Actually, I credit most of my (limited) conversational french to the 4 university courses I did, so I'm not really disagreeing with your point. However, I didn't go to a french immersion school and I can get by in Quebec, France or other french-speaking places.
I remember watching some of the network coverage of Sydney in 2000, and being amazed at how bad it was. Idiotic scripted voice-overs of tape-delayed events, and stupid background pieces on the athletes (no offense intended to the athletes themselves).
As the other posters have said, all over, the bug was opened in Sept 2002. Not far from 2 years ago.
As other posters have been mistaken, so are you. The bug linked to in the/. article is 2 years old, but the correct bug (250180) is one day old. Fixing the 2 year old bug would have only removed some of the methods of activating the underlying Windows bug, not all.
This is something that has always impressed me with Rutan; he has always been pretty honest with regards to the performance and safety of his designs.
I attended a talk by Burt at my engineering school about two years ago. He had lots of interesting stuff to say (including some allusions to private spaceflight that I didn't catch at the time). One of the things he talked about was achieving quality in engineering and product design. A key phrase he used was "never defend the product". As best I can remember it, he teaches his staff to never defend a design decision or point of view, but rather to always question it. Part of making this possible is working hard to avoid blaming people for design mistakes, so that everybody feels secure enough to question their own work, as well as other's.
I can't explain it nearly as well as he did, but 'always question, never defend' frees a design team to freely share ideas and criticism without fear of hurting somebody's feelings or being reprimanded by management.
His open admission of the flaws in the test flight seem like a natural result of his policy. He's trained himself (and his staff) to find their personal value and importance in other things besides the success of this particular design. What's more important to him is understanding what went wrong and finding a better solution.
(Aside: wouldn't it be great if we could all work for bosses as enlightened as Rutan?)
Ask about their previous management history (are they a good leader?), ask about how well they understand the technology (are they the quentessential pointy hair?)
Management and leadership are two entirely different things. Perhaps the OP would do well to decide if the boss position in question will need to be one or the other, or both. Ask questions that give clues to his personality type. Look into the Myers-Brigg typology, if you aren't already familiar with it.
Of course, that RFC is based on, and explicitly refers to the more authoritative ISO 8601 standard, which makes so much sense that I sometimes feel like printing it out, rolling it up and beating some Americans over the head with it.
If you happen to use 98lite SLEEK mode (like I do) you might be wondering how this patch interacts. Despite the warning that the service pack is only compatible with CHUBBY and OVERWEIGHT, I tried it anyway. After installing the SP, I ran 98lite again to go back to SLEEK (with the win95 shell). It seems that the sleek option no longer produces the desired result. After rebooting, I'm still seeing the win98 shell (as if I had chosen CHUBBY).
I'm going to stick with it for a while to see if I notice the advertised benefits of the service pack, since I use USB stuff and I have over 512MB of RAM. Unfortunately, I'll have to migrate some application user data, since some apps look in a different place to store config data with Win98SE as opposed to 98lite in SLEEK mode.
(Yes, I have a firewall, and no I don't use Outlook or MSIE with my ancient 98SE system)
The debate above is sort of moot, since the PDF specs for HSV2 from INCAT list a max speed of 38 knots fully loaded at 627 tonnes deadweight. However, the external profiles and dimensions are nearly identical, and the Evolution 10B lists a max speed of 36 knots at 750 tonnes. The 10B lists 40 kts at 375 tonnes and the HSV2 specs 42 knts at 300 tonnes.
(Aside: it kinda makes the Nimitz-class carriers more impressive when you realize their gross weight fully loaded is over 97,000 tonnes, and as somebody else in the thread noted, they can steam indefinitely at 32 knots.)
The engines are the same, specifically 4 x Catapiller 3618 rated at 7080 kW (although the 10B offers a different engine as an option). The water jets are also identical, though the transmission may be a different manufacturer.
So, the bottom line is if you want to know the real top speed of the HSV 2, call up Bay Ferries in Maine, talk to one of their captains, and ask her/him how fast they can make the Cat go.
