With respect, I would strongly suggest that AUPs are very meaningful in the sense that they constitute a contract that may be enforced in a court of law.
For example, were you to have a contract with me for a year of Internet service and you started to use my system to spam others, were I to summarily shut you down, you would have a cause of action to sue me for non-fulfillment of our contract.
An AUP adds those clauses to any contract in effect and prevents an ISP from being sued by a spammer for sending out spam through that ISP. The spammer sues the ISP, the ISP points to the language of the AUP and the judge tells everyone to go home.
I do agree with you that Savvis does need to take action, but their action needs to be based on the statements in their AUP, not some action that may cause them to wind up needing to defend in court.
The following general actions are considered "abuse" and are strictly prohibited:
Any conduct which is inconsistent with generally accepted norms and expectations of the Internet community (whether or not detailed in this AUP). SAVVIS reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to make a determination whether any particular conduct violates such norms and expectations.
Using SAVVIS networks to transmit material that SAVVIS believes
to be illegal, obscene, or inappropriate.
Forging of message headers or identity information, or taking
any action with the intent of bypassing restrictions or limits on access to a specific service or site. This prohibition does not restrict the legitimate non-commercial use of pseudonymous or anonymous services.
Falsifying identity or contact information (whether given to
SAVVIS, to the InterNIC, or other parties).
And found elsewhere on the same page, specifics against "spam e-mailing." That pretty much covers the actions of those who are using the system to send out unsolicited commercial e-mail.
I believe that Savvis ought to be made to completely reveal to the authorities and the Internet Community the identities, home and work addresses and telephones of those persons identified with the sending of UCEs. That might take 10 days, though it should not.
Of course that means I'll get less pr0n in my in-box....
Actually, part of the "same as" issue is a result of Microsoft borrowing from Apple's user interface but that gets into name-calling and schoolyard issues ("Is not" "Is too.....").
I am considered a "power user" by most Windows users I work with and I'm considered a "power user" by many Mac users around me and as the result of a Mac forum in which I participate. The reason why I am so consulted is due to the simple fact that I am computer literate and possibly more so than the average user (of either computer).
Where I find the Macintosh easier to use is when I am learning new applications and tools and finding that the user interface is pleasant and supportive of my right-brained way of thinking. It somehow seems more supportive of the user. It also offers some killer applications that are either a lot less costly than their Windows counterparts or run better than their Windows "equals." Those applications tend to trend around what I do for a living, which involves film and video applications, sound, music and imagery. I also know how to use a spreadsheet as well.
The last Windows computer I purchased with my own money was set up by Microsoft to eventually drown in its own self-created refuse. If Microsoft has found a way to automatically clean out all of the.TMP files their OS created, my hat's off to them. It also tended to create an ever-lengthening.INI file containing information about how programs were supposed to run, what they could open and how they used hardware. Eventually I found I could not open my.INI file in Microsoft's text editor because it grew so large.
I am lead to believe that they now have a "Registry" file that does some of the same things. I understand that viruses and malware now use that file as a "hidey hole" for self-replication even after you have cleaned up your computer. This comment is probably "not fair" as Microsoft does present a larger target to black-hat hackers than does Apple.
I find using my Mac more pleasant. Part of it is cultural. Mac departments don't breed the kind of person who will name a printer "\\1161NYNEWSGENBC360S EDITORS" Instead, they'll do riffs on Greek, Roman or Nordic gods, planets, stars, and so on. I regularly access a disk drive called "India" and print to "Geminii" and "Phobos." Mac users understand when someone has their earphones on, gently humming away at a song playing on iTunes while working productively away. PC users find that odd. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Advice for any computer purchase: Buy the most processor you can afford. Plan to increase RAM as time goes on; you can always replace a stock hard disk later with one that is bigger and faster. And always look at how you can expand the computer as you use it. Apple's iBooks and iMacs are designed for high school and college students who will be trading into something more powerful on graduating. They last about three or four years, tops. Apple's Powerbooks and desktop (currently dual G5) computers are designed to last longer and work harder. They are more expandable and more suited to professional use.
Attach very long power cord to computer.
Start computer
Gently shove computer, running and attached to long power cord off building.
Using the formula v = (g/c)(1-e^(-tc)) where the constant c is about 0.394 sec^-1, integrating and solving for initial conditions gives you x=[integral] vdt = (g/c)(t + (1/c)(e^(-tc) -1)), your Windows XP machine will be faster than it ever has been before the long power cord disconnects itself.
Anonymous Coward writes: our society is dependent of fossil fuels, but we won't be running out anytime soon.
The reason why I wrote what I wrote is because I am looking forward to the next 1,000 years. Our civilization has records (many incomplete) that date, more or less. back to 5,000 years ago and one can see, over time, a continuous improvement in the technology we use to hold our societies together with a few "dark ages" causing a hiatus in further development in certain areas.
I have never come across any study that suggests that our current power sources will last for 1,000 years. In fact, everything I understand suggests that the cost of the delivery of the power that runs today's technology will steadily increase for the next several hundred years, which should put a serious damper on growth.
I do appreciate your links to the Institute for Scientific Research. It's a fascinating site.
Both of our comments strongly suggest that the future for human civilization probably will start to devolve on some mountanous spot on or near the equator. I wonder if it's time for me to start investing in land in Ecuador...
Or else we're finished would have to be some kind of a geostationary site that collects energy from the sun directly.
The reason why I surmise this is based on a few reflections I made about modern society and what we're doing. Here are a few starting points (certainly not the defining factors of what makes our present society tick):
Since 1900 our civilization has grown almost completely dependant on fossil fuels
These fossil fuels are not replaceable and the current "replacements" for these fuels cannot sustain us with a growing economy that is ever more dependant on power (mostly electricity). By "replacements" I mean the "renewable" sources like alcohol from corn and methane from large human and livestock slurries
Solar and lunar energy (these would be those not included above) like wind, photovoltaic, tide, hydro and (perhaps) geothermal energy may add to what we have but would never allow us to grow at our present rate.
For those of you who think that our dependency on fossil fuels is not as great as it is, try to follow the source of energy in the average corporate office from the power strip all the way back to its source. Very small quantities aren't made from either oil, gas or coal. All have a finite lifetime on this planet.
