Actually, yes, you did. You could have declined the service.
The word, "negotiate", clearly doesn't not mean what you think it means. Your statement only affirms negotiation is part part of the process.
You just want to use the Government to force a change to a private business model because you don't happen to like it.
Cartels do not exist for the public good. Government exists to protect the public from abusive monopolies and cartels. Furthermore, they are doing so by leveraging a resource lent to them for the sole purpose of furthering public interest. This absolutely falls within the realm of regulation.
And, what you are calling a "private business model" is actually a government granted Monopoly using scarce resources provided them for the sole purpose of societal benefit. Sure they are allowed to make a profit. In this case, they are making a profit while abusing their monopoly/cartel position to deny rights required under equitable contract law.
It may amaze you that I am actually a professional computer games developer.
I'm a professional software developer. Your title lends zero credibility. Either that, or we're now both experts. You can't have it both ways.
your hard-line attitude is not particularly common.
Actually it is, as the fact you consider my position "hard line" strongly suggestions you completely misunderstand my position.
The key goal is to get people to pay money for software, not to stop people from playing the software without paying.
Agreed. My position is not counter to that statement. The fact we agree yet you have imagined we don't further bolsters you completely fail to understand my position.
Having said that, in the real world, getting people to pay for software is often linked hand in hand with preventing piracy.
If a copy of a computer game is bought by someone who has seen his friend play a pirate version, then that is a sale as much as any other. That is what makes money.
Agreed. But if you make zero money and have a million installs, you've lost money. In this case, piracy only hurt and helped zero.
I would get more money from someone who buys ten games and pirates another ten than one who plays none at all.
Right, but that's really doesn't matter in the least. You get more money from people who paid for 20 copies or the same for 10 copies sold. You're playing semantics.
Secondly, what you clearly don't understand is that developers _want_ to have their game played,
Now you're being ignorant. Very ignorant. In fact, that statement is well into stupidity. You won't find anyone who "clearly don't understand", that statement or position. You lost lots of credibility with that statement.
just like an artist wants their work viewed.
Holy shit you're delusional. No, artists want their work viewed while they are compensated for it. No artist enjoys living out of a dumpster and eating garbage. And yes, I actually know successful artists (relatives and friends) and musicians (friends) and they would all say you're an idiot to your face. Furthermore, if you consider coders artists (you seem to include yourself here, which also includes me), then I can call you an idiot with equal footing.
Ubisoft should be and for the most part probably is thanking pirates, since they are largely the ones playing the games
Moron alert! Ubisoft of course wants people playing their games - but they want to be compensated by those playing the game. Only a small percentage of those illegally playing the game are ultimately beneficial; that is, providing that viral boost to sales. You're position is as uninformed and ignorant as the RIAA's thinking that every pirated copy equates to a lost sale. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Developers mainly want more people to look on their works and be impressed, money just allows them to make more.
In a perfect world where money doesn't exist, sure. For those of us that live in the real world, no. You're statement also assumes that piracy always allows for enough money to still allow for success of the developer/musician/artists. This is not the case. Piracy, especially for small companies, can mean the difference between survival and not. It can make the difference between living in a house and living in a dumpster. In short, it harms the economy at the macro scale and it harms developers/artists/musicians incomes at the micro scale. In many cases, it does so much damage they can no longer afford to contribute in such a capacity. That in turn harms society.
For whatever reason people have irrationally rationalized that stealing doesn't hurt people and they are entitled to take whatever they want so long as it falls into the IP category. It certainly doesn't help when organizations like the RIAA have abused so many; further justifying their rebellion and self entitled delusion.
Heck, simply taking a counter position is enough to make people put their fingers in their ears. Its much like talking with moon landing crazies. You can't rationalize with the irrational.
As I said, I've bought many games from Ubisoft (often at launch price) and I've pirated a grand total of one (during the 4 years between when it left store shelves and when it went on Steam and it's legal purchase was prohibitively difficult).
Or said another way, I'm bought groceries many times and only stolen groceries once in the last four years. That doesn't make me a thief. Anything sound odd with my rephrase?