Of course, as you mention, it is always possible that the military has modified the ship and/or its engines upwards from the specs.
Having glanced a little closer at this ship, my thought is how well this ship would hold up in combat. How much redundancy and survivability is grafted onto what seems to be essentially a civilian design? I guess it's a good thing that it's intended for behind-the-front-lines transport type duties.
Oh, and about that 47 knot number. No weight is listed for the 'lightship' configuration so I guess that would be empty. I would guess that the top speed isn't classified - they just toned down the number to 35+ for the press release so as not to sound too conspicuous.
These boats only make sense if they can do 40+ knots. Otherwise they might as well be part of the support group. Perhaps the true top speed is classified?
Compare the pictures of the Swift elsewhere in the comments to the pictures of the Bay Ferries Cat that travels from Bar Harbor Maine to Yarmouth NS Canada. I'd wager it's the same basic ship design. Living in NS, Canada, I knew the Cat did more than 35 knots, but I wasn't sure until I found this article that quotes a speed of 55 mph, or about 48 knots. This is actually also listed on the Cat site on the Cat Facts page.
As a matter of fact, some browsing the INCAT website shows a picture of the Bay Ferries Cat under the info for the Evolution 10B model, which is one of the more recent ones, around the size of the HSV 2 Swift. Speed is listed at 38 knots fully loaded and 47 knots lightship.
No, it's worthwhile to learn CPR - it will keep a person revivable. However, it won't revive somebody on its own. CPR is for when help isn't immediately available, to keep the victim from completely dying until better medical attention becomes available.
I believe the OP was citing automatic defibrilators as an example of 'better medical attention.' Having an automatic defibrilator available means a victim will receive help much sooner than if they had to wait for paramedics.
I'm just curious to know the risks of using such a device in a situation that doesn't actually warrant it. What kind of liability does a person face if they believe somebody to be in cardiac arrest when they aren't, and such a device is used unnecessarily.
If you're going to go so far as to require a one-use pad, then you can forget about the whole "port knocking" concept
I understand your point, but if I understand port-knocking correctly, it will allow you to effectively cloak the existence of a service entirely. Even if you use a 1-time pad authentication scheme, Mr. Evil Cracker can still connect to your server and see that a service is running. Perhaps it is a commonly used service, and a known exploit exists that bypasses the authentication mechanism. Unlikely, I know, but with port-knocking, connection attempts to your server are simply dropped on the floor, until the correct sequence of connection attempts is received.
Unless Mr. Evil Cracker is sitting somewhere in the middle to sniff a valid connect attempt, he will never even know the service exists.
You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.
I don't know about everybody else, but at least this makes your complaint a little clearer to me. Here's how I understand your position:
You would like to take GPL code to enhance your proprietary code, and redistribute the GPL code with your proprietary code without restriction. You are willing to share any enhancements you make to the GPL code, and you feel that this should be enough for the GPL code's authors. By preventing you from using GPL code in this scenario, the code's authors are unfair and restrictive.
That's an interesting position, and one that I don't often hear, if I've understood you correctly (though perhaps it occurs more often and just isn't clearly articulated). Perhaps it's only interesting to me, maybe others have long ago thought about this scenario and dismissed it, but I'm willing to give it an honest discussion.
My gut feeling, though, is that your scenario falls more on the side of unfairly using the GPL code for profit, and there's not enough in it for the original authors.
Also, I always felt the GPL was at least partially to protect the freedom of the user to see the workings of software they use, and to freely modify, fix and improve software that they legally acquire. Your scenario precludes this freedom.
There are also practical issues: without context, any patches you submit to the original authors are likely to be confusing, with no clear reason or benefit. Your system also depends on your honor to hold up your end of the bargain.
Finally, as another poster mentions, it seems that this scenario would make it easier for potential malicious parties to prey on GPL authors by engineering suspicious circumstances and bringing superficially plausible but actually groundless lawsuits that GPL authors can't afford to defend.