I'm no expert in microwave energy but I do recall that one could send a satellite up and "beam" power down to this planet using microwaves (which would not use a cable like Clarke suggested in his book "Fountains of Paradise." But it occurred to me as I was heating a pretty cold cup of coffee some time ago in my microwave that this kind of power transfer from space is likely to cause heating of the air around it, adding to global warming.
Thus, were we to attempt to use microwave-transfer, we might make a bad problem worse -- and by the time that kind of energy transfer would be profitable, we'll most probably have a pretty serious global warming issue. The only particular advantage with this kind of power transfer over typical global warming sources is that it probably doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere.
Thus it is my proposition that the only way we'll be able to continue to grow as a civilzation into the next millenium is to innovate so that we may be able to bring cheap energy down these kinds of long pipelines to outer space. I agree that the technology just isn't there yet. But I strongly suggest that we had better be about the business of making it possible.
And, to think. You first heard about this theory of the continuance of our civilization on/.
The old telecom companies are embracing this technology for several reasons:
The taxing structure is different or non-existent (collecting and paying taxes costs money).
The consumer wants to head this direction (anyone remember the age of passenger rail in the US?).
It is truly cheaper to provide this service, it's more efficient and may mean increased profitability.
They do know how to provide telephony and know that their customers will trust their offering.
They have not totally besmirched their name yet.
It has never cost telephone companies anything more to send a telephone call across the country or next door. The higher prices they were allowed (by governments) to charge for "long distance" were allowed to enable them to build their infrastructure. The higher prices we pay for cellular service reflects the need of cell phone companies to build out infrastructure so that they can serve their customers everywhere.
Now, telephone companies are finding that there is not just their infrastructure, but a whole new and cheaper infrastructure out there that was built without their investment. Some was paid for by the governments, some was paid for by private industry or other telephone companies. And they can use it -- free! Imagine the increases in profitability when you can sell a service that costs you little or nothing.
Here in the US, one of the reasons why VOIP from telecom companies is so cheap is because the playing field changed. They set up different companies for VOIP and cellular service and these companies don't have labor unions. So not only is the infrastructure cheaper, but labor is cheaper.
I note that BT immediately jumped on this bandwagon. They are, perhaps, the most hated company in the UK because they have held a monopoly for so long and refuse to bring pricing down to more sane levels in favor of keeping profits up. I kind of wonder at BT because they have generated a great deal of animosity in the public they "serve" in exchange for profits that are not visibly plowed into improved infrastructure.
Microsoft's "intelligent agent" is a product of Microsoft Bob which featured loads of these things. I think that those of us who are computer-literate often forget that there is a "great unwashed mass" out there that cannot for the life of them find that last file they downloaded and still don't know how to cut and paste or drag and drop between applications.
Microsoft has been "dumbing down" Word ever since Word for Windows version 2 and Word for the Macintosh version 5. I note that with Word 6 the automatic saving and restoring of names and addresses for each letter one made went away. "Autoformat" became "manual format" and has now "morphed" into "how Microsoft thinks your document should be formatted instead of how you really want it."
Unlike Cringely, I am hesitant to "upgrade," knowing full well that the next iteration of Microsoft's software will be worse than the last, requiring me to learn how to get around its maddening dumbing down "features." I found that when I moved to OS X, I had to upgrade to their Office X -- I was able to use Office version 4.2.1 just fine with Apple's System 9, which did not eat up processor cycles with "intelligent asisstants" and "a more colorful user interface."
Until Excel, or a better spreadsheet, ceases to be a requirement for me, I shall continue to rely on Office X and not install PowerPoint, the Office Menu Bar and their E-Mail program (which is dangerous to use because of the ease by which it may be spoofed by Macro Virii).
If I recall the Great Word Processor Debate of the 1980s and early 1990s, the definitive answer was: The Word Processor You Know Best Is Always Superior.
Orrin Hatch wants to destroy your computer in order to please his friends (read campaign contributors) in the recording and movie industry. This particular reactionary thought it might be a good idea for those who feel their copyright is being infringed by these decentralized perr-to-peer networks ought to be legally able to write virus code that will destroy users' computers.
I have a very good friend who is a CPA and worked as an auditor for a large CPA firm here in NYC. One particularly famous rock band from Long Island (long since broken up) had a member not too long ago who ran into a rather obnoxious member of the press (read papparizzi) who shoved him, then sued him when he struck back (he only hit him because he was trying to recover hos balance, honest).
The band member contacted their lawyer, who he had not spoken to for years due to the band's breakup. The lawyer told him that it would cost $5,000 to represent him and when could he expect the check?
The former rocker's answer was, "But I'm broke!
The lawyer rummaged around a bit and pulled out a standard contract which has a paragraph indicating that the band may audit the record company's books at any time and that the expense must be borne by the recording company if the band felt that there was any malfeasance.
The lawyer then asked the band member when the last time he had received a royalty check was.
The band member recalled the last one came in (and was all-too quickly spent) seven years before.
The lawyer suggested that the band had a strong case for malfeasance, as he, himself had seen someone purchase a CD of the band's music himself within the last year. My friend (the CPA) was hired and they found that the company typically under-reported album (later CD) sales when the band was active by 20%. Additionally, the recording company was on the hook for seven years of pretty good sales of the CDs made by the band as well as one anthology that the record company had produced that the band didn't know about.
This gave the band enough cash to put a little away in investments and also to initiate a comeback tour that was quite successful in both raising quick cash from venues as well as increasing their CD sales.
The RIAA says that the sales of CDs are dropping and that it's caused by peer networks. The movie industry said that fewer people were going to the movies and were purchasing videos and laserdiscs (later DVDs) because of home copying and later peer networks. I just cannot believe these theves.
Could the real reason why they say their sales are down be because they are underreporting sales in order to screw artists? Or is it that the current distribution model prevents anything compelling to the audience from ever being released? I wonder as I watch all of the caterwauling about copyright. Could it be that the only revenue stream they can come up with is through litigation instead of developing and releasing compelling content?
I'm still puzzling over this comment that keeps coming up again and again. I bought my current Macintosh in 1999. It is running the current Apple operating system. I did max out the RAM and I did get a faster processor for my box but that was all planned when I purchased it. I figure to get a solid five to six years out of my one Macintosh and that is a lot more life than you get out of a pee cee -- assuming you want to run current software.
Apple computers are easier to use and learn. There are costs associated with that.
