I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.
I love the number of armchair experts on Slashdot who will disagree with something because it might impact on their enjoyment of a video game. It is highly ironic that most of the folks here that are weighing in on this topic are Asperger victims who have a tough enough time with empathy as it is.
The Arabs shouldn't have left when their leaders told them to in 1948. The Israelis said they were welcome but they chose to leave anyway. Now the Arabs are complaining because they never managed to beat them militarily. Oh, and why aren't you yelling at Jordan, or Egypt, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, who don't want anything to do with the Palestinians and who actively work to keep them out or in the case of Lebanon, in their own little area.
I stand corrected. I couldn't remember if it was banana or pineapple... they showed me both types at the store (it was at the Manila Hotel). It must have been pineapple as it was the more expensive of the two options they showed me. This was 12 years ago.
But when they do review 'everyman' cars, they do a great job. Now I know I can drive a Fiesta off of a Royal Marine landing craft on to a beach with a contingent of Royal Marines in the back seat. But seriously, when they do review an average car, it is a good job.
Now if we could get English Top Gear in Canada on one of the channels that aren't in the added price category that would be great. Unfortunately all we are going to get is the American knock off. Hooray! [/end sarcasm]. Crap.
When I did some work in the Philippines I had to go to a function where the president was going to attend, so went out and bought a high end barong (type of Philippine shirt). These were used in place of tuxedos (yes we wore pants too). The barong was made of banana fibre and was quite expensive (several hundred dollars at the time). I still have it. The interesting thing is that is does feel kid of plasticy and slippery. The fabric is partially see through (you wear a white tee shirt under it) and kind of stiff. Because of this, this article doesn't surprise me one bit.
I must say that was the funniest insightful comment I have read in a while. Then I stopped and thought. Then I started to cry because it was the saddest insightful comment I heard in a while.
I tried reading the link article about the whatever it was prize, and fell asleep about two paragraphs in. Can someone provide a link to something that explains his significance? Something that is to the point. Something that doesn't ramble on about his grade school or who changed his diapers?
Expensive is relative. In Apple's case, I would bet that it is more expensive to develop the code, but far cheaper than if they had to give away big chunks of their revenue generating operating system.
This is the biggest problem with the GPL that I rail against, and which is the crux of the current issue. The GPL, especially v3, makes if very difficult, if not impossible, to use/link GPL code with proprietary code. There should be a way that libraries can be used/called etc. without having to impinge on either party (and I'm not talking about using LGPL either). I might understand if they wanted to get so narrow as to say, 'if you modify our GPL code so that it works better with your own code, then you need to give away your own code'. What I don't like is the idea that you should give away your own code if 'you link our black box binaries' (libraries or whatever... which is how I interpret the GPL). After all, you aren't copying anyone's source code, so how the heck can you be violating their copyright.
Anyway, just the price of something isn't the only factor. It is also what it can cost (in other terms than purchase price or implementation cost).
FTFY:
a) Contribute to the open source world
b) Buy another license from the author on more favorable terms, and thus contribute financially to open source.
c) Use open source from a project that is less restrictive (more open) than GPL code; like apache or bsd licensed code.
d) Pay or develop proprietary code, and the open source world loses potential contributions.
The latter is what Apple is doing. The copyright owners of GCC and Samba have used a more onerous version of the GPL, and Apple decided it wanted to move further away from the open source world. Even if they didn't contribute a lot to the open source world, at least they were training developers to use and program open source code. And developers don't stay in one place forever. They would have went elsewhere and brought their expertise in open source code with them. Now when they go somewhere else, they won't bring that knowledge and experience with them. Granted they will likely have useful experience; just not open source coding.
Sure the algorithm is not patentable, but the business method is. e.g. the infamous "one click" patent. So this guy comes up with an idea and then a patent troll patents it. Now the original inventor has to spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to fight to get the patent revoked; even though in theory it shouldn't cost that much. I don't think the actual algorithm is the issue. I think the effect of that algorithm is more important with the patent office. i.e. what it does. There are many ways to code a 'one click' type of system or method. It doesn't matter how many algorithms there are, they are all blocked by the one business method patent.