For those who read at thresholds above 0 and missed the AC reply, here's an editorialized summary.
quoeth the OP: "I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair" and "'Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base' is another matter."
The AC in response hits the nail on the head: Here's a clue: the GPL is not taking away your freedom to use that library - it is giving you the freedom to use that library, if you agree not to take that freedom away from anyone else.
The single GPL function or library - that the OP wants to include in the large, hugely valuable pre-existing codebase - is copyrighted. It belongs to somebody else, until it passes into the public domain.
Other people use it for a price: they pay by agreeing to share any further modifications of it. So GPL software is rarely free as in beer. But that's not the point.
Again the OP "In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I 'steal' some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary."... but you can take the code, add some additional functionality that is highly desired, keep the new source code a secret and profit from it. Perhaps even profit at the expense of the original authors, whose hard work you relied upon to enable your profitable enterprise. Why is preventing that wrong?
Again the parent AC's response is right on target: "You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it."
bzzt - wrong. It existed only partially. The status bar would display the URL incorrectly, however the address bar always correctly displayed the full URL. There was a patch for this the same day that it was discovered Mozilla was partially affected, and an improved fix has since been checked in to all major Mozilla variants. Mozilla 1.6 is fixed, as will be Firebird 0.8 (due any day now).
What I never understood is why someone like IBM didn't come along and cluster 10,000 dual P4 nodes together for fun to get on the top spot. I'm sure they have the inventory to write that off.
That would be ASCI White, which is currently #8 on the top 500. It's an 8192-cpu Power3 machine, and they didn't do it just for fun. It was #1 on the top 500 in Nov 2000.
Also, #10 on the top 500 is a 1920-node IBM Xeon 2.4Ghz cluster, but why should IBM use Intel processors when they make their own?
Here! Here! All the posts in the story are crap about WinCE devices and wireless laptops in backpacks! Get a grip! That will just be heavy, unreliable, expensive, hard to set up and a pain in the ass to maintain.
Get a low-cost clone of the industry-standard ClearCom party-line intercom system. It's the tried-and-true method for theatres worldwide. There is a reason: IT WORKS! Simple setup and excellent intelligibility in noisy environments. Lots of accessories are available, such as call lights to alert you when somebody else on the line wants your attention, even if you have your headset off.
You can interface wireless intercoms to ClearCom systems, but yes, they are pricey. Caveat Emptor. You get what you pay for.
Release them as they were, and leave them alone. If the old movies don't match the new, its George's fault. He knew when he created "prequels" that he needed to maintain continuity with his other movies. "Fixing" the old movies to match the new ones is wrong.
Dude. I understand your appreciation for the original cuts, but get a grip. They're just movies. And they're Lucas' movies, at that. He can do what he wants with them. Vote with your wallet.
I think you mistook the OP comment on interoperability between apps written for different window managers to mean cross-platform portability.
The OP didn't claim windows was interoperable in a cross-platform sense. They were pointing out that on Windows, all apps have the same look and feel.
To achieve that result on Linux, across several common UI toolkits and window managers requires interoperability between apps written for the various toolkits.
That's a different thing entirely. Given the RF strength of your phone's signal at any antennas receiving it, a little bit of modestly complex math is all you need to estimate position. There is nothing you can set on your phone to change that.
Your phone may have some built in positioning system and a setting to turn on or off broadcasting of where the phone thinks it is, but that's entirely different.
Slashdot Mirror
Me.
Actually, I credit most of my (limited) conversational french to the 4 university courses I did, so I'm not really disagreeing with your point. However, I didn't go to a french immersion school and I can get by in Quebec, France or other french-speaking places.
C
Ahem. MOd parent UP.
I remember watching some of the network coverage of Sydney in 2000, and being amazed at how bad it was. Idiotic scripted voice-overs of tape-delayed events, and stupid background pieces on the athletes (no offense intended to the athletes themselves).
Thank goodness I live in Canada...