I, for one, think that what Real is doing is just fine, though it is probably wrong to sell something at a loss in order to gain market share. I would have been happy to see an agreement between Real and Apple to increase the available titles on the iTunes Music Store. I find it wholly and completely unsurprising that Real's music download site does not work with Macintosh computers. Their other software requires a lot more out of a Power PC Processor than it does out of an Intel processor and the Power PC Processor has more capacity to do the kind of work I would expect of a video codec (or two or three) and Real tends to update Apple-compatible software as an afterthought.
Or could it be that they don't want a judge to pronounce summary judgement against them by supporting Macintosh with their music store...
You are correct. But The TiVo company still loses market share to these overglorified VCRs leased by cable companies. That is why their fortunes have fallen -- xomewhat.
And elsewhere in this discussion I hear comments that the TiVo device does not record the way the user hoped, recording Spanish-language shows instead of what they wanted and not recording when told to.
I do not dispute your claim that Jobs did say what he said, but in 1995, I was doing media work for Microsoft and recorded an interview with Gates about the future of computers where he was asked specifically about the merging of computers and television.
Since I later edited the interview and his comments into a video for the Microsoft company, I remember his comments in detail.
Might Jobs have said this first? Sure. Might some other computer software person said this first? Absolutely.
In the Betamax case the US Court system found that home copying for personal use is not infringement. This law has also been applied to PVRs.
Frankly, it is common sense. You do have a right to record what you see on TV. I see no difference between this and the home use of a home DVD disk recorder (as has been mentioned in this forum). TiVo's competition would have to include some means (even if it were not as good) of "backing up" the material on their hard disks or seriously lose market share to TiVo. That makes it a temporary save in my book.
of their own success. Basically, TiVo replaces a standard VCR, only more effectively. It can record shows while playing back, it can let you skip commercials more effectively than a VCR and it's a cool device.
But a "generic TiVo" leased from cable and satellite television companies does the same thing exactly. They all enhance the television viewing experience with high-quality instant playback for "timeshifting." What none of these devices do is allow you to permanently record television in a removable device.
Want to (temporarily) save TiVo? Add a feature that will take a certain segment of the recorded video to an on-board dual-layer DVD recorder. Let the viewer have the option of cutting out the commercials, starting the recording at a certain spot and ending at a certain spot, pick up recording when the actual program restarts, etc. Once you are all done, you have a DVD for your collection.
The reason why this is a temporary save is that the generic models will immediately try to do the same thing. Hey, competition sux sometimes.
I don't use my computer while I'm watching television. I do know that there are some people whose only access to the Internet, e-mail and the Worldwide Web are through devices like "WebTV" but I can't see that (small) market really hustling out there to get a TiVo. Bill Gates is correct; the television viewing experience is really different from that of working on a computer. The only possible likeness is playing games.
Were TiVo able to enhance a game-player's experience, they'd really have something. Perhaps one possible enhancement would be the creation of a shared on-line experience for console games that do not allow networked game play, but that sounds unlikely to me.
I suppose the Republican spin on a massive surge in the number of page loads will be that their websites have gained incredible popularity.
In an attempt to close down one political party's ability to get the word out, one political party and its President were thrown out of office by the majority of Americans who did not like the idea that free speech and freedom of the press ought to be limited.
For workflow and data sharing (that would be video, audio, still images and the like) Avid came up with something they call the Avid Unity. We have seventeen Avid DS workstations and one Unity shared between three of them for two specific purposes that I shall not elaborate on.
When we do file copies through the Unity from any workstation that is in the midst of a render, Windows XP Professional crashes. Cannot hit [Ctrl]-[Alt]-[Del] and end the application. Avid tells us not to do this, they cannot solve a Microsoft problem. And, since it's someone else pulling files out of your workstation's RAID, you don't usually know what happened until after someone apologizes for taking your system down.
When we're in the middle of a long render, we cannot pop out to the desktop and do any Windows file management (organizing, cleaining up, emptying the Recycle bin, anything). Avid tells us that Windows XP multi-tasking model is not truly pre-emptively multi-tasking and that we're looking for a crash there. Generally, I've been able to [Ctrl]-[Alt]-[Del] and end the application but sometimes XP just bites the dust. This is not related to the Unity server.
I notice a lot of screen redraw problems when the system is taxed. I have never seen Apple's OS X fail to redraw a screen. Now, maybe I've been being spoiled by using Unix but I cannot imagine why updating an operator's environment should come second to some other task. This is not related to the Unity server.
We have been told never to print when doing a file copy. I don't ususlly do that bue we've been told that Windows XP Professional cannot run their printer drivers when doing that.
The Avid DS is a pretty massive application and the file transfer operations are transfering a lot of data. It is very taxing of the processor, though the Nitris breakout box does a fair amount of real-time processing. I think one of the big problems is I/O from hard drives, networks and processor-intensive work can't all happen at once. But I don't see anything here that a modern operating system ought not to be able to handle.
I suppose one could blame all of this on the Avid DS but SoftImage wrote this with partnership help from Microsoft. There is no reason why the DS software people should have not been able to deal correctly with Microsoft's APIs
Some time ago, Microsoft purchased a company called SoftImage. Turned out to be a good investment in 3D development and film compositing with a product called the DS.
Meanwhile, in Tewksbury, the Avid Media Composer which ran only on the Apple Macintosh platform was ported to Windows when Microsoft made some investments in Avid. About that time Apple (unwisely) discontinued their six PCI-Slot Macintosh..
When Avid noted that their product was dead-ended because its code basis assumed a raster that was limited to NTSC and PAL television format, they purchased SoftImage's DS in order to be able to easily produce software that will do film and high definition video.
Microsoft doesn't make investments for nothing. I believe I can do something very close to what Microsoft is doing for Mini-DV video on any format of video or film with the Avid DS -- though for a lot more money (something like $120K USD). I would not be surprised if they got the technology from that very old investment.
As a creative person though, I have to say I don't like the fact that the DS-Nitris will probably never run on a Macintosh. We have problems with ours that are related mostly to two issues: Operator screw-ups (expected) and Microsoft Windows XP Professional limitations, many of which do not exist in Apple's current versions of Unix.
If the pirate pays zero for the pirated XP Pro (or home, as seems to be the case mostly in the Far East), he or she makes a buck off the proceeds of duplication. I get your point. But, if Microsoft floods the market with cheap copies of XP Express, the buyer doesn't know what he or she is going to get. In essence Microsoft will be using an appropriate uncertainty in the mind of the purchaser to drive the corporate buyer to buy legitimate copies. That way the buyer knows what he or she is getting and that they won't be getting a nasty surprise when they install software.