You are naive. The reason they are not paying Redhat is because they are leeches and are taking CentOS for free. If they only had the choice of Redhat or nothing then they would pay. i.e. If CentOS would stop leeching and stop distributing something for free that someone else put a lot of money in to create. Get a fucking grip. Yeah Redhat isn't losing revenue because someone is giving their product away for free. That was sarcasm. And I don't have to point out where Redhat is making an attack on CentOS. I am making the attack on CentOS. I don't like the business model of taking something that someone has spent money on developing and giving it away for free. Just because you can doesn't mean it is right or moral. GNU was created originally because Stallman didn't like the fact that he couldn't customize his closed source drivers. It wasn't meant as a way to not have to pay for stuff. Or as a way to take others work and give it away for free. As for operating systems, I have programmed on Unix (HP-UX, AIX, Solaris) for more than ten years. I have used Linux for a dozen years but mostly use Windows now since I don't have the patience required to continually configure things and that programs I use (like Cubase) don't run on Linux and Linux has no equivalent. And I do agree with you, Ubuntu is not exactly the most effecient, but it is easier for the average user than just about any other distro. But I believe Suse to be about the best. Especially if you get the paid for version. As far as servers go, I'd rather get a Unix server. If I have to use open source for a server I'd rather take BSD or PAY for Redhat.
It only works when you have a forum where when someone who doesn't agree with your comment doesn't automatically mark you as a troll; just because they don't agree with you. There is a difference between a troll and someone with a differing opinion. Otherwise this books insight seems to be a direct copy of Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
First, what does it cost RH to create RHEL? Per copy I mean, not total.
OK, if it is cheap, roll your own distro of the quality Redhat produces. If you are doing that by yourself, I expect to hear back in about ten years. Assuming that you aren't thrown out on the street because you haven't been able to pay your rent or mortgage or starve to death because you haven't earned any money and can't buy food. Yes that's right. Doing work with no income is impossible. And if Debian were good enough to worthy of being called a usable desktop environment Ubuntu would never have taken off. What gets more downloads? Debian or Ubuntu. One is based on the other. But one is usable and the other isn't. That is why one can make money off of the services they sell for the version that has had a ton of improvements made to it. And if they could sell services for that, no one would be using it because the company would not be able to produce it. Get it. Only by making money can a Linux distribution exist. That is because it is expending money producing the distro with all the value added tools and packaging that they do. Tools and packaging that make it usable by more than just hard core geeks. So get your head out of your ass, you've developed brain damage from the lack of oxygen. But it sounds like perhaps it is too late. You are a fucking leeching retard already. Go suck on Stallman's cock some more.
Even if they are not pocketing money they are still taking money. Start using critical thinking. It is the equivalent of a big corporation who I am sure you would jump all over if they started giving away a product for cheaper than it cost them to build, harming a company you really like by driving them out of business. Granted CentOS hasn't driven Redhat out of business, but it is still giving away Redhat's product for far cheaper than it costs to create, and taking business away from Redhat. But I am sure you selfish spoiled fanboy sentiments won't allow you to realize that. For profit distros are the only reason that Linux is available to you today, unless of course you are one of only a handful of people who like to build every single piece of software from scratch from all the different project's repositories. Which I sincerely doubt. Even Ubuntu is a for profit company. So go back to your mother's basement in a huff and whine about people like me who are concerned when the people who actually create the work are cut off at the knees by people who make it less worthwhile to fight create the distros, fight off asshats like SCO and Oracle, and sponsor so many projects. You probably use CentOS and never paid for shite. At least my conscience is clear on that regard. I pay for my software. Keep on leeching asshole.
Good. CentOS embodies the problem with GNU open source. People just take whatever work you have done and put their own name on it. The pinnacle of the leech-ness. No thought to adding or improving, just taking your work because they don't want to pay you for the work YOU did. So good, if it makes it a pain in their ass. I like open source. I don't like people taking money from you because they just don't want to pay for the work you did. Granted Redhat leverages the open source stack; but it adds value (installer/packaging, configuration tools, updates, etc.). That is what they charge for. What does CentOS do other than take the work Redhat does and give it away for free? Seriously. That is taking money away from Redhat. And yes, I do pay for distributions or support periodically because I believe the distros need revenue to keep Linux viable. How many of those about to flame me actually pay for any of the distros they use? Some maybe. Most I am certain, no.