Even if I was actually rationalizing shoplifting or embezzlement (financial crimes with actual victims), comparing me to a rapist or murderer would still be pretty crazy hyperbole.
Yes, it absolutely is hyperbole. But hyperbole can also show how rediculas a particular position is. By implying stealing something is doing a favor is the exactly same broken rational as all of the rediculas examples I provided. Stealing is no more doing a favor than is raping someone. That's hardly the same thing as comparing you to a rapist, etc...
I would still feel better about myself than if I ever felt the urge to be calling people scum
Like I said, people will rationalize anything to make themselves feel better. If you don't want to called thief, don't steal. Irrationally "rationalizing" others calling thieves scum doesn't change the facts. Stealing is wrong.
They could be selling it for $1.00 and still they would pirate it.
Look at both the iPhone and Android markets to validate your statement. Piracy is rampant and the majority of applications are a few dollars or less. Many applications are actually pirated far more often than purchased. In some extreme cases the level of piracy is thousands of percent of the actual number of sales.
The bottom line is, people feel entitled to steal. Price is largely not the issue. People will irrationally justify anything so as to get what they want; regardless of the ultimate cost. Piracy is the same as rationalizing stealing from an insurance company because "no one got hurt." That of course ignores reality. In reality, we all pay higher insurance rates to cover the cost of fraud. We all pay 20%-30% more on almost all goods because of theft. And in this case, we all suffer with crappy DRM because piracy is so excessive.
Once you take piracy out of the "huge corporation" setting, people need to realize their actions are destroying small companies, musicians, and artists.
Also, please keep in mind, if "x" isn't worth buying then you are taking the position it has no value. If it has no value, there is no reason to pirate it. None. Zero. If you are pirating "x", the fact you have done so immediately proves "x" has some value. If "x" has value, you should pay for it. That's the basis of our entire economy. Taking something which has value but did not pay for, is called stealing. Stealing, as it relates to IP, is called piracy.
Ubisoft, next time someone pirates one of your games, thank them. Because that's far more than I would be willing to do with one of them.
That's the mentality of a low life. You should thank me for stealing from you?! WTF? Should women thank you after you rape them? Should homeless people thank you after you shoot them? Stealing from a big company is okay but stealing from a person is wrong? Where do you draw the line? Stealing is okay so long as you were ONLY moderately entertained?
The biggest problem with copyright violation today is people will do anything to rationalize their behavior. People even love to play with semantics of the word "piracy" and "stealing" so as to obfuscate the implications of their actions from themselves. This is called deluding one's self.
The fact is, piracy is a form of stealing. The fact is, piracy does hurt everyone. Piracy especially hurts a lot of small developers, musicians, and artists.
Lastly, if you disagree, reply. Negatively moderating posts like this only means you agree but want to feel better about yourself.
At the end of the day, you may rationalize stealing any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact your a leech on society and no better than a bank robber. Scum is scum.
but mine always worked and I had several theory aces come back later and ask how I figured the assignment out.
That's because they were told what the solution should look like. You actually figured it a solution without regard for what it "should" look like. That's the difference between knowledge and intelligence.
It sounds like you're making excuses to not believe fact.
The simple fact is, research continues in Russia. The fact is, Russia continues aircraft development to this day. The fact is, Russia has begged, borrowed and stolen US technology of modern stealth aircraft. The fact is, Russia continues actively developing stealth aircraft. The fact is, Russia is very friendly with enemies of the US. So friendly in fact, they've been caught countless times trading such verboten technologies; including both nuclear and stealth.
Additionally you completely fail to grasp, while maybe not a threat today, any of the countries which have received and continue to receive such technology can easily become a threat tomorrow. Countries like China are already taking over development of their own weapon systems and well on their way of manufacturing yet others.
Lastly, as Russia's economy continues to improve, additional dollars will once again be thrown at national defense; if for no other reason than pride or reasonable national defense issues. It's down right stupid to develop tomorrow's technology, let it ooze out or be stolen and allow your enemies (well, not necessarily allies) to close the gap using our own pilfered R&D.
is not like a gocart at all. How have I goofed up here?