As the other posters have said, all over, the bug was opened in Sept 2002. Not far from 2 years ago.
/. article is 2 years old, but the correct bug (250180) is one day old. Fixing the 2 year old bug would have only removed some of the methods of activating the underlying Windows bug, not all.
As other posters have been mistaken, so are you. The bug linked to in the
This is something that has always impressed me with Rutan; he has always been pretty honest with regards to the performance and safety of his designs.
I attended a talk by Burt at my engineering school about two years ago. He had lots of interesting stuff to say (including some allusions to private spaceflight that I didn't catch at the time). One of the things he talked about was achieving quality in engineering and product design. A key phrase he used was "never defend the product". As best I can remember it, he teaches his staff to never defend a design decision or point of view, but rather to always question it. Part of making this possible is working hard to avoid blaming people for design mistakes, so that everybody feels secure enough to question their own work, as well as other's.
I can't explain it nearly as well as he did, but 'always question, never defend' frees a design team to freely share ideas and criticism without fear of hurting somebody's feelings or being reprimanded by management.
His open admission of the flaws in the test flight seem like a natural result of his policy. He's trained himself (and his staff) to find their personal value and importance in other things besides the success of this particular design. What's more important to him is understanding what went wrong and finding a better solution.
(Aside: wouldn't it be great if we could all work for bosses as enlightened as Rutan?)
Ask about their previous management history (are they a good leader?), ask about how well they understand the technology (are they the quentessential pointy hair?)
Management and leadership are two entirely different things. Perhaps the OP would do well to decide if the boss position in question will need to be one or the other, or both. Ask questions that give clues to his personality type. Look into the Myers-Brigg typology, if you aren't already familiar with it.
Of course, that RFC is based on, and explicitly refers to the more authoritative ISO 8601 standard, which makes so much sense that I sometimes feel like printing it out, rolling it up and beating some Americans over the head with it.
If you happen to use 98lite SLEEK mode (like I do) you might be wondering how this patch interacts. Despite the warning that the service pack is only compatible with CHUBBY and OVERWEIGHT, I tried it anyway. After installing the SP, I ran 98lite again to go back to SLEEK (with the win95 shell). It seems that the sleek option no longer produces the desired result. After rebooting, I'm still seeing the win98 shell (as if I had chosen CHUBBY).
I'm going to stick with it for a while to see if I notice the advertised benefits of the service pack, since I use USB stuff and I have over 512MB of RAM. Unfortunately, I'll have to migrate some application user data, since some apps look in a different place to store config data with Win98SE as opposed to 98lite in SLEEK mode.
(Yes, I have a firewall, and no I don't use Outlook or MSIE with my ancient 98SE system)
INCAT's specs for the swift: pdf file
.DOC file
INCAT's specs for the Evolution 10B:
The debate above is sort of moot, since the PDF specs for HSV2 from INCAT list a max speed of 38 knots fully loaded at 627 tonnes deadweight. However, the external profiles and dimensions are nearly identical, and the Evolution 10B lists a max speed of 36 knots at 750 tonnes. The 10B lists 40 kts at 375 tonnes and the HSV2 specs 42 knts at 300 tonnes.
(Aside: it kinda makes the Nimitz-class carriers more impressive when you realize their gross weight fully loaded is over 97,000 tonnes, and as somebody else in the thread noted, they can steam indefinitely at 32 knots.)
The engines are the same, specifically 4 x Catapiller 3618 rated at 7080 kW (although the 10B offers a different engine as an option). The water jets are also identical, though the transmission may be a different manufacturer.
So, the bottom line is if you want to know the real top speed of the HSV 2, call up Bay Ferries in Maine, talk to one of their captains, and ask her/him how fast they can make the Cat go.
Of course, as you mention, it is always possible that the military has modified the ship and/or its engines upwards from the specs.
Having glanced a little closer at this ship, my thought is how well this ship would hold up in combat. How much redundancy and survivability is grafted onto what seems to be essentially a civilian design? I guess it's a good thing that it's intended for behind-the-front-lines transport type duties.
