is that if we helped them along, they could be ready within 3-4 years
You may be right. The synroc I saw in 1988 was effectively identical to the finished product used in real nuclear waste management at an industrial scale for the first time a couple of years ago. The problem in the time between was getting funding for testing - which was taken as implying that existing methods of waste management (eg. keep stuff in pools of water indefinitely) were not perfect. Similarly you are writing about something small which is not very different from existing examples so may not take long. Apart from the chance to get reactors built in under a decade it also finally implements the main lesson from TMI - a small reactor for safety reasons. The sad thing is these new designs suffer from the same problem as that which slowed down synroc - some people are trying to pretend that 1970s dinosaur reactors are perfect and they don't want to draw attention to anything that may be better.
grant money to build thorium at GA or mPower
That would be a bad idea and just a way to burn money unless they bring in some existing expertise due to the differences. A university or similar with the people who have already been working on such technology associated with GA, mPower or whoever is a different story. There's no point giving money to develop a new technology to the same people that squashed it last time - they have no real incentive to succeed and they do have an incentive for it to fail since it would compete with their existing products.
as there are no Roman records (records common and abundant at the time)
Unfortunately not abundant enough to even get a decent idea of what Julius Caesar got up to - we've got to rely on the unashamedly biased view of Po from many years later for most of that. The reason the Pompeii excavation is such an enormous deal is because it's uncovered a lot of things we don't have records of.
The reality turned out to be that any religious figures that challenged the authority of the state in any way got sent to the gulags. From the west it looked like all of them so we thought it was state mandated atheism. Stalin kept some of the Church in place but completely under his thumb, with a lot of blood spilled to do it.
Nice of you to chime in to "correct" me, but it's may be worth looking at a bit of the history of nuclear power plants first before going on about weird stuff like "approval time". There are many physical reasons why construction of large projects such as these take a very long time even given a design, funding and a decision to go ahead - close to ten years for a thermal power station of any kind. Also you seem to have missed the point that we do not have any generation four reactors actually built so the first few are going to give us some ideas about how to make some improvements. I get that a software perspective gives the idea that you can just go ahead and sort out the design flaws later but physical engineering projects rarely have that sort of flexability. The idea is generally to make the mistakes in a prototype instead of building a huge number of lemons (or your suggestion of committing to a long series of possible lemons before the first one has been built).
And the file in the firmware which is being modified controls all of that? Really? Are you sure? I'm sorry but I really do not see this as a big deal. It not as if things are being done blind. However I've certainly done some physical things to a vehicle that changed braking behaviour depending on what road conditions I expected it to face in the next few years.
We need a bit more R&D before we get a reactor that worth mass producing. Why plan to build 100 of design X over thirty years when design Y developed only five years later shows far more promise before the first of design X is even operating? Then there's the monoculture problem that hit French reactors a couple of times where they all had to be shut down at once to fix design faults, so some sort of middle ground makes sense. Of course nuclear lobby groups killed off civilian nuclear R&D because it was a treat to their investment in existing designs and the threat of a different fuel shortening the commercial life of their current plants (a shift to thorium and new plants running it had the potential to prevent the old plants competing and the entrenched nuclear lobby didn't like that). Maybe in a few years we can buy reactors from India where they still carry out civilian nuclear R&D and do not have that paticular political roadblock. In the meantime startups from former military technology doing an end run around the entrenched nuclear lobby (or enforcing laws against bribery) are what I see as the only hopes in that area.
We don't look in a crystal ball and say "this will last 40 years". We look at expected modes of failure and estimate operational conditions, do a bit of statistics and then have some confidence that it will last 40 years. Then reality asserts itself. Years later people can come along and know the operational conditions instead of estimating them, look at expected modes of failure, examine parts prone to those failures, do a bit of statistics and then have some confidence that it will last another X years. It goes under various names and "remaining life calculation" is one of them. I used to do that for a living, oddly enough using some techniques taught to me by some nuclear guys (for remaining life estimates of high temperature, high pressure pipework), until using a lot of computers for that sort of stuff shifted me into the field of just using lots of computers in general.
Anyway, my point is that an expected design life is not hard and fast. If actual work is put in you can get a better estimate later. If blind hope is all you have then you are better off sticking to the original estimate - but these nuclear guys are depending on non-destructive testing and not blind hope.
Yes we know that email is just a small neglected part of it even if the guy that made the mistake of closing the deal did not. Some people just want an email system and they get sold MS Exchange. While the mail transfer agent and various other email aspects in the MS Exchange collection are not ideal they are there and people do use them. Various tricks and third party additions can be used to make it work in such an environment but the best choice IMHO is to take the advice of the name and exchange it for something else.
In larger operations where email is only the icing on the cake as to why MS Exchange is there then it is a totally different story. However, many of those portions have not progressed much since 2003 and many of them were utter crap before that. People had a good reason to upgrade a decade ago but not much reason since.