Fuck fuck fuck.
s/'Anyone who has a degree in business admin should be allowed to admin a business.'/'Anyone who has a degree in business admin should NEVER be allowed to admin a business.'/
Most IT hiring requires the least amount of effort by the companies. In other industries employees are often hired and taught the specific skills required by the company. They gain people with the skill they need and the loyalty that will keep them there without having to look for new people all the time. Stability. And face it, most people who are hired in IT bullshit like crazy so they end up having to learn what they said they knew on their resume while on the job. But instead of getting good training it is half assed on the fly by the seat of their pants training. And once they know it well enough they look for another job doing it somewhere else that pays more. Business admin types looking for silver bullets in terms of employees are fucking idiots and end up fucking everyone, including their own company. Anyone who has a degree in business admin should be allowed to admin a business. Business admin is the most slack and idle bullshit course around, second maybe to underwater basket weaving. They are big picture thinkers which means they have ADHD so bad they can't even wipe their own asses completely. I can't believe someone modded you insightful.
That's like saying practice makes perfect, so people go out and practice repeatedly and often. But of course practice DOES NOT make perfect. CORRECT practice makes perfect. Practicing the wrong thing over and over just makes you good at being bad. So adding programmers to add to the status quo will do nothing to help the situation.
What MS, Apple, Google, et al have done to be successful has been to practice correctly. They have coherent and well defined User Interfaces that are predictable and do what they are supposed to do without an average user needing to know how to do extensive configuration. Almost all GUI programs have common commands, and pretty much all have help systems that provide complete and useful information (not all, but certainly better than Linux apps). Many here will howl in outrage, but Windows 7 is a very good desktop providing a very good user experience for the average user (and by definition this means the vast, vast majority of computer users). Same goes of course for Apple products. However much I dislike their business practices, their products are good, and work as advertised... they do what they say they will do... 99.99% of the time, with little need for user configuration.
Like other here say, the Linux desktop falls down because while Gnome and KDE provide a fairly consistent user experience, not all apps do, and there is still too much user intervention required in order to configure the system to do what the average Joe wants right out of the box (yes including multimedia and drivers). As the Linux desktop gets better, so does the competition. This means a more concerted effort to make a consistent and reliable desktop is needed. If this means limiting what applications are accepted by distributions, this should be done. What this will do is force developers to create applications that provide the users with a consistent and predictable look and feel, and ultimately a more productive experience. Applications ARE NOT BUILT FOR THE PROGRAMMER, they are built for the user (unless the user IS a developer... the minority of users and/or apps). If the developer is only building an application for their own predilections, then the application doesn't really belong in a common desktop. This understanding will help the Linux desktop.
Disclaimer: I run Windows 7 Pro and Kubuntu 10.10 on separate machines. I find Windows 7 to be far easier to use, but maintain Kubuntu for professional reasons; systems I do BSA work on are usually on Linux/Unix, and I find it hard to fathom how anyone can do systems work without knowing and keeping current on the systems they impact (including development and scripting/administration).
And you KEEP missing the point. No. The girl will not be born sterile. We will figure out a way to protect ourselves from cosmic rays and other radiation in space. I am optimistic of our ability to figure things out. You phrase things that we won't be able to travel in space UNLESS new shielding is invented. The point I and the OP were getting at from the beginning is that we are phrasing it as: WHEN new shielding is invented. The assumption (which I don't share) is that we can't do this today, but we will be able to.
An expedition to Mars would require a LOT of water be taken, since they will have to account for some loss as there is no way it can be 100% recycled. Why can't the tanks (or at least some of them) go around the outside of the ship? Water would make a good shield. I'm sure there are brighter people than me who can think up even better ideas. I worked at a place that had the largest direct current arc furnace ever built to test a new furnace design for smelting silicon. It was a 6 megawatt furnace. The magnetic fields were crazy when it ran. Strong enough that we kept having to degaus our monitors every couple of hours in the control room twenty metres from the furnace shell, and behind a double cement blast wall. Powerful enough to permanently magnetize the furnace shell and connecting pipes, just like stroking a nail with a magnet. Strong enough that when a guy dropped an eighteen inch crescent wrench (adjustable spanner for those in Europe) from a deck 15 metres up, it hit and magnetically stuck to a pipe attached to the furnace before it fell more than two metres down. I wonder if generating that kind of field would help shield. The point is, people will think of a way.
What this article doesn't mention is that Mars doesn't and other places won't necessarily have an ozone layer to filter ultraviolet, nor a strong magnetic field nor thick atmosphere to shield against radiation. Granted, people could and will likely need to live underground.
Slashdot Mirror
What if what really happened is he gave his wife Senegalese crabs?
I just ran across a book the other day that cost more on amazon.ca than on amazon.com. Not sure how that works. There is no duty. The difference in shipping costs of the printed book should be moot especially where I am, within fifty miles of Niagara Falls. And to top it off, the Canadian dollar has been worth more than the U.S. dollar for the past few months. Amazon had no good reason to charge almost ten dollars more to Canadians for the same book. Not very reputable if you ask me. But since they bought bookpool.com a few years ago, they're the only real game in town.