And yet no one said otherwise, which is exactly why you've missed the boat twice! Re-read what I said; since you've failed to do so at least twice now. The second time was after it was clearly pointed out, you missed boat. Hell, you just jumped into the water without a boat even in sight. Let me guess, you're going to jump on me to clarify we're not talking about boats either?
I highly recommend you learn to read and follow context. Within context of the THREAD, you're completely off topic. In fact, you're well into troll territory. The fact that my original comment doesn't even mention absolutes and only makes generalized assessment of why I agree with the OP seems to have completely been missed by you; twice no less. And now possibly a third time.
Its one thing to build a prototype. Its a much bigger challange to produce it.
That's exactly right. All too often people tout a new electric vehicle and then compare to existing vehicles.
Where you then replied, "Yeah, the article said they retrofitted a 2010 mercury milan hybrid...which has gone through crash tests, has airbags, etc. Which article did you read?"
Which raises the question, what thread did you read because while topical to the article your completely tangent to this thread.
Please re-read my post. Your reply responds to exactly the opposite point of my entire post.
Confrontation between the US and Russia need not exist - we only need technology transfer between Russia and enemies of the US for a legitimate threat to exist.
What is wrong with the moderators today? My post is not a troll. It's fact.
A vehicle which weighs a fraction of current cars using traditional materials, which has no crumple zones, which has never been crash test, which has no air bags, can factually be referred to as a go-cart.
Go-carts often get great mileage compared to cars, but it doesn't make it a real car. In the end its still a go-cart.
So one F22 (properly maintained and competently piloted) is equal to how many old F16s?
The factual number is somewhere between seven and twelve. After that, an F22 must reload. No joke! The common complaint is the F22 doesn't carry enough ammunition. The F22 is the first plane which can actually hope to claim a "one shot, one kill", sniper creed.
The F22s are hangar queens and are unlikely to be combat ready when the shit hits the fan anyway.
Which means they are more valuable. Being they are extremely high value targets, the fact they will be available for round two means the second a "round two" begins, they've paid for themselves.
Hell, using you're own argument, the US shouldn't even have an air force since the navy and marines do everything.
Now excuse me while I'm busy finding my way back to reality.
Russia, who is on friendly terms with China. Both of which are on friendly terms with North Korea. Russia has also been caught endlessly providing technology to Iran too. While cold war level tension do not currently exist between the US and Russia, no bones about it, Russia has not been standing still with their own military advances.
The F22 is the only technology which created a significant gap between the US and its possible enemies. Foolish, dumb, and ignorant are the only words you can use to describe this change in policy.
That's exactly right. All too often people tout a new electric vehicle and then compare to existing vehicles. The problem is, all too often its an apples and oranges comparison. All too often people are actually comparing a go-cart, having no safety features with a real car.
This isn't a troll. Please read before you moderate.
I swear, the company can do nothing right for some people
Did they ever fix the very long list of performance problems which were crammed into Vista and later? Last I saw Vista's performance was still MUCH slower than XP for most tasks. Early tests against pre-release Win 7 (yes, I know...prelease) looked like more of the same Vista performance with only slight performance tweaks here and there. And keep in mind, for most tasks, XP is still slower than a descent Linux distro.
So who wants to upgrade to find they are running TONS slower than they could with Linux or noteworthily slower than XP, only now have DRM and bothersome security dialogs all over the place?
Seriously, with Windows pulling so much legacy crap + incompatibilities + forced emulation for many legacy applications + device driver compatibility issues + device driver shortages + performance problems + large memory overhead + built in DRM restrictions, aside from business, why does anyone care about Win 7 when XP is already better by almost every measure?
Newer isn't always better; a fact MS has consistently proved over the last half decade or so.
And survivability of the ship increases for anti-submarine warfare. Plus the development cost of 17.1 million is spread of all future deployments. Not to mention, reduction of oil consumption during war increases operation independence of fuel supply lines while at the same time taking pressure of off oil consumption.