I have it on good authority that many of the current pirated copies of XP are XP Home in XP Professional boxes. There is not a whole lot of critical difference between XP Home and XP Professional but the corporate buyer does have to work around some of the problems when they purchase the home version and try to use it in a professional setting. To try to do workarounds to XP Express in a corporate environment would just not be worth it. So Microsoft will bring more corporate users back into the fold this way.
The pirates always do whatever they can to make more money. That includes going into theaters with camcorders to record a film that includes audience reactions at "no extra charge." So it's "no extra charge" for the bad version of Windows you're running that you bought from me when you thought you were getting the real deal.
According to Microsoft: the new software [will] also help deter consumers from buying pirated versions of its XP system, widely available in many Asian countries.
Thus, Microsoft, who wants to sell to corporations in the far east, wants to confuse the issue by making sure that the pirates have lots of inferior product so that the corporations no longer can trust the pirates or the pirated copies.
I read a number of rants. A number of "gloom and doom postings." I am also aware that the next place for computer programmers to be outsourced to will be where programmers, help desks and so on are cheaper than they are in India. That would be China, folks.
At first NAFTA was a rip-snorting success for Mexico. Problem is, the owners of these new plants didn't see the future coming, they just wanted to cash in on the now. So, while a number of rich plant owners in Mexico got richer (at least momentarily) American companies receiving a tax and labor cost benefit from moving to Mexico were learning that they could move out of the US without significantly harming their business and promptly moved to where wages are even lower than they are in Mexico.
After all, NAFTA rules say that workers have rights to organize, even in Mexico. Why not move somewhere where workers have no rights whatsoever.
In the United States, shortly after the Civil War, prisoners in penitentiaries were traded back and forth between companies doing business in the Deep South more or less as slave labor chain gangs. You can see exactly the same treatment -- and worse -- today in China. I will not knowingly purchase goods marked "Made in China" because I find the practice of near slavery and outright slavery repugnant.
I read some time ago a book by a physician who diagnoses many illnesses of famous persons now long dead. In this book, he reflects on Newton's scientific inquiry, which encouraged him to use all senses to determine results of his practice of alchemy. The doctor suggests that Newton may have started poisoning himself with both lead and mercury, as well as other poisons, whenever he began dabbling in alchemy and, over the years, may have seriously impaired himself though that routine poisoning by tasting, touching and sniffing as well as observing the results of his experiments with his eyes.
I wondered upon reading that what Newton might have come up with had he not done that.
A corporation I know purchased a Cessna Citation II some years back in order to get their executives around quicker. I believe, at the time, the plane cost around $1 million (USD). Yearly maintenance on the plane was $1 million.
That's a lot of money just for maintenance and when I asked about that expenditure I was told, "One doesn't go cheap where the only thing keeping you alive up there is the integrity of the aircraft and its systems."
Anonymous Coward writes: I don't know why it hasn't been added to the website. Perhaps all efforts are being expended in development, not PR. Anonymous Coward writes: Failure and loss of the vehicle may be likely (makes it more exciting to tune in on launch day)... I can forgo all that excitement where human life is concerned.
Perhaps the reason why I don't see the Canadian group as being viable is due to the fact that entire systems are not being tested. Scaled Composites had a nasty surprise that really frightened the pilot (he commented that he thought he would not survive the flight until the backup steering mechanism began to work) after careful and exhaustive testing. I, for one, would not particularly want to be a part of the media delivery system for a catastrophic failure for any team. And it's likely that I will be handling part of the broadcasts for both.
Many tribal cultures have a "corporate" theory of ownership, meaning that ownership is by collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. Over centuries and millennia law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources.
In classical economics there is an ambiguous position taken with regard to land ownership. Many theorists seemed to consider it a necessary evil, and argued that it could not be defended if there was not some obligation to keep and improve the land. In the 20th century, the idea of ecological stewardship led to legal ways that land ownership could be rightfully restricted because of erosion, pollution, biodiversity and other concerns - which reduced the level of what came to be called nature's services to all in the locality. And, property tax increasingly was levied to pay for "services" offered by the state, which could not be refused (such as fire fighting).
Homesteading required service to or improvement on land for a period of time. Not quite the homesteader, George Washington, who purchased large tracts of land west of the Allegheny Mountains (perhaps in direct violation of the Proclamation of 1763), successfully won a lawsuit against squatters on the land he bought based on his careful recordkeeping, though many of the records of his deeds to the land were burned by the English during the War of Independance. He demonstrated to the squatters his ownership of the land by showing them the improvements he had made on the land before their arrival.
Under Common Law, subsequently codified in the US under State and local laws, Adverse Posession allows a person to get title to land from the actual owner simply by using the land, out in the open for all to see. For example, your neighbor built a fence on your land with the intention of taking the property, paid property taxes, and you knew about it but did nothing and this continued for a period of time set by state law, your neighbor may be able to claim this property as his/her own. The theory is that, by not disputing your neighbor's use of your property through a lawsuit, you, as the actual owner have abandoned your rights to the property.
Thus, if I were to voluntarily send a check for $1 yearly to some government as payment of taxes for the posession of the sun, I could, in theory and after a number of years specified in that municipality or state's law, deny the claim of the current owner. I suppose I might be able to "make improvements" on my property by adding to its fuel by sending space junk into a decaying solar orbit.
I was around back then and the rocket that couldn't fly was the Atlas, not the Redstone, which was (slightly more) proven. Specifically, the Atlas I "Big Joe" had a number of mishaps, many of which took place in full view of the 7 original astronauts.
The Mercury-Redstone launches did have their problems. Mercury-Redstone 1 had a very short liftoff, rising 4 or 5 inches (10 to 13 centimeters) before settling back on its fins, while the escape tower launched-without its attached capsule. On a manned mission, the tower was supposed to carry an astronaut to safety if the flight were aborted. But Redstone was a more proven vehicle. Unfortunately, it could not attain orbit with a Mercury capsule payload which is why it was used for the suborbital flights (Freedom 7 - Alan Shepard and Liberty Bell 7 - Virgil "Gus" Grissom). Glen's Freedom 7 used an Atlas booster.
Canadians are great at making robot arms. this particular group doesn't look viable to me.