I love the number of armchair experts on Slashdot who will disagree with something because it might impact on their enjoyment of a video game. It is highly ironic that most of the folks here that are weighing in on this topic are Asperger victims who have a tough enough time with empathy as it is.
The Arabs shouldn't have left when their leaders told them to in 1948. The Israelis said they were welcome but they chose to leave anyway. Now the Arabs are complaining because they never managed to beat them militarily. Oh, and why aren't you yelling at Jordan, or Egypt, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, who don't want anything to do with the Palestinians and who actively work to keep them out or in the case of Lebanon, in their own little area.
I stand corrected. I couldn't remember if it was banana or pineapple... they showed me both types at the store (it was at the Manila Hotel). It must have been pineapple as it was the more expensive of the two options they showed me. This was 12 years ago.
But when they do review 'everyman' cars, they do a great job. Now I know I can drive a Fiesta off of a Royal Marine landing craft on to a beach with a contingent of Royal Marines in the back seat. But seriously, when they do review an average car, it is a good job.
Now if we could get English Top Gear in Canada on one of the channels that aren't in the added price category that would be great. Unfortunately all we are going to get is the American knock off. Hooray! [/end sarcasm]. Crap.
When I did some work in the Philippines I had to go to a function where the president was going to attend, so went out and bought a high end barong (type of Philippine shirt). These were used in place of tuxedos (yes we wore pants too). The barong was made of banana fibre and was quite expensive (several hundred dollars at the time). I still have it. The interesting thing is that is does feel kid of plasticy and slippery. The fabric is partially see through (you wear a white tee shirt under it) and kind of stiff. Because of this, this article doesn't surprise me one bit.
I must say that was the funniest insightful comment I have read in a while. Then I stopped and thought. Then I started to cry because it was the saddest insightful comment I heard in a while.
I tried reading the link article about the whatever it was prize, and fell asleep about two paragraphs in. Can someone provide a link to something that explains his significance? Something that is to the point. Something that doesn't ramble on about his grade school or who changed his diapers?
Expensive is relative. In Apple's case, I would bet that it is more expensive to develop the code, but far cheaper than if they had to give away big chunks of their revenue generating operating system.
This is the biggest problem with the GPL that I rail against, and which is the crux of the current issue. The GPL, especially v3, makes if very difficult, if not impossible, to use/link GPL code with proprietary code. There should be a way that libraries can be used/called etc. without having to impinge on either party (and I'm not talking about using LGPL either). I might understand if they wanted to get so narrow as to say, 'if you modify our GPL code so that it works better with your own code, then you need to give away your own code'. What I don't like is the idea that you should give away your own code if 'you link our black box binaries' (libraries or whatever... which is how I interpret the GPL). After all, you aren't copying anyone's source code, so how the heck can you be violating their copyright.
Anyway, just the price of something isn't the only factor. It is also what it can cost (in other terms than purchase price or implementation cost).
FTFY:
a) Contribute to the open source world
b) Buy another license from the author on more favorable terms, and thus contribute financially to open source.
c) Use open source from a project that is less restrictive (more open) than GPL code; like apache or bsd licensed code.
d) Pay or develop proprietary code, and the open source world loses potential contributions.
The latter is what Apple is doing. The copyright owners of GCC and Samba have used a more onerous version of the GPL, and Apple decided it wanted to move further away from the open source world. Even if they didn't contribute a lot to the open source world, at least they were training developers to use and program open source code. And developers don't stay in one place forever. They would have went elsewhere and brought their expertise in open source code with them. Now when they go somewhere else, they won't bring that knowledge and experience with them. Granted they will likely have useful experience; just not open source coding.
Sure the algorithm is not patentable, but the business method is. e.g. the infamous "one click" patent. So this guy comes up with an idea and then a patent troll patents it. Now the original inventor has to spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to fight to get the patent revoked; even though in theory it shouldn't cost that much. I don't think the actual algorithm is the issue. I think the effect of that algorithm is more important with the patent office. i.e. what it does. There are many ways to code a 'one click' type of system or method. It doesn't matter how many algorithms there are, they are all blocked by the one business method patent.