I'm not sure how anyone can see this as a negative.
Except that a lot of the sound comes from the propellers alone.
Not in the way you think. The propellers are the point of contact with the sound transmission media - water. The propeller connects with the drive shaft and transmission. The transmission connects with either an electric motor or an engine. And in some cases, multiple engines and/or motors. The vibration and and engine noise is then transmitted through the transmission, the drive shaft, and then propeller, where it is then transmitted into the water for all to hear. This is the primary reason many military vehicles have been heading toward an electric drive system where the ICE is used to turn a generator rather than directly drive the propeller. This is also the reason modern diesel subs have been getting so quite.
In short, the propeller on modern military ships make the vast majority of their noise because they are a transmission point for everything mechanical attached to it, not because its spinning in the water. Which means, using electric motors to spin your propeller, especially at slow speeds can make you incredibly stealthy despite the fact a propeller is still spinning in the water.
Android has always allowed native code execution. The only difference now is Google has officially published a supported SDK (NDK) to facilitate the process.
It was unmaintainable because it was written in Bash, Expect, and C, so they rewrote it in Bash, Python, and C?
I've tried to work with some of the FreeNX code. Its a hairball of some of the crappiest code around. It is extremely painful to maintain, update, or simply read. They could have spread it across five languages and the potential for it to be better than FreeNX is still there. Besides, its very unlikely to be what you expecting.
I expect but can not confirm Bash is likely used because you have to launch other processes and Bash does that rather well; especially since they need to manipulate environment variables a fair bit. The C was likely coded only because they needed an additional performance boost and its not clear if the "C" is another executable or a python extension module. Lots of core python is actually written in "C" as extension modules.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, yes, you did. You could have declined the service.
The word, "negotiate", clearly doesn't not mean what you think it means. Your statement only affirms negotiation is part part of the process.
You just want to use the Government to force a change to a private business model because you don't happen to like it.
Cartels do not exist for the public good. Government exists to protect the public from abusive monopolies and cartels. Furthermore, they are doing so by leveraging a resource lent to them for the sole purpose of furthering public interest. This absolutely falls within the realm of regulation.
And, what you are calling a "private business model" is actually a government granted Monopoly using scarce resources provided them for the sole purpose of societal benefit. Sure they are allowed to make a profit. In this case, they are making a profit while abusing their monopoly/cartel position to deny rights required under equitable contract law.
It may amaze you that I am actually a professional computer games developer.
I'm a professional software developer. Your title lends zero credibility. Either that, or we're now both experts. You can't have it both ways.
your hard-line attitude is not particularly common.
Actually it is, as the fact you consider my position "hard line" strongly suggestions you completely misunderstand my position.
The key goal is to get people to pay money for software, not to stop people from playing the software without paying.
Agreed. My position is not counter to that statement. The fact we agree yet you have imagined we don't further bolsters you completely fail to understand my position.
Having said that, in the real world, getting people to pay for software is often linked hand in hand with preventing piracy.
If a copy of a computer game is bought by someone who has seen his friend play a pirate version, then that is a sale as much as any other. That is what makes money.
Agreed. But if you make zero money and have a million installs, you've lost money. In this case, piracy only hurt and helped zero.
I would get more money from someone who buys ten games and pirates another ten than one who plays none at all.
Right, but that's really doesn't matter in the least. You get more money from people who paid for 20 copies or the same for 10 copies sold. You're playing semantics.
Secondly, what you clearly don't understand is that developers _want_ to have their game played,
Now you're being ignorant. Very ignorant. In fact, that statement is well into stupidity. You won't find anyone who "clearly don't understand", that statement or position. You lost lots of credibility with that statement.
just like an artist wants their work viewed.
Holy shit you're delusional. No, artists want their work viewed while they are compensated for it. No artist enjoys living out of a dumpster and eating garbage. And yes, I actually know successful artists (relatives and friends) and musicians (friends) and they would all say you're an idiot to your face. Furthermore, if you consider coders artists (you seem to include yourself here, which also includes me), then I can call you an idiot with equal footing.
