I've used this type of thing in the past in my code. It is more to get a developer's attention than to advertise, but ultimately it is the same thing.
I use comment blocks into OUT to tell people what might be going on, where it is broken, WHY it is broken, and how to fix it. Usually it is another file (as many developers have code that react to STD* output).
Transition that to advertising. In this case, the OUT wouldn't be a report, it might be an advertisement to a product that resolves some issue (STDERR analysis might be a little encroaching, [see MS Error Reporting]).
Take a look at Adobe Acrobat 6.0 reader. In the upper right hand corner is a clickable 'advertisement' about other Adobe products...much easier to implement in a GUI world, but it can be done in a Text world.
Now if they can just figure out how to combine this with SpaceShipOne, you might just have something. Could this be the evolution towards the 'subwarp' engine and the 'warp drive' as seperate entities on a 'space' vehicle?
Sorry, let me put my rubber Vulcan ears back in the box where I thought I buried them....
For the Soyuz ride, there are only 3 people willing to drop 20 million. My arguement is that in fact if you drop the price to 1 million, THEN we'd have a comparison. As there is no factual (currently this is all hypothesis) comparitor, you can't directly compare the NUMBER of people who flew on the Soyuz to anything REMOTELY resembling a personal space craft (per se).
As for the SSO and FAA certification, I'd wonder if the Wright flyer would be 'certified or insured' in its original state. I would argue not a chance in hell. However, derivitives afterwards have.
I think we agree to disagree about the potential untapped market for this, I think there ARE people out there who *will* pay for a 1 million dollar sub-orbital ride.
My arguement here Rei isn't that the SSO as a single machine can create or fulfill the niche but that the concept of the SSO can be.
I'm only discussing the fact that there are people willing to pay cash and that at 1/20th the cost of the Soyuz rides.
if there's even a company out there willing to insure
I can GUARANTEE that someone will insure anything if there is money to be made. Assuming we are using a little logic here in sayin that if there are passengers, they won't be flying in conditions like a 30 mph cross wind...we aren't talking about the SSO in its current form. Make it more passenger friendly while offering instant returnability and potentially significant lower costs (v. Soyuz). If somehow some sort of parallel scientific study was happening (how different people react to 5Gs, etc).
Tito showed that there is a market niche for space tourism? Him and the, what, 3 other people who've done it? Who actually got to go into orbit?
Tito showed that there is a niche for space tourism, that people are willing to spend MILLIONS of dollars for a ride.
My thought is that if you can offer it even at 1 mil a head, I can almost guarantee you'd cover Paul's investment in a year.
I think our arguement here is "Are there enough people willing to drop 1 mil (or a portion of a flat rate cost) to fly into sub-orbit and return"
I think it would take about 50 such people at around 500k a head to get this off the ground. If all is approved, I could forsee a monthly ride on the SSO. Within the US, new millionaires are made each day (just watch your sports draft of choice). Take into account the plethora of wealthy americans who would love the idea of taking the 'ULTIMATE' ride. I don't believe that there is any problem with finding enough riders. I believe Dennis Tito has shown that there is a market niche for space tourism and the SSO can move the baseline from 20 million to say 1 million or even less (if you can get 2 others to go in on the ride).
did any member of Christopher Columbus, Lief Ericsson, or the Pilgrim voyage pioneer breakthroughs in flight, submarines, or nuclear power?
Since none of those voyages resulted in dramatic scientific or human development, should it be concluded that human voyages across the Atlantic should have been abandoned in the 16th and 17th centuries???
The human adventure, within the atmosphere or outside of it, has continually provided INDIRECT development across the spectrum of the human experience.
I would consider the discovery of new land masses, new peoples, cultures etc, to be a DRAMATIC human development.
I disagree that there is no ROI for SSO. While I do not know the cost per launch, I can almost guarantee you can find 3 folks that would pool together say 1 mil USD for a ride on that thing.
As far as a vulture mission, I see your point about the cost. My thought was more along the lines of general hardware and reuse. For example, would the Mars Rover landing sites be reusable in the near future by other rovers?