There's some pilots blogs about this that mention an alternative airport that it flew over almost immediately after the first turn. Despite all the noise at this point you could probably still find such things with google.
The best way to solve this, is when an incorrect takedown notice has been issued
When the DMCA was being debated it was assured that there were very strong penalties for incorrect takedown notices. Then the goalposts shifted so that "it didn't really mean it" became enough of a defence to escape those penalties. People who warned that this was going to happen were told to remove their tinfoil hats.
That's not the only problem I have with how the DMCA turned out but it's a start. Takedown notice spamming is like putting a speeding ticket on every parked car you see.
You are merely mocking your ignorance of the subject. Meanwhile the scientists are not wanking with words like yourself but instead dealing with specific models which are most definitely falsifiable. Science is a bit of a different field to social media advertising or whatever mindset you are trying to squeeze it into.
Why are scientists increasingly concerned about what some people in our society think and believe?
Because they get their funding cut by complete fucking idiots that seem to be proud of their ignorance. Is that clear enough? A move away from the society we've had from the late 1600s onwards which has valued reason seems like an enormous waste and a course set for disaster.
Or stripped attractive spinsters, widows etc to look for "the devils mark" on their breasts or genitals. Some were carefully examined for days. Witchfinders were rapists, torturers and murderers that got away with it by sharing half the money they got from their victims with the authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Third party add on and service industry guy versus primary product that people actually want - it's no contest IMHO.
I'm not knocking McAfee, just your comparison. Apples to Aardvarks.
That train left after about the 50th bitcoin scam puff piece.
Funny how you've replied to a statement suggesting someone get over themselves with "Get over yourself". While some people have to be handled carefully because they consider themselves as some sort of 21st century royalty there is no reason to respect them for the extra effort they demand. Being excellent at X doesn't mean you should not be disliked when you lord over people that are excellent for Y.
Go to a scientific or technical conference on just about anything and you'll meet people who are "more important" than RMS or a movie star yet act like reasonable human beings.
We don't need blind hero worship of our peers. We need to consider and respect their views on merit instead of licking at their feet.
However with all that said I suspect RMS is describing an ideal instead of a mandatory minimum condition, so we are probably arguing about whether to put up with an inflexible strawman or not. We're probably getting a skewed view because rants and exaggeration run a mile before the truth can get it's boots on.
Just read one of his old interviews and you'll get exactly the same content that can be expected here. He "sticks to his guns" is the polite way to put it - the questions won't matter because the "answer" will be whatever he is pushing this year with the same wording as on other occasions.
I'll link the above post next time you pretend to know what is going on in server rooms so that everyone can have a laugh.
Very wrong - MS Exchange is a mail server plus a LOT of other things.
Early on (eg. before the 2003 version) the mail server and database to hold email were IMHO the main functions of the collection. Both were IMHO far below the usual Microsoft release quality and an utter joke but obviously some work went on for the 2003 version.
Or your users have not shown much interest in the calendar functions etc.
Zimbra, google whatever or even just plain old sendmail can replace MS Exchange depending on what subset of the features the users are actually using. If they are using 100% of the features in MS Exchange then it's a good fit and there is no point in exchanging it for something else, but some places only use a tiny fraction of what is in there and can go with something else.
People in GA were among those that drove the leader of the last thorium project out of the nuclear industry.
You may be right. The synroc I saw in 1988 was effectively identical to the finished product used in real nuclear waste management at an industrial scale for the first time a couple of years ago. The problem in the time between was getting funding for testing - which was taken as implying that existing methods of waste management (eg. keep stuff in pools of water indefinitely) were not perfect. Similarly you are writing about something small which is not very different from existing examples so may not take long. Apart from the chance to get reactors built in under a decade it also finally implements the main lesson from TMI - a small reactor for safety reasons.
The sad thing is these new designs suffer from the same problem as that which slowed down synroc - some people are trying to pretend that 1970s dinosaur reactors are perfect and they don't want to draw attention to anything that may be better.
That would be a bad idea and just a way to burn money unless they bring in some existing expertise due to the differences. A university or similar with the people who have already been working on such technology associated with GA, mPower or whoever is a different story. There's no point giving money to develop a new technology to the same people that squashed it last time - they have no real incentive to succeed and they do have an incentive for it to fail since it would compete with their existing products.
Unfortunately not abundant enough to even get a decent idea of what Julius Caesar got up to - we've got to rely on the unashamedly biased view of Po from many years later for most of that. The reason the Pompeii excavation is such an enormous deal is because it's uncovered a lot of things we don't have records of.
The reality turned out to be that any religious figures that challenged the authority of the state in any way got sent to the gulags. From the west it looked like all of them so we thought it was state mandated atheism. Stalin kept some of the Church in place but completely under his thumb, with a lot of blood spilled to do it.