Ubisoft should be and for the most part probably is thanking pirates, since they are largely the ones playing the games
Moron alert! Ubisoft of course wants people playing their games - but they want to be compensated by those playing the game. Only a small percentage of those illegally playing the game are ultimately beneficial; that is, providing that viral boost to sales. You're position is as uninformed and ignorant as the RIAA's thinking that every pirated copy equates to a lost sale. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Developers mainly want more people to look on their works and be impressed, money just allows them to make more.
In a perfect world where money doesn't exist, sure. For those of us that live in the real world, no. You're statement also assumes that piracy always allows for enough money to still allow for success of the developer/musician/artists. This is not the case. Piracy, especially for small companies, can mean the difference between survival and not. It can make the difference between living in a house and living in a dumpster. In short, it harms the economy at the macro scale and it harms developers/artists/musicians incomes at the micro scale. In many cases, it does so much damage they can no longer afford to contribute in such a capacity. That in turn harms society.
We don't live in a Utopian world. Get over it.
Excellent follow up. Thanks.
For whatever reason people have irrationally rationalized that stealing doesn't hurt people and they are entitled to take whatever they want so long as it falls into the IP category. It certainly doesn't help when organizations like the RIAA have abused so many; further justifying their rebellion and self entitled delusion.
Heck, simply taking a counter position is enough to make people put their fingers in their ears. Its much like talking with moon landing crazies. You can't rationalize with the irrational.
What's really ironic is the same can be said for you.
*splat!*
And there we have playing with semantics...
You're confusing legal definition with reality.
As I said, I've bought many games from Ubisoft (often at launch price) and I've pirated a grand total of one (during the 4 years between when it left store shelves and when it went on Steam and it's legal purchase was prohibitively difficult).
Or said another way, I'm bought groceries many times and only stolen groceries once in the last four years. That doesn't make me a thief. Anything sound odd with my rephrase?
Even if I was actually rationalizing shoplifting or embezzlement (financial crimes with actual victims), comparing me to a rapist or murderer would still be pretty crazy hyperbole.
Yes, it absolutely is hyperbole. But hyperbole can also show how rediculas a particular position is. By implying stealing something is doing a favor is the exactly same broken rational as all of the rediculas examples I provided. Stealing is no more doing a favor than is raping someone. That's hardly the same thing as comparing you to a rapist, etc...
I would still feel better about myself than if I ever felt the urge to be calling people scum
Like I said, people will rationalize anything to make themselves feel better. If you don't want to called thief, don't steal. Irrationally "rationalizing" others calling thieves scum doesn't change the facts. Stealing is wrong.
They could be selling it for $1.00 and still they would pirate it.
Look at both the iPhone and Android markets to validate your statement. Piracy is rampant and the majority of applications are a few dollars or less. Many applications are actually pirated far more often than purchased. In some extreme cases the level of piracy is thousands of percent of the actual number of sales.
The bottom line is, people feel entitled to steal. Price is largely not the issue. People will irrationally justify anything so as to get what they want; regardless of the ultimate cost. Piracy is the same as rationalizing stealing from an insurance company because "no one got hurt." That of course ignores reality. In reality, we all pay higher insurance rates to cover the cost of fraud. We all pay 20%-30% more on almost all goods because of theft. And in this case, we all suffer with crappy DRM because piracy is so excessive.
Once you take piracy out of the "huge corporation" setting, people need to realize their actions are destroying small companies, musicians, and artists.
Also, please keep in mind, if "x" isn't worth buying then you are taking the position it has no value. If it has no value, there is no reason to pirate it. None. Zero. If you are pirating "x", the fact you have done so immediately proves "x" has some value. If "x" has value, you should pay for it. That's the basis of our entire economy. Taking something which has value but did not pay for, is called stealing. Stealing, as it relates to IP, is called piracy.
Stealing is stealing. Piracy is wrong.
Ubisoft, next time someone pirates one of your games, thank them. Because that's far more than I would be willing to do with one of them.