Both the rovers are in great spots for science, sending another rover to those locations seems to be logical. My thought was that "While we're here, we might as well dust off those solar panels and put these old rovers to work". I agree however that the effort of figuring out how to dust off those panels and restart the rovers is more than just sending a new rover each time.
I'm talking about something like it but use only the things *on* Mars. I believe they did something similiar sort of for Apollo 12 right? I think they landed near the crater where a previous unmanned droid was sitting and brought back the camera. (This is where they realized someone had sneezed on the camera and they were able to bring the bacteria back to life, proving that life can survive in the harshest environments)
Could a small rover type vehicle be landed near defunct Mars vehicles and basically refuel or jump start or reuse parts? Wouldn't this cut the cost or sending brand new vehicles to do redundant work? JMO
One would think that it does get windy on Mars. Couldn't you time a series of 'jiggle' menuevers with the panels facing into the win? It would be like shaking sand out of your bathing suit on a windy day.
I would think that the next rover type deployment would make better use of the landing pad. I'd also like to see missions to Mars to potentially recycle machinery there.
Imagine a space tow-truck that can go and 'jump' previously expired machines?
I have the right then, in the middle of session, to stroll in, interupt the procedings and read all the SEALED DOCUMENTS. Then I can install a huge blinding LED scroller and let it run for a few months with no ability to shut it off. Maybe the scroller has a dead-man's switch so that if you try and remove it, it accidentally burns the whole place down to the ground. Remember, it is your fault for breaking my LED, so I can sue for damage to my LED system. Isn't that the same thing as hitting a web site, having it install and snoop with no permission and in some cases, accidentally overwrite and damage something?
Someone needs to send a spyware to these spyware companies and sue them if they don't allow it...
I know a lot of us are thinking about convenience convergence. I'm more leaning towards the security and safety implementation of something like this. Figure you're alarm system is already 'wired' to your house, why can't your water heater tell you when it is failing, or better yet, have it contact a pre-defined company and have it schedule a pick up. I can see this as a failure protection type thing. If appliances are failing or are left on (oven perhaps?) etc, you can visit a web site or set up preferences that would then control this type of thing?
Didn't Big Brother Bill try this at his house and it not work? With my luck, they'll use M$ IIS, and thanks to a security hole my water heater just beat up my furnace.
For those of us still stuck in the world of legacy unsupported applications, Vignette's StoryServer platform utilized a hacked version of Tcl...the commands were all caps
[SEARCH TABLE slash INTO dot SQL "
SELECT myShoe
FROM myFoot
WHERE myShoe IS NOT NULL
"]
Within the language, each open bracket is another run of the interpreter, so you can nest a lot of code within a single bracket. I can't imagine holding shift for 500 lines of code where a large percentage of which can be upper case.
I'm fortunate enough that they support raw tcl (lower case) so I don't have to use their laborious wrapper commands but in some cases it cannot be avoided (SEARCH utilized some internal structures for database connection that is hard to write by hand) or is too hard to rewrite.
Is there legal accountability for such a blatantly obvious security flaw with apparent complete disregard for potential loss of income due to break-in?
--matt
Why are companies allowed to get away with this crap just because we pay them for their shoddy wares? The answer lies within the question: Because we pay them.
I understand that is an easy escape, but this assumes in many cases that there is a choice. From a large corporate standpoint, security managers aren't always privy to the golf outings where large purchases of garbage hardware is bought because someone's CIO missed their chip on the 13th. In my case, we have execs and higher dropping POs in our email box saying 'Hey, saw this and picked up a few, they say it will increase ROI'
For someone in my shoes, the fact that a large corporate supplier would have such stupid public practices scares me... It's like finding out that your CTO and CIO are flying to Utah to talk to SCO.... scary.
After reading this, I imagine that Darl's press guy might be a Novell insider...this may have been the conversation just prior to the release...