Slashdot Mirror
With respect, I would strongly suggest that AUPs are very meaningful in the sense that they constitute a contract that may be enforced in a court of law.
For example, were you to have a contract with me for a year of Internet service and you started to use my system to spam others, were I to summarily shut you down, you would have a cause of action to sue me for non-fulfillment of our contract.
An AUP adds those clauses to any contract in effect and prevents an ISP from being sued by a spammer for sending out spam through that ISP. The spammer sues the ISP, the ISP points to the language of the AUP and the judge tells everyone to go home.
I do agree with you that Savvis does need to take action, but their action needs to be based on the statements in their AUP, not some action that may cause them to wind up needing to defend in court.
(From the "this is news?" department):
Found on their website
The following general actions are considered "abuse" and are strictly prohibited:
Using SAVVIS networks to transmit material that SAVVIS believes to be illegal, obscene, or inappropriate.
Forging of message headers or identity information, or taking any action with the intent of bypassing restrictions or limits on access to a specific service or site. This prohibition does not restrict the legitimate non-commercial use of pseudonymous or anonymous services.
Falsifying identity or contact information (whether given to SAVVIS, to the InterNIC, or other parties).
And found elsewhere on the same page, specifics against "spam e-mailing." That pretty much covers the actions of those who are using the system to send out unsolicited commercial e-mail.
I believe that Savvis ought to be made to completely reveal to the authorities and the Internet Community the identities, home and work addresses and telephones of those persons identified with the sending of UCEs. That might take 10 days, though it should not.
Of course that means I'll get less pr0n in my in-box....
mdwh2 wrote: Same as in Windows.
Actually, part of the "same as" issue is a result of Microsoft borrowing from Apple's user interface but that gets into name-calling and schoolyard issues ("Is not" "Is too.....").
I am considered a "power user" by most Windows users I work with and I'm considered a "power user" by many Mac users around me and as the result of a Mac forum in which I participate. The reason why I am so consulted is due to the simple fact that I am computer literate and possibly more so than the average user (of either computer).
Where I find the Macintosh easier to use is when I am learning new applications and tools and finding that the user interface is pleasant and supportive of my right-brained way of thinking. It somehow seems more supportive of the user. It also offers some killer applications that are either a lot less costly than their Windows counterparts or run better than their Windows "equals." Those applications tend to trend around what I do for a living, which involves film and video applications, sound, music and imagery. I also know how to use a spreadsheet as well.
The last Windows computer I purchased with my own money was set up by Microsoft to eventually drown in its own self-created refuse. If Microsoft has found a way to automatically clean out all of the .TMP files their OS created, my hat's off to them. It also tended to create an ever-lengthening .INI file containing information about how programs were supposed to run, what they could open and how they used hardware. Eventually I found I could not open my .INI file in Microsoft's text editor because it grew so large.
I am lead to believe that they now have a "Registry" file that does some of the same things. I understand that viruses and malware now use that file as a "hidey hole" for self-replication even after you have cleaned up your computer. This comment is probably "not fair" as Microsoft does present a larger target to black-hat hackers than does Apple.
I find using my Mac more pleasant. Part of it is cultural. Mac departments don't breed the kind of person who will name a printer "\\1161NYNEWSGENBC360S EDITORS" Instead, they'll do riffs on Greek, Roman or Nordic gods, planets, stars, and so on. I regularly access a disk drive called "India" and print to "Geminii" and "Phobos." Mac users understand when someone has their earphones on, gently humming away at a song playing on iTunes while working productively away. PC users find that odd. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Advice for any computer purchase: Buy the most processor you can afford. Plan to increase RAM as time goes on; you can always replace a stock hard disk later with one that is bigger and faster. And always look at how you can expand the computer as you use it. Apple's iBooks and iMacs are designed for high school and college students who will be trading into something more powerful on graduating. They last about three or four years, tops. Apple's Powerbooks and desktop (currently dual G5) computers are designed to last longer and work harder. They are more expandable and more suited to professional use.
Attach very long power cord to computer.
Start computer
Gently shove computer, running and attached to long power cord off building.
Using the formula v = (g/c)(1-e^(-tc)) where the constant c is about 0.394 sec^-1, integrating and solving for initial conditions gives you x=[integral] vdt = (g/c)(t + (1/c)(e^(-tc) -1)), your Windows XP machine will be faster than it ever has been before the long power cord disconnects itself.
Anonymous Coward writes: our society is dependent of fossil fuels, but we won't be running out anytime soon.
The reason why I wrote what I wrote is because I am looking forward to the next 1,000 years. Our civilization has records (many incomplete) that date, more or less. back to 5,000 years ago and one can see, over time, a continuous improvement in the technology we use to hold our societies together with a few "dark ages" causing a hiatus in further development in certain areas.
I have never come across any study that suggests that our current power sources will last for 1,000 years. In fact, everything I understand suggests that the cost of the delivery of the power that runs today's technology will steadily increase for the next several hundred years, which should put a serious damper on growth.
I do appreciate your links to the Institute for Scientific Research. It's a fascinating site.
Both of our comments strongly suggest that the future for human civilization probably will start to devolve on some mountanous spot on or near the equator. I wonder if it's time for me to start investing in land in Ecuador...
Or else we're finished would have to be some kind of a geostationary site that collects energy from the sun directly.
The reason why I surmise this is based on a few reflections I made about modern society and what we're doing. Here are a few starting points (certainly not the defining factors of what makes our present society tick):
These fossil fuels are not replaceable and the current "replacements" for these fuels cannot sustain us with a growing economy that is ever more dependant on power (mostly electricity). By "replacements" I mean the "renewable" sources like alcohol from corn and methane from large human and livestock slurries
Solar and lunar energy (these would be those not included above) like wind, photovoltaic, tide, hydro and (perhaps) geothermal energy may add to what we have but would never allow us to grow at our present rate.
For those of you who think that our dependency on fossil fuels is not as great as it is, try to follow the source of energy in the average corporate office from the power strip all the way back to its source. Very small quantities aren't made from either oil, gas or coal. All have a finite lifetime on this planet.
I'm no expert in microwave energy but I do recall that one could send a satellite up and "beam" power down to this planet using microwaves (which would not use a cable like Clarke suggested in his book "Fountains of Paradise." But it occurred to me as I was heating a pretty cold cup of coffee some time ago in my microwave that this kind of power transfer from space is likely to cause heating of the air around it, adding to global warming.