You are naive. The reason they are not paying Redhat is because they are leeches and are taking CentOS for free. If they only had the choice of Redhat or nothing then they would pay. i.e. If CentOS would stop leeching and stop distributing something for free that someone else put a lot of money in to create. Get a fucking grip. Yeah Redhat isn't losing revenue because someone is giving their product away for free. That was sarcasm. And I don't have to point out where Redhat is making an attack on CentOS. I am making the attack on CentOS. I don't like the business model of taking something that someone has spent money on developing and giving it away for free. Just because you can doesn't mean it is right or moral. GNU was created originally because Stallman didn't like the fact that he couldn't customize his closed source drivers. It wasn't meant as a way to not have to pay for stuff. Or as a way to take others work and give it away for free. As for operating systems, I have programmed on Unix (HP-UX, AIX, Solaris) for more than ten years. I have used Linux for a dozen years but mostly use Windows now since I don't have the patience required to continually configure things and that programs I use (like Cubase) don't run on Linux and Linux has no equivalent. And I do agree with you, Ubuntu is not exactly the most effecient, but it is easier for the average user than just about any other distro. But I believe Suse to be about the best. Especially if you get the paid for version. As far as servers go, I'd rather get a Unix server. If I have to use open source for a server I'd rather take BSD or PAY for Redhat.
It only works when you have a forum where when someone who doesn't agree with your comment doesn't automatically mark you as a troll; just because they don't agree with you. There is a difference between a troll and someone with a differing opinion. Otherwise this books insight seems to be a direct copy of Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
OK, if it is cheap, roll your own distro of the quality Redhat produces. If you are doing that by yourself, I expect to hear back in about ten years. Assuming that you aren't thrown out on the street because you haven't been able to pay your rent or mortgage or starve to death because you haven't earned any money and can't buy food. Yes that's right. Doing work with no income is impossible. And if Debian were good enough to worthy of being called a usable desktop environment Ubuntu would never have taken off. What gets more downloads? Debian or Ubuntu. One is based on the other. But one is usable and the other isn't. That is why one can make money off of the services they sell for the version that has had a ton of improvements made to it. And if they could sell services for that, no one would be using it because the company would not be able to produce it. Get it. Only by making money can a Linux distribution exist. That is because it is expending money producing the distro with all the value added tools and packaging that they do. Tools and packaging that make it usable by more than just hard core geeks. So get your head out of your ass, you've developed brain damage from the lack of oxygen. But it sounds like perhaps it is too late. You are a fucking leeching retard already. Go suck on Stallman's cock some more.
Even if they are not pocketing money they are still taking money. Start using critical thinking. It is the equivalent of a big corporation who I am sure you would jump all over if they started giving away a product for cheaper than it cost them to build, harming a company you really like by driving them out of business. Granted CentOS hasn't driven Redhat out of business, but it is still giving away Redhat's product for far cheaper than it costs to create, and taking business away from Redhat. But I am sure you selfish spoiled fanboy sentiments won't allow you to realize that. For profit distros are the only reason that Linux is available to you today, unless of course you are one of only a handful of people who like to build every single piece of software from scratch from all the different project's repositories. Which I sincerely doubt. Even Ubuntu is a for profit company. So go back to your mother's basement in a huff and whine about people like me who are concerned when the people who actually create the work are cut off at the knees by people who make it less worthwhile to fight create the distros, fight off asshats like SCO and Oracle, and sponsor so many projects. You probably use CentOS and never paid for shite. At least my conscience is clear on that regard. I pay for my software. Keep on leeching asshole.
Blah blah blah... keep leeching.
Good. CentOS embodies the problem with GNU open source. People just take whatever work you have done and put their own name on it. The pinnacle of the leech-ness. No thought to adding or improving, just taking your work because they don't want to pay you for the work YOU did. So good, if it makes it a pain in their ass. I like open source. I don't like people taking money from you because they just don't want to pay for the work you did. Granted Redhat leverages the open source stack; but it adds value (installer/packaging, configuration tools, updates, etc.). That is what they charge for. What does CentOS do other than take the work Redhat does and give it away for free? Seriously. That is taking money away from Redhat. And yes, I do pay for distributions or support periodically because I believe the distros need revenue to keep Linux viable. How many of those about to flame me actually pay for any of the distros they use? Some maybe. Most I am certain, no.
Not sure why other people are commenting on your comment. You pretty much summed it up nicely. Nothing more to add other than, "well put".
He joined when slashdot was still running on DOS.