PR guy: You know Darl, SD Times says you aren't good enough to be called out as the company that brings FUD to us all Darl: uh huh huh, damn SD times people, uh huh huh huh...
PR guy: But Darl, I have some good news for you, I convinced them you were
Darl: uh huh huh, good news, uh huh huh
PR guy: Go make a release about how good you are at bringing FUD
Darl: uh huh huh, off to make a release, where's my crayons, uh huh huh.
The worst statement made was...
She does not want cash just the opportunity to operate as insiders for the IPO.
It makes me sick... Do the philantropic thing and build a mathematics school in his name.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait to see the discussion boards. I wouldn't want to moderate that.
I've used this type of thing in the past in my code. It is more to get a developer's attention than to advertise, but ultimately it is the same thing.
I use comment blocks into OUT to tell people what might be going on, where it is broken, WHY it is broken, and how to fix it. Usually it is another file (as many developers have code that react to STD* output).
Transition that to advertising. In this case, the OUT wouldn't be a report, it might be an advertisement to a product that resolves some issue (STDERR analysis might be a little encroaching, [see MS Error Reporting]).
Take a look at Adobe Acrobat 6.0 reader. In the upper right hand corner is a clickable 'advertisement' about other Adobe products...much easier to implement in a GUI world, but it can be done in a Text world.
Could this be the evolution towards the 'subwarp' engine and the 'warp drive' as seperate entities on a 'space' vehicle?
Sorry, let me put my rubber Vulcan ears back in the box where I thought I buried them....
As for the SSO and FAA certification, I'd wonder if the Wright flyer would be 'certified or insured' in its original state. I would argue not a chance in hell. However, derivitives afterwards have.
I think we agree to disagree about the potential untapped market for this, I think there ARE people out there who *will* pay for a 1 million dollar sub-orbital ride.
My arguement here Rei isn't that the SSO as a single machine can create or fulfill the niche but that the concept of the SSO can be.
if there's even a company out there willing to insure
I can GUARANTEE that someone will insure anything if there is money to be made. Assuming we are using a little logic here in sayin that if there are passengers, they won't be flying in conditions like a 30 mph cross wind...we aren't talking about the SSO in its current form. Make it more passenger friendly while offering instant returnability and potentially significant lower costs (v. Soyuz). If somehow some sort of parallel scientific study was happening (how different people react to 5Gs, etc).
Tito showed that there is a market niche for space tourism? Him and the, what, 3 other people who've done it? Who actually got to go into orbit?
Tito showed that there is a niche for space tourism, that people are willing to spend MILLIONS of dollars for a ride.
My thought is that if you can offer it even at 1 mil a head, I can almost guarantee you'd cover Paul's investment in a year.
I think our arguement here is "Are there enough people willing to drop 1 mil (or a portion of a flat rate cost) to fly into sub-orbit and return"
I think it would take about 50 such people at around 500k a head to get this off the ground. If all is approved, I could forsee a monthly ride on the SSO. Within the US, new millionaires are made each day (just watch your sports draft of choice). Take into account the plethora of wealthy americans who would love the idea of taking the 'ULTIMATE' ride. I don't believe that there is any problem with finding enough riders. I believe Dennis Tito has shown that there is a market niche for space tourism and the SSO can move the baseline from 20 million to say 1 million or even less (if you can get 2 others to go in on the ride).
Since none of those voyages resulted in dramatic scientific or human development, should it be concluded that human voyages across the Atlantic should have been abandoned in the 16th and 17th centuries??? The human adventure, within the atmosphere or outside of it, has continually provided INDIRECT development across the spectrum of the human experience.
I would consider the discovery of new land masses, new peoples, cultures etc, to be a DRAMATIC human development.
SCO is the most loathed company to the Linux world.
I don't even need to list the M$ FUD and Swiss Cheese software they've unleashed on us all.
Take a look at the case of Jay Nelson. This Sal gentleman may face more than 5 years depending what he is doing with Justin's money etc.
Here's a link to the story and background.