Thus, were we to attempt to use microwave-transfer, we might make a bad problem worse -- and by the time that kind of energy transfer would be profitable, we'll most probably have a pretty serious global warming issue. The only particular advantage with this kind of power transfer over typical global warming sources is that it probably doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere.
Thus it is my proposition that the only way we'll be able to continue to grow as a civilzation into the next millenium is to innovate so that we may be able to bring cheap energy down these kinds of long pipelines to outer space. I agree that the technology just isn't there yet. But I strongly suggest that we had better be about the business of making it possible.
And, to think. You first heard about this theory of the continuance of our civilization on /.
To increase profits through litigation, rather than development of new and more compelling music.
I respectfully resubmit my previous comment.
The old telecom companies are embracing this technology for several reasons:
The consumer wants to head this direction (anyone remember the age of passenger rail in the US?).
It is truly cheaper to provide this service, it's more efficient and may mean increased profitability.
They do know how to provide telephony and know that their customers will trust their offering.
They have not totally besmirched their name yet.
It has never cost telephone companies anything more to send a telephone call across the country or next door. The higher prices they were allowed (by governments) to charge for "long distance" were allowed to enable them to build their infrastructure. The higher prices we pay for cellular service reflects the need of cell phone companies to build out infrastructure so that they can serve their customers everywhere.
Now, telephone companies are finding that there is not just their infrastructure, but a whole new and cheaper infrastructure out there that was built without their investment. Some was paid for by the governments, some was paid for by private industry or other telephone companies. And they can use it -- free! Imagine the increases in profitability when you can sell a service that costs you little or nothing.
Here in the US, one of the reasons why VOIP from telecom companies is so cheap is because the playing field changed. They set up different companies for VOIP and cellular service and these companies don't have labor unions. So not only is the infrastructure cheaper, but labor is cheaper.
I note that BT immediately jumped on this bandwagon. They are, perhaps, the most hated company in the UK because they have held a monopoly for so long and refuse to bring pricing down to more sane levels in favor of keeping profits up. I kind of wonder at BT because they have generated a great deal of animosity in the public they "serve" in exchange for profits that are not visibly plowed into improved infrastructure.
Microsoft's "intelligent agent" is a product of Microsoft Bob which featured loads of these things. I think that those of us who are computer-literate often forget that there is a "great unwashed mass" out there that cannot for the life of them find that last file they downloaded and still don't know how to cut and paste or drag and drop between applications.
Microsoft has been "dumbing down" Word ever since Word for Windows version 2 and Word for the Macintosh version 5. I note that with Word 6 the automatic saving and restoring of names and addresses for each letter one made went away. "Autoformat" became "manual format" and has now "morphed" into "how Microsoft thinks your document should be formatted instead of how you really want it."
Unlike Cringely, I am hesitant to "upgrade," knowing full well that the next iteration of Microsoft's software will be worse than the last, requiring me to learn how to get around its maddening dumbing down "features." I found that when I moved to OS X, I had to upgrade to their Office X -- I was able to use Office version 4.2.1 just fine with Apple's System 9, which did not eat up processor cycles with "intelligent asisstants" and "a more colorful user interface."
Until Excel, or a better spreadsheet, ceases to be a requirement for me, I shall continue to rely on Office X and not install PowerPoint, the Office Menu Bar and their E-Mail program (which is dangerous to use because of the ease by which it may be spoofed by Macro Virii).
If I recall the Great Word Processor Debate of the 1980s and early 1990s, the definitive answer was: The Word Processor You Know Best Is Always Superior.
Orrin Hatch wants to destroy your computer in order to please his friends (read campaign contributors) in the recording and movie industry. This particular reactionary thought it might be a good idea for those who feel their copyright is being infringed by these decentralized perr-to-peer networks ought to be legally able to write virus code that will destroy users' computers.
On the other hand there's Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York who found that many artists and writers were not being paid royalties because record companies had failed to maintain contact with the performers and had stopped making required payments.
I have a very good friend who is a CPA and worked as an auditor for a large CPA firm here in NYC. One particularly famous rock band from Long Island (long since broken up) had a member not too long ago who ran into a rather obnoxious member of the press (read papparizzi) who shoved him, then sued him when he struck back (he only hit him because he was trying to recover hos balance, honest).
The band member contacted their lawyer, who he had not spoken to for years due to the band's breakup. The lawyer told him that it would cost $5,000 to represent him and when could he expect the check?
The former rocker's answer was, "But I'm broke!
The lawyer rummaged around a bit and pulled out a standard contract which has a paragraph indicating that the band may audit the record company's books at any time and that the expense must be borne by the recording company if the band felt that there was any malfeasance.
The lawyer then asked the band member when the last time he had received a royalty check was.
The band member recalled the last one came in (and was all-too quickly spent) seven years before.
The lawyer suggested that the band had a strong case for malfeasance, as he, himself had seen someone purchase a CD of the band's music himself within the last year. My friend (the CPA) was hired and they found that the company typically under-reported album (later CD) sales when the band was active by 20%. Additionally, the recording company was on the hook for seven years of pretty good sales of the CDs made by the band as well as one anthology that the record company had produced that the band didn't know about.
This gave the band enough cash to put a little away in investments and also to initiate a comeback tour that was quite successful in both raising quick cash from venues as well as increasing their CD sales.
The RIAA says that the sales of CDs are dropping and that it's caused by peer networks. The movie industry said that fewer people were going to the movies and were purchasing videos and laserdiscs (later DVDs) because of home copying and later peer networks. I just cannot believe these theves.
Could the real reason why they say their sales are down be because they are underreporting sales in order to screw artists? Or is it that the current distribution model prevents anything compelling to the audience from ever being released? I wonder as I watch all of the caterwauling about copyright. Could it be that the only revenue stream they can come up with is through litigation instead of developing and releasing compelling content?
I'm still puzzling over this comment that keeps coming up again and again. I bought my current Macintosh in 1999. It is running the current Apple operating system. I did max out the RAM and I did get a faster processor for my box but that was all planned when I purchased it. I figure to get a solid five to six years out of my one Macintosh and that is a lot more life than you get out of a pee cee -- assuming you want to run current software.
Apple computers are easier to use and learn. There are costs associated with that.