Oh, and about that 47 knot number. No weight is listed for the 'lightship' configuration so I guess that would be empty. I would guess that the top speed isn't classified - they just toned down the number to 35+ for the press release so as not to sound too conspicuous.
Christopher
These boats only make sense if they can do 40+ knots. Otherwise they might as well be part of the support group. Perhaps the true top speed is classified?
Compare the pictures of the Swift elsewhere in the comments to the pictures of the Bay Ferries Cat that travels from Bar Harbor Maine to Yarmouth NS Canada. I'd wager it's the same basic ship design. Living in NS, Canada, I knew the Cat did more than 35 knots, but I wasn't sure until I found this article that quotes a speed of 55 mph, or about 48 knots. This is actually also listed on the Cat site on the Cat Facts page.
As a matter of fact, some browsing the INCAT website shows a picture of the Bay Ferries Cat under the info for the Evolution 10B model, which is one of the more recent ones, around the size of the HSV 2 Swift. Speed is listed at 38 knots fully loaded and 47 knots lightship.
When calculating interest, you use 1.x where x is the interest rate. 4% = 1.04 > 1 so while not that large, it does not tend toward to zero.
No, it's worthwhile to learn CPR - it will keep a person revivable. However, it won't revive somebody on its own. CPR is for when help isn't immediately available, to keep the victim from completely dying until better medical attention becomes available.
I believe the OP was citing automatic defibrilators as an example of 'better medical attention.' Having an automatic defibrilator available means a victim will receive help much sooner than if they had to wait for paramedics.
I'm just curious to know the risks of using such a device in a situation that doesn't actually warrant it. What kind of liability does a person face if they believe somebody to be in cardiac arrest when they aren't, and such a device is used unnecessarily.
If you're going to go so far as to require a one-use pad, then you can forget about the whole "port knocking" concept
I understand your point, but if I understand port-knocking correctly, it will allow you to effectively cloak the existence of a service entirely. Even if you use a 1-time pad authentication scheme, Mr. Evil Cracker can still connect to your server and see that a service is running. Perhaps it is a commonly used service, and a known exploit exists that bypasses the authentication mechanism. Unlikely, I know, but with port-knocking, connection attempts to your server are simply dropped on the floor, until the correct sequence of connection attempts is received.
Unless Mr. Evil Cracker is sitting somewhere in the middle to sniff a valid connect attempt, he will never even know the service exists.
You still have your original code. If I make changes to that code I'm more than happy to send you a patch. As for the rest of my code, you never had any right to that, and you still don't, so you haven't lost anything.
I don't know about everybody else, but at least this makes your complaint a little clearer to me. Here's how I understand your position:
You would like to take GPL code to enhance your proprietary code, and redistribute the GPL code with your proprietary code without restriction. You are willing to share any enhancements you make to the GPL code, and you feel that this should be enough for the GPL code's authors. By preventing you from using GPL code in this scenario, the code's authors are unfair and restrictive.
That's an interesting position, and one that I don't often hear, if I've understood you correctly (though perhaps it occurs more often and just isn't clearly articulated). Perhaps it's only interesting to me, maybe others have long ago thought about this scenario and dismissed it, but I'm willing to give it an honest discussion.
My gut feeling, though, is that your scenario falls more on the side of unfairly using the GPL code for profit, and there's not enough in it for the original authors.
Also, I always felt the GPL was at least partially to protect the freedom of the user to see the workings of software they use, and to freely modify, fix and improve software that they legally acquire. Your scenario precludes this freedom.
There are also practical issues: without context, any patches you submit to the original authors are likely to be confusing, with no clear reason or benefit. Your system also depends on your honor to hold up your end of the bargain.
Finally, as another poster mentions, it seems that this scenario would make it easier for potential malicious parties to prey on GPL authors by engineering suspicious circumstances and bringing superficially plausible but actually groundless lawsuits that GPL authors can't afford to defend.
Am I missing anything?