Here is a link describing the bacteria etc(FYI, it is a .txt)
As far as a vulture mission, I see your point about the cost. My thought was more along the lines of general hardware and reuse. For example, would the Mars Rover landing sites be reusable in the near future by other rovers?
Both the rovers are in great spots for science, sending another rover to those locations seems to be logical. My thought was that "While we're here, we might as well dust off those solar panels and put these old rovers to work". I agree however that the effort of figuring out how to dust off those panels and restart the rovers is more than just sending a new rover each time.
Could a small rover type vehicle be landed near defunct Mars vehicles and basically refuel or jump start or reuse parts? Wouldn't this cut the cost or sending brand new vehicles to do redundant work? JMO
One would think that it does get windy on Mars. Couldn't you time a series of 'jiggle' menuevers with the panels facing into the win? It would be like shaking sand out of your bathing suit on a windy day.
I would think that the next rover type deployment would make better use of the landing pad. I'd also like to see missions to Mars to potentially recycle machinery there.
Imagine a space tow-truck that can go and 'jump' previously expired machines?
Someone needs to send a spyware to these spyware companies and sue them if they don't allow it...
I know a lot of us are thinking about convenience convergence. I'm more leaning towards the security and safety implementation of something like this. Figure you're alarm system is already 'wired' to your house, why can't your water heater tell you when it is failing, or better yet, have it contact a pre-defined company and have it schedule a pick up. I can see this as a failure protection type thing. If appliances are failing or are left on (oven perhaps?) etc, you can visit a web site or set up preferences that would then control this type of thing?
Didn't Big Brother Bill try this at his house and it not work? With my luck, they'll use M$ IIS, and thanks to a security hole my water heater just beat up my furnace.
For those of us still stuck in the world of legacy unsupported applications, Vignette's StoryServer platform utilized a hacked version of Tcl...the commands were all caps
[SEARCH TABLE slash INTO dot SQL "
SELECT myShoe
FROM myFoot
WHERE myShoe IS NOT NULL
"]
Within the language, each open bracket is another run of the interpreter, so you can nest a lot of code within a single bracket. I can't imagine holding shift for 500 lines of code where a large percentage of which can be upper case.
I'm fortunate enough that they support raw tcl (lower case) so I don't have to use their laborious wrapper commands but in some cases it cannot be avoided (SEARCH utilized some internal structures for database connection that is hard to write by hand) or is too hard to rewrite.
Is there legal accountability for such a blatantly obvious security flaw with apparent complete disregard for potential loss of income due to break-in?
--matt
The answer lies within the question: Because we pay them.
I understand that is an easy escape, but this assumes in many cases that there is a choice. From a large corporate standpoint, security managers aren't always privy to the golf outings where large purchases of garbage hardware is bought because someone's CIO missed their chip on the 13th.
In my case, we have execs and higher dropping POs in our email box saying 'Hey, saw this and picked up a few, they say it will increase ROI'
For someone in my shoes, the fact that a large corporate supplier would have such stupid public practices scares me... It's like finding out that your CTO and CIO are flying to Utah to talk to SCO.... scary.
After reading this, I imagine that Darl's press guy might be a Novell insider...this may have been the conversation just prior to the release...
PR guy: You know Darl, SD Times says you aren't good enough to be called out as the company that brings FUD to us all
Darl: uh huh huh, damn SD times people, uh huh huh huh...
PR guy: But Darl, I have some good news for you, I convinced them you were
Darl: uh huh huh, good news, uh huh huh
PR guy: Go make a release about how good you are at bringing FUD
Darl: uh huh huh, off to make a release, where's my crayons, uh huh huh.
--end
The worst statement made was... She does not want cash just the opportunity to operate as insiders for the IPO. It makes me sick... Do the philantropic thing and build a mathematics school in his name.
This is a fuzzy win for SCO. Ultimately their goal was to either get rid of or stall the process of RH's suit against them.
It seems that the OSS world is so hungry for a loss by SCO that they are blind to a hidden victory.
While I believe IBM will win, if they lose, you better start writing a new OS.