Fuck fuck fuck. s/'Anyone who has a degree in business admin should be allowed to admin a business.'/'Anyone who has a degree in business admin should NEVER be allowed to admin a business.'/
Most IT hiring requires the least amount of effort by the companies. In other industries employees are often hired and taught the specific skills required by the company. They gain people with the skill they need and the loyalty that will keep them there without having to look for new people all the time. Stability. And face it, most people who are hired in IT bullshit like crazy so they end up having to learn what they said they knew on their resume while on the job. But instead of getting good training it is half assed on the fly by the seat of their pants training. And once they know it well enough they look for another job doing it somewhere else that pays more. Business admin types looking for silver bullets in terms of employees are fucking idiots and end up fucking everyone, including their own company. Anyone who has a degree in business admin should be allowed to admin a business. Business admin is the most slack and idle bullshit course around, second maybe to underwater basket weaving. They are big picture thinkers which means they have ADHD so bad they can't even wipe their own asses completely. I can't believe someone modded you insightful.
That's like saying practice makes perfect, so people go out and practice repeatedly and often. But of course practice DOES NOT make perfect. CORRECT practice makes perfect. Practicing the wrong thing over and over just makes you good at being bad. So adding programmers to add to the status quo will do nothing to help the situation.
What MS, Apple, Google, et al have done to be successful has been to practice correctly. They have coherent and well defined User Interfaces that are predictable and do what they are supposed to do without an average user needing to know how to do extensive configuration. Almost all GUI programs have common commands, and pretty much all have help systems that provide complete and useful information (not all, but certainly better than Linux apps). Many here will howl in outrage, but Windows 7 is a very good desktop providing a very good user experience for the average user (and by definition this means the vast, vast majority of computer users). Same goes of course for Apple products. However much I dislike their business practices, their products are good, and work as advertised... they do what they say they will do... 99.99% of the time, with little need for user configuration.
Like other here say, the Linux desktop falls down because while Gnome and KDE provide a fairly consistent user experience, not all apps do, and there is still too much user intervention required in order to configure the system to do what the average Joe wants right out of the box (yes including multimedia and drivers). As the Linux desktop gets better, so does the competition. This means a more concerted effort to make a consistent and reliable desktop is needed. If this means limiting what applications are accepted by distributions, this should be done. What this will do is force developers to create applications that provide the users with a consistent and predictable look and feel, and ultimately a more productive experience. Applications ARE NOT BUILT FOR THE PROGRAMMER, they are built for the user (unless the user IS a developer... the minority of users and/or apps). If the developer is only building an application for their own predilections, then the application doesn't really belong in a common desktop. This understanding will help the Linux desktop.
Disclaimer: I run Windows 7 Pro and Kubuntu 10.10 on separate machines. I find Windows 7 to be far easier to use, but maintain Kubuntu for professional reasons; systems I do BSA work on are usually on Linux/Unix, and I find it hard to fathom how anyone can do systems work without knowing and keeping current on the systems they impact (including development and scripting/administration).
Whatever.
And you KEEP missing the point. No. The girl will not be born sterile. We will figure out a way to protect ourselves from cosmic rays and other radiation in space. I am optimistic of our ability to figure things out. You phrase things that we won't be able to travel in space UNLESS new shielding is invented. The point I and the OP were getting at from the beginning is that we are phrasing it as: WHEN new shielding is invented. The assumption (which I don't share) is that we can't do this today, but we will be able to.
An expedition to Mars would require a LOT of water be taken, since they will have to account for some loss as there is no way it can be 100% recycled. Why can't the tanks (or at least some of them) go around the outside of the ship? Water would make a good shield. I'm sure there are brighter people than me who can think up even better ideas. I worked at a place that had the largest direct current arc furnace ever built to test a new furnace design for smelting silicon. It was a 6 megawatt furnace. The magnetic fields were crazy when it ran. Strong enough that we kept having to degaus our monitors every couple of hours in the control room twenty metres from the furnace shell, and behind a double cement blast wall. Powerful enough to permanently magnetize the furnace shell and connecting pipes, just like stroking a nail with a magnet. Strong enough that when a guy dropped an eighteen inch crescent wrench (adjustable spanner for those in Europe) from a deck 15 metres up, it hit and magnetically stuck to a pipe attached to the furnace before it fell more than two metres down. I wonder if generating that kind of field would help shield. The point is, people will think of a way.
What this article doesn't mention is that Mars doesn't and other places won't necessarily have an ozone layer to filter ultraviolet, nor a strong magnetic field nor thick atmosphere to shield against radiation. Granted, people could and will likely need to live underground.