I, for one, think that what Real is doing is just fine, though it is probably wrong to sell something at a loss in order to gain market share. I would have been happy to see an agreement between Real and Apple to increase the available titles on the iTunes Music Store. I find it wholly and completely unsurprising that Real's music download site does not work with Macintosh computers. Their other software requires a lot more out of a Power PC Processor than it does out of an Intel processor and the Power PC Processor has more capacity to do the kind of work I would expect of a video codec (or two or three) and Real tends to update Apple-compatible software as an afterthought.
Or could it be that they don't want a judge to pronounce summary judgement against them by supporting Macintosh with their music store...
you've obviously never used a Tivo.
You are correct. But The TiVo company still loses market share to these overglorified VCRs leased by cable companies. That is why their fortunes have fallen -- xomewhat.
And elsewhere in this discussion I hear comments that the TiVo device does not record the way the user hoped, recording Spanish-language shows instead of what they wanted and not recording when told to.
I do not dispute your claim that Jobs did say what he said, but in 1995, I was doing media work for Microsoft and recorded an interview with Gates about the future of computers where he was asked specifically about the merging of computers and television.
Since I later edited the interview and his comments into a video for the Microsoft company, I remember his comments in detail.
Might Jobs have said this first? Sure. Might some other computer software person said this first? Absolutely.
In the Betamax case the US Court system found that home copying for personal use is not infringement. This law has also been applied to PVRs. Frankly, it is common sense. You do have a right to record what you see on TV. I see no difference between this and the home use of a home DVD disk recorder (as has been mentioned in this forum). TiVo's competition would have to include some means (even if it were not as good) of "backing up" the material on their hard disks or seriously lose market share to TiVo. That makes it a temporary save in my book.
of their own success. Basically, TiVo replaces a standard VCR, only more effectively. It can record shows while playing back, it can let you skip commercials more effectively than a VCR and it's a cool device.
But a "generic TiVo" leased from cable and satellite television companies does the same thing exactly. They all enhance the television viewing experience with high-quality instant playback for "timeshifting." What none of these devices do is allow you to permanently record television in a removable device.
Want to (temporarily) save TiVo? Add a feature that will take a certain segment of the recorded video to an on-board dual-layer DVD recorder. Let the viewer have the option of cutting out the commercials, starting the recording at a certain spot and ending at a certain spot, pick up recording when the actual program restarts, etc. Once you are all done, you have a DVD for your collection.
The reason why this is a temporary save is that the generic models will immediately try to do the same thing. Hey, competition sux sometimes.
I don't use my computer while I'm watching television. I do know that there are some people whose only access to the Internet, e-mail and the Worldwide Web are through devices like "WebTV" but I can't see that (small) market really hustling out there to get a TiVo. Bill Gates is correct; the television viewing experience is really different from that of working on a computer. The only possible likeness is playing games.
Were TiVo able to enhance a game-player's experience, they'd really have something. Perhaps one possible enhancement would be the creation of a shared on-line experience for console games that do not allow networked game play, but that sounds unlikely to me.
I suppose the Republican spin on a massive surge in the number of page loads will be that their websites have gained incredible popularity.
In an attempt to close down one political party's ability to get the word out, one political party and its President were thrown out of office by the majority of Americans who did not like the idea that free speech and freedom of the press ought to be limited.
For workflow and data sharing (that would be video, audio, still images and the like) Avid came up with something they call the Avid Unity. We have seventeen Avid DS workstations and one Unity shared between three of them for two specific purposes that I shall not elaborate on.
When we do file copies through the Unity from any workstation that is in the midst of a render, Windows XP Professional crashes. Cannot hit [Ctrl]-[Alt]-[Del] and end the application. Avid tells us not to do this, they cannot solve a Microsoft problem. And, since it's someone else pulling files out of your workstation's RAID, you don't usually know what happened until after someone apologizes for taking your system down.
When we're in the middle of a long render, we cannot pop out to the desktop and do any Windows file management (organizing, cleaining up, emptying the Recycle bin, anything). Avid tells us that Windows XP multi-tasking model is not truly pre-emptively multi-tasking and that we're looking for a crash there. Generally, I've been able to [Ctrl]-[Alt]-[Del] and end the application but sometimes XP just bites the dust. This is not related to the Unity server.
I notice a lot of screen redraw problems when the system is taxed. I have never seen Apple's OS X fail to redraw a screen. Now, maybe I've been being spoiled by using Unix but I cannot imagine why updating an operator's environment should come second to some other task. This is not related to the Unity server.
We have been told never to print when doing a file copy. I don't ususlly do that bue we've been told that Windows XP Professional cannot run their printer drivers when doing that.
The Avid DS is a pretty massive application and the file transfer operations are transfering a lot of data. It is very taxing of the processor, though the Nitris breakout box does a fair amount of real-time processing. I think one of the big problems is I/O from hard drives, networks and processor-intensive work can't all happen at once. But I don't see anything here that a modern operating system ought not to be able to handle.
I suppose one could blame all of this on the Avid DS but SoftImage wrote this with partnership help from Microsoft. There is no reason why the DS software people should have not been able to deal correctly with Microsoft's APIs
Some time ago, Microsoft purchased a company called SoftImage. Turned out to be a good investment in 3D development and film compositing with a product called the DS.
Meanwhile, in Tewksbury, the Avid Media Composer which ran only on the Apple Macintosh platform was ported to Windows when Microsoft made some investments in Avid. About that time Apple (unwisely) discontinued their six PCI-Slot Macintosh..
When Avid noted that their product was dead-ended because its code basis assumed a raster that was limited to NTSC and PAL television format, they purchased SoftImage's DS in order to be able to easily produce software that will do film and high definition video.
Microsoft doesn't make investments for nothing. I believe I can do something very close to what Microsoft is doing for Mini-DV video on any format of video or film with the Avid DS -- though for a lot more money (something like $120K USD). I would not be surprised if they got the technology from that very old investment.
As a creative person though, I have to say I don't like the fact that the DS-Nitris will probably never run on a Macintosh. We have problems with ours that are related mostly to two issues: Operator screw-ups (expected) and Microsoft Windows XP Professional limitations, many of which do not exist in Apple's current versions of Unix.
OK, I'll bite...
If the pirate pays zero for the pirated XP Pro (or home, as seems to be the case mostly in the Far East), he or she makes a buck off the proceeds of duplication. I get your point. But, if Microsoft floods the market with cheap copies of XP Express, the buyer doesn't know what he or she is going to get. In essence Microsoft will be using an appropriate uncertainty in the mind of the purchaser to drive the corporate buyer to buy legitimate copies. That way the buyer knows what he or she is getting and that they won't be getting a nasty surprise when they install software.