That's the mentality of a low life. You should thank me for stealing from you?! WTF? Should women thank you after you rape them? Should homeless people thank you after you shoot them? Stealing from a big company is okay but stealing from a person is wrong? Where do you draw the line? Stealing is okay so long as you were ONLY moderately entertained?
The biggest problem with copyright violation today is people will do anything to rationalize their behavior. People even love to play with semantics of the word "piracy" and "stealing" so as to obfuscate the implications of their actions from themselves. This is called deluding one's self.
The fact is, piracy is a form of stealing. The fact is, piracy does hurt everyone. Piracy especially hurts a lot of small developers, musicians, and artists.
Lastly, if you disagree, reply. Negatively moderating posts like this only means you agree but want to feel better about yourself.
At the end of the day, you may rationalize stealing any way you want, but it doesn't change the fact your a leech on society and no better than a bank robber. Scum is scum.
but mine always worked and I had several theory aces come back later and ask how I figured the assignment out.
That's because they were told what the solution should look like. You actually figured it a solution without regard for what it "should" look like. That's the difference between knowledge and intelligence.
It sounds like you're making excuses to not believe fact.
The simple fact is, research continues in Russia. The fact is, Russia continues aircraft development to this day. The fact is, Russia has begged, borrowed and stolen US technology of modern stealth aircraft. The fact is, Russia continues actively developing stealth aircraft. The fact is, Russia is very friendly with enemies of the US. So friendly in fact, they've been caught countless times trading such verboten technologies; including both nuclear and stealth.
Additionally you completely fail to grasp, while maybe not a threat today, any of the countries which have received and continue to receive such technology can easily become a threat tomorrow. Countries like China are already taking over development of their own weapon systems and well on their way of manufacturing yet others.
Lastly, as Russia's economy continues to improve, additional dollars will once again be thrown at national defense; if for no other reason than pride or reasonable national defense issues. It's down right stupid to develop tomorrow's technology, let it ooze out or be stolen and allow your enemies (well, not necessarily allies) to close the gap using our own pilfered R&D.
is not like a gocart at all. How have I goofed up here?
And yet no one said otherwise, which is exactly why you've missed the boat twice! Re-read what I said; since you've failed to do so at least twice now. The second time was after it was clearly pointed out, you missed boat. Hell, you just jumped into the water without a boat even in sight. Let me guess, you're going to jump on me to clarify we're not talking about boats either?
I highly recommend you learn to read and follow context. Within context of the THREAD, you're completely off topic. In fact, you're well into troll territory. The fact that my original comment doesn't even mention absolutes and only makes generalized assessment of why I agree with the OP seems to have completely been missed by you; twice no less. And now possibly a third time.
Yes. Language pedants ruin almost every conversation they touch.
Its one thing to build a prototype. Its a much bigger challange to produce it.
That's exactly right. All too often people tout a new electric vehicle and then compare to existing vehicles.
Where you then replied, "Yeah, the article said they retrofitted a 2010 mercury milan hybrid...which has gone through crash tests, has airbags, etc. Which article did you read?"
Which raises the question, what thread did you read because while topical to the article your completely tangent to this thread.
Please re-read my post. Your reply responds to exactly the opposite point of my entire post.
Confrontation between the US and Russia need not exist - we only need technology transfer between Russia and enemies of the US for a legitimate threat to exist.
What is wrong with the moderators today? My post is not a troll. It's fact.
A vehicle which weighs a fraction of current cars using traditional materials, which has no crumple zones, which has never been crash test, which has no air bags, can factually be referred to as a go-cart.
Go-carts often get great mileage compared to cars, but it doesn't make it a real car. In the end its still a go-cart.
What is wrong with moderators these days?!?!?!
So one F22 (properly maintained and competently piloted) is equal to how many old F16s?
The factual number is somewhere between seven and twelve. After that, an F22 must reload. No joke! The common complaint is the F22 doesn't carry enough ammunition. The F22 is the first plane which can actually hope to claim a "one shot, one kill", sniper creed.