Pity some of the merchant in the temple franchises don't.
They don't even encourage reading inconvenient bits of the Bible like "the good Samaritan".
Nice of you to chime in to "correct" me, but it's may be worth looking at a bit of the history of nuclear power plants first before going on about weird stuff like "approval time". There are many physical reasons why construction of large projects such as these take a very long time even given a design, funding and a decision to go ahead - close to ten years for a thermal power station of any kind. Also you seem to have missed the point that we do not have any generation four reactors actually built so the first few are going to give us some ideas about how to make some improvements.
I get that a software perspective gives the idea that you can just go ahead and sort out the design flaws later but physical engineering projects rarely have that sort of flexability. The idea is generally to make the mistakes in a prototype instead of building a huge number of lemons (or your suggestion of committing to a long series of possible lemons before the first one has been built).
And the file in the firmware which is being modified controls all of that? Really? Are you sure?
I'm sorry but I really do not see this as a big deal. It not as if things are being done blind. However I've certainly done some physical things to a vehicle that changed braking behaviour depending on what road conditions I expected it to face in the next few years.
We need a bit more R&D before we get a reactor that worth mass producing. Why plan to build 100 of design X over thirty years when design Y developed only five years later shows far more promise before the first of design X is even operating? Then there's the monoculture problem that hit French reactors a couple of times where they all had to be shut down at once to fix design faults, so some sort of middle ground makes sense.
Of course nuclear lobby groups killed off civilian nuclear R&D because it was a treat to their investment in existing designs and the threat of a different fuel shortening the commercial life of their current plants (a shift to thorium and new plants running it had the potential to prevent the old plants competing and the entrenched nuclear lobby didn't like that).
Maybe in a few years we can buy reactors from India where they still carry out civilian nuclear R&D and do not have that paticular political roadblock. In the meantime startups from former military technology doing an end run around the entrenched nuclear lobby (or enforcing laws against bribery) are what I see as the only hopes in that area.
We don't look in a crystal ball and say "this will last 40 years". We look at expected modes of failure and estimate operational conditions, do a bit of statistics and then have some confidence that it will last 40 years.
Then reality asserts itself.
Years later people can come along and know the operational conditions instead of estimating them, look at expected modes of failure, examine parts prone to those failures, do a bit of statistics and then have some confidence that it will last another X years.
It goes under various names and "remaining life calculation" is one of them. I used to do that for a living, oddly enough using some techniques taught to me by some nuclear guys (for remaining life estimates of high temperature, high pressure pipework), until using a lot of computers for that sort of stuff shifted me into the field of just using lots of computers in general.
Anyway, my point is that an expected design life is not hard and fast. If actual work is put in you can get a better estimate later. If blind hope is all you have then you are better off sticking to the original estimate - but these nuclear guys are depending on non-destructive testing and not blind hope.
It's newer than people think. My boss graduated with a degree in geophysics before the theory was published.
Yes we know that email is just a small neglected part of it even if the guy that made the mistake of closing the deal did not.
Some people just want an email system and they get sold MS Exchange. While the mail transfer agent and various other email aspects in the MS Exchange collection are not ideal they are there and people do use them. Various tricks and third party additions can be used to make it work in such an environment but the best choice IMHO is to take the advice of the name and exchange it for something else.
In larger operations where email is only the icing on the cake as to why MS Exchange is there then it is a totally different story. However, many of those portions have not progressed much since 2003 and many of them were utter crap before that. People had a good reason to upgrade a decade ago but not much reason since.
There's some pilots blogs about this that mention an alternative airport that it flew over almost immediately after the first turn. Despite all the noise at this point you could probably still find such things with google.
Where does it say that?
Goodwill? You have me marked as "foe" FFS.
There's an enormous intentional loophole which means the perjury thing never applies :(
When the DMCA was being debated it was assured that there were very strong penalties for incorrect takedown notices. Then the goalposts shifted so that "it didn't really mean it" became enough of a defence to escape those penalties. People who warned that this was going to happen were told to remove their tinfoil hats.
That's not the only problem I have with how the DMCA turned out but it's a start. Takedown notice spamming is like putting a speeding ticket on every parked car you see.
You are merely mocking your ignorance of the subject. Meanwhile the scientists are not wanking with words like yourself but instead dealing with specific models which are most definitely falsifiable.
Science is a bit of a different field to social media advertising or whatever mindset you are trying to squeeze it into.
Because they get their funding cut by complete fucking idiots that seem to be proud of their ignorance.
Is that clear enough?
A move away from the society we've had from the late 1600s onwards which has valued reason seems like an enormous waste and a course set for disaster.
Or stripped attractive spinsters, widows etc to look for "the devils mark" on their breasts or genitals. Some were carefully examined for days. Witchfinders were rapists, torturers and murderers that got away with it by sharing half the money they got from their victims with the authorities.