I have it on good authority that many of the current pirated copies of XP are XP Home in XP Professional boxes. There is not a whole lot of critical difference between XP Home and XP Professional but the corporate buyer does have to work around some of the problems when they purchase the home version and try to use it in a professional setting. To try to do workarounds to XP Express in a corporate environment would just not be worth it. So Microsoft will bring more corporate users back into the fold this way.
The pirates always do whatever they can to make more money. That includes going into theaters with camcorders to record a film that includes audience reactions at "no extra charge." So it's "no extra charge" for the bad version of Windows you're running that you bought from me when you thought you were getting the real deal.
According to Microsoft: the new software [will] also help deter consumers from buying pirated versions of its XP system, widely available in many Asian countries.
Thus, Microsoft, who wants to sell to corporations in the far east, wants to confuse the issue by making sure that the pirates have lots of inferior product so that the corporations no longer can trust the pirates or the pirated copies.
I read a number of rants. A number of "gloom and doom postings." I am also aware that the next place for computer programmers to be outsourced to will be where programmers, help desks and so on are cheaper than they are in India. That would be China, folks.
At first NAFTA was a rip-snorting success for Mexico. Problem is, the owners of these new plants didn't see the future coming, they just wanted to cash in on the now. So, while a number of rich plant owners in Mexico got richer (at least momentarily) American companies receiving a tax and labor cost benefit from moving to Mexico were learning that they could move out of the US without significantly harming their business and promptly moved to where wages are even lower than they are in Mexico.
After all, NAFTA rules say that workers have rights to organize, even in Mexico. Why not move somewhere where workers have no rights whatsoever.
In the United States, shortly after the Civil War, prisoners in penitentiaries were traded back and forth between companies doing business in the Deep South more or less as slave labor chain gangs. You can see exactly the same treatment -- and worse -- today in China. I will not knowingly purchase goods marked "Made in China" because I find the practice of near slavery and outright slavery repugnant.
I read some time ago a book by a physician who diagnoses many illnesses of famous persons now long dead. In this book, he reflects on Newton's scientific inquiry, which encouraged him to use all senses to determine results of his practice of alchemy. The doctor suggests that Newton may have started poisoning himself with both lead and mercury, as well as other poisons, whenever he began dabbling in alchemy and, over the years, may have seriously impaired himself though that routine poisoning by tasting, touching and sniffing as well as observing the results of his experiments with his eyes.
I wondered upon reading that what Newton might have come up with had he not done that.
A corporation I know purchased a Cessna Citation II some years back in order to get their executives around quicker. I believe, at the time, the plane cost around $1 million (USD). Yearly maintenance on the plane was $1 million.
That's a lot of money just for maintenance and when I asked about that expenditure I was told, "One doesn't go cheap where the only thing keeping you alive up there is the integrity of the aircraft and its systems."
Anonymous Coward writes: I don't know why it hasn't been added to the website. Perhaps all efforts are being expended in development, not PR. Anonymous Coward writes: Failure and loss of the vehicle may be likely (makes it more exciting to tune in on launch day) ... I can forgo all that excitement where human life is concerned.
Perhaps the reason why I don't see the Canadian group as being viable is due to the fact that entire systems are not being tested. Scaled Composites had a nasty surprise that really frightened the pilot (he commented that he thought he would not survive the flight until the backup steering mechanism began to work) after careful and exhaustive testing. I, for one, would not particularly want to be a part of the media delivery system for a catastrophic failure for any team. And it's likely that I will be handling part of the broadcasts for both.
Many tribal cultures have a "corporate" theory of ownership, meaning that ownership is by collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. Over centuries and millennia law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources.
In classical economics there is an ambiguous position taken with regard to land ownership. Many theorists seemed to consider it a necessary evil, and argued that it could not be defended if there was not some obligation to keep and improve the land. In the 20th century, the idea of ecological stewardship led to legal ways that land ownership could be rightfully restricted because of erosion, pollution, biodiversity and other concerns - which reduced the level of what came to be called nature's services to all in the locality. And, property tax increasingly was levied to pay for "services" offered by the state, which could not be refused (such as fire fighting).
Homesteading required service to or improvement on land for a period of time. Not quite the homesteader, George Washington, who purchased large tracts of land west of the Allegheny Mountains (perhaps in direct violation of the Proclamation of 1763), successfully won a lawsuit against squatters on the land he bought based on his careful recordkeeping, though many of the records of his deeds to the land were burned by the English during the War of Independance. He demonstrated to the squatters his ownership of the land by showing them the improvements he had made on the land before their arrival.
Under Common Law, subsequently codified in the US under State and local laws, Adverse Posession allows a person to get title to land from the actual owner simply by using the land, out in the open for all to see. For example, your neighbor built a fence on your land with the intention of taking the property, paid property taxes, and you knew about it but did nothing and this continued for a period of time set by state law, your neighbor may be able to claim this property as his/her own. The theory is that, by not disputing your neighbor's use of your property through a lawsuit, you, as the actual owner have abandoned your rights to the property.
Thus, if I were to voluntarily send a check for $1 yearly to some government as payment of taxes for the posession of the sun, I could, in theory and after a number of years specified in that municipality or state's law, deny the claim of the current owner. I suppose I might be able to "make improvements" on my property by adding to its fuel by sending space junk into a decaying solar orbit.
I was around back then and the rocket that couldn't fly was the Atlas, not the Redstone, which was (slightly more) proven. Specifically, the Atlas I "Big Joe" had a number of mishaps, many of which took place in full view of the 7 original astronauts.
The Mercury-Redstone launches did have their problems. Mercury-Redstone 1 had a very short liftoff, rising 4 or 5 inches (10 to 13 centimeters) before settling back on its fins, while the escape tower launched-without its attached capsule. On a manned mission, the tower was supposed to carry an astronaut to safety if the flight were aborted. But Redstone was a more proven vehicle. Unfortunately, it could not attain orbit with a Mercury capsule payload which is why it was used for the suborbital flights (Freedom 7 - Alan Shepard and Liberty Bell 7 - Virgil "Gus" Grissom). Glen's Freedom 7 used an Atlas booster.
Canadians are great at making robot arms. this particular group doesn't look viable to me.