The F22s are hangar queens and are unlikely to be combat ready when the shit hits the fan anyway.
Which means they are more valuable. Being they are extremely high value targets, the fact they will be available for round two means the second a "round two" begins, they've paid for themselves.
Hell, using you're own argument, the US shouldn't even have an air force since the navy and marines do everything.
Now excuse me while I'm busy finding my way back to reality.
Russia, who is on friendly terms with China. Both of which are on friendly terms with North Korea. Russia has also been caught endlessly providing technology to Iran too. While cold war level tension do not currently exist between the US and Russia, no bones about it, Russia has not been standing still with their own military advances.
The F22 is the only technology which created a significant gap between the US and its possible enemies. Foolish, dumb, and ignorant are the only words you can use to describe this change in policy.
That's exactly right. All too often people tout a new electric vehicle and then compare to existing vehicles. The problem is, all too often its an apples and oranges comparison. All too often people are actually comparing a go-cart, having no safety features with a real car.
The problem is, the crackpots believe the "bounce back" from the moon to be faked via whatever instrument is indicating a signal is being received.
Crackpots are crackpots. You can't rationalize with the irrational. You can't fix stupid.
This isn't a troll. Please read before you moderate.
I swear, the company can do nothing right for some people
Did they ever fix the very long list of performance problems which were crammed into Vista and later? Last I saw Vista's performance was still MUCH slower than XP for most tasks. Early tests against pre-release Win 7 (yes, I know...prelease) looked like more of the same Vista performance with only slight performance tweaks here and there. And keep in mind, for most tasks, XP is still slower than a descent Linux distro.
So who wants to upgrade to find they are running TONS slower than they could with Linux or noteworthily slower than XP, only now have DRM and bothersome security dialogs all over the place?
Seriously, with Windows pulling so much legacy crap + incompatibilities + forced emulation for many legacy applications + device driver compatibility issues + device driver shortages + performance problems + large memory overhead + built in DRM restrictions, aside from business, why does anyone care about Win 7 when XP is already better by almost every measure?
Newer isn't always better; a fact MS has consistently proved over the last half decade or so.
And survivability of the ship increases for anti-submarine warfare. Plus the development cost of 17.1 million is spread of all future deployments. Not to mention, reduction of oil consumption during war increases operation independence of fuel supply lines while at the same time taking pressure of off oil consumption.
I'm not sure how anyone can see this as a negative.
Except that a lot of the sound comes from the propellers alone.
Not in the way you think. The propellers are the point of contact with the sound transmission media - water. The propeller connects with the drive shaft and transmission. The transmission connects with either an electric motor or an engine. And in some cases, multiple engines and/or motors. The vibration and and engine noise is then transmitted through the transmission, the drive shaft, and then propeller, where it is then transmitted into the water for all to hear. This is the primary reason many military vehicles have been heading toward an electric drive system where the ICE is used to turn a generator rather than directly drive the propeller. This is also the reason modern diesel subs have been getting so quite.
In short, the propeller on modern military ships make the vast majority of their noise because they are a transmission point for everything mechanical attached to it, not because its spinning in the water. Which means, using electric motors to spin your propeller, especially at slow speeds can make you incredibly stealthy despite the fact a propeller is still spinning in the water.
Android has always allowed native code execution. The only difference now is Google has officially published a supported SDK (NDK) to facilitate the process.
It was unmaintainable because it was written in Bash, Expect, and C, so they rewrote it in Bash, Python, and C?
I've tried to work with some of the FreeNX code. Its a hairball of some of the crappiest code around. It is extremely painful to maintain, update, or simply read. They could have spread it across five languages and the potential for it to be better than FreeNX is still there. Besides, its very unlikely to be what you expecting.
I expect but can not confirm Bash is likely used because you have to launch other processes and Bash does that rather well; especially since they need to manipulate environment variables a fair bit. The C was likely coded only because they needed an additional performance boost and its not clear if the "C" is another executable or a python extension module. Lots of core python is actually written in "C" as extension modules.