For those who read at thresholds above 0 and missed the AC reply, here's an editorialized summary.
... but you can take the code, add some additional functionality that is highly desired, keep the new source code a secret and profit from it. Perhaps even profit at the expense of the original authors, whose hard work you relied upon to enable your profitable enterprise. Why is preventing that wrong?
quoeth the OP: "I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair" and "'Use a single GPL'd function and have to give away my entire source base' is another matter."
The AC in response hits the nail on the head: Here's a clue: the GPL is not taking away your freedom to use that library - it is giving you the freedom to use that library, if you agree not to take that freedom away from anyone else.
The single GPL function or library - that the OP wants to include in the large, hugely valuable pre-existing codebase - is copyrighted. It belongs to somebody else, until it passes into the public domain.
Other people use it for a price: they pay by agreeing to share any further modifications of it. So GPL software is rarely free as in beer. But that's not the point.
Again the OP "In addition, it's not a zero sum game, so if I 'steal' some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary."
Again the parent AC's response is right on target: "You seem to think that because you can read the source code of a GPL library, and download it and link it to your program without paying a penny, that you should somehow have the "right" to do whatever you like with it."
The URL spoofing exploit also exists in Mozilla
bzzt - wrong. It existed only partially. The status bar would display the URL incorrectly, however the address bar always correctly displayed the full URL. There was a patch for this the same day that it was discovered Mozilla was partially affected, and an improved fix has since been checked in to all major Mozilla variants. Mozilla 1.6 is fixed, as will be Firebird 0.8 (due any day now).
Check to see if your browser is vulnerable at the Secunia Adddress Bar Spoofing test page.
What I never understood is why someone like IBM didn't come along and cluster 10,000 dual P4 nodes together for fun to get on the top spot. I'm sure they have the inventory to write that off.
That would be ASCI White, which is currently #8 on the top 500. It's an 8192-cpu Power3 machine, and they didn't do it just for fun. It was #1 on the top 500 in Nov 2000.
Also, #10 on the top 500 is a 1920-node IBM Xeon 2.4Ghz cluster, but why should IBM use Intel processors when they make their own?
Here! Here! All the posts in the story are crap about WinCE devices and wireless laptops in backpacks! Get a grip! That will just be heavy, unreliable, expensive, hard to set up and a pain in the ass to maintain.
Get a low-cost clone of the industry-standard ClearCom party-line intercom system. It's the tried-and-true method for theatres worldwide. There is a reason: IT WORKS! Simple setup and excellent intelligibility in noisy environments. Lots of accessories are available, such as call lights to alert you when somebody else on the line wants your attention, even if you have your headset off.
You can interface wireless intercoms to ClearCom systems, but yes, they are pricey. Caveat Emptor. You get what you pay for.
Christopher
+1 Informative
Here you go. (yes the pic is his wife, from a post in another thread).
Then be pissed off at the companies, not the foreign workers. People everywhere just want to earn a living, the same as you do.
Release them as they were, and leave them alone. If the old movies don't match the new, its George's fault. He knew when he created "prequels" that he needed to maintain continuity with his other movies. "Fixing" the old movies to match the new ones is wrong.
Dude. I understand your appreciation for the original cuts, but get a grip. They're just movies. And they're Lucas' movies, at that. He can do what he wants with them. Vote with your wallet.
Christopher
What interoperability ?
I think you mistook the OP comment on interoperability between apps written for different window managers to mean cross-platform portability.
The OP didn't claim windows was interoperable in a cross-platform sense. They were pointing out that on Windows, all apps have the same look and feel.
To achieve that result on Linux, across several common UI toolkits and window managers requires interoperability between apps written for the various toolkits.
That's a different thing entirely. Given the RF strength of your phone's signal at any antennas receiving it, a little bit of modestly complex math is all you need to estimate position. There is nothing you can set on your phone to change that.
Your phone may have some built in positioning system and a setting to turn on or off broadcasting of where the phone thinks it is, but that's entirely different.
Oh, for mod points...