As far as Iraq goes, we haven't lost that many (less than 20 I think). We've lost some attack helicopters almost everytime they've been used, but that's to be expected. They are low. They are slow compared to fixed wing aircraft. But to say that you don't need air support that can loiter is absurd. Attack helicopters tear through armored divisions. They do their job extremely well.
I have to buzz in here. The fact that copters are being dropped from the air is more a statement of current battle doctrine rather than an indicatation of them innately being easy targets. An Apache flying at 20-50ft off the floor with an airspeed of ~170 knots is not an easy target; especially for something like an RPG.
The problem comes when they are taught to hover to engage targets or to fly at 20 knots circling a parameter. Any time you do that, you're begging to not only be fired at, but it greatly increases the risk from what would ordinareily be a low risk weapons, such as an RPG. Let's face it, at even 100 knots airspeed, you're going to have a hard time hitting it with an RPG.
Oddly enough, as I understand it, this is one of the reasons by battle doctrine is starting to change. Which is, they are teaching Apache pilots to perform straffing runs rather than hover and engage. Common sense is sometimes, a powerful weapon.;)
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
Sorry, but facts don't support your assertion in any way, shape, or form.
I would have to say that the article in question is complete crap.
The AH-64, is an awesome machine and it performs it's role very well. Modern helicopters, just being put into production by other nations, just barely equal or exceed what a Long Bow can do. And, that's by making specialized variants (Tiger comes to mind). Each of which, cost about what the Long Bow costs.
Seems to support rather well, that we are getting good value out of the AH-64 airframe. This also ignores the fact that the Apache can engage air targets too, however, the Air Force prevents the Army from doing this.
Radar reflection is caused by the material the radar is hitting, not by its movement.
Sorry, but that statement is incorrect.
The angle a radar hits a material is a major contributor of radar return. Since a rotor spins, it creates a constantly changing angle. This, in turn, creates a highly visible radar return. Sure, you can attempt to absorb as much of the radar as possible, but the constantly changing angle is a real bitch.
To offer proof of the validity of my statements, the reason why the F117 is such an ugly bird is because of EXACTLY the problem that I'm describing. Not because it has rotors, but because they could only accurately and timely calculate the radar return of right angles. With computers, we can now calcuate the return of any angle, however, it doesn't change the fact that we don't have a material that absorbs 100% of the signal. This means, until such a material comes into play, we have to deal with the fact that the angle a signal hits an object directly determines the amount of return seen by radar (minus what is absorbed by the material).
The mirror trick is how that F-117 was shot down back in the late 90's in bosnia, which was thought to be one radar (the flashlight) shining across, with a receiver across the valley (like standing by the wall and figuring out the deflection of the beam and back-calculating the location of the deflecting object)
I'm sorry, but that doesn't jive with anything I've heard about that. The story that I've heard is, they forced the planes to constantly travel the same routes with fixed altitudes. This was quickly figured out. Then then waited for planes to fly over. They then fired 4-6 missiles...manually aimed. One lucky shot scored a hit and downed the plane.
Lesson learned? Don't be an idiot and let the enemy know where you're going to be before you get there. The AF now requires different routes to followed to avoid this exact situation.
This is one of those stories which highlights the oxymoron known as, "military intelligence".
The biggest problem, IMOHO, is that current battle doctrine requires helicopters to hover or move fairly slowly, in far too many situations. This, makes them prime cannon fodder.
In Blackhawk Down, it does a fairly good job of highlighting this. It's fairly easy to RPG a hovering copter. While slightly harder, a copter moving in straight lines at 20 or 30 MPH is still a fairly easy target. Especially if you have someone that's accurate with a RPG.
I would like to also point out that during Operation Anaconda, we had two Apaches take direct RPG hits...both flew home. One took a direct hit in its transmission (right behind cockpit) and flew home without tranny fluid. The other took a direct hit on the nose...blew the flir pod off, damaged the gun, and many other systems. It flew home too. In both cases, none of the four pilots were injurred.
Apaches are clearly pretty tough too.
The biggest problem with apaches taking fire, is IMOHO, the battle doctrine for Apache Longbows need to be slightly updated to better address gorilla tactics.
Which means that therefore, I guess, I somehow lost the argument?
No, it means you're either too dumb to understand the moderation system or too new to know better than to make statements, such as you made. The fact that I have to spell out, with such an obvious statement, pretty squarely points the needle on the, "you're an idiot", rather than the, "you're new", indicator.
I see.
Sadly, you don't, or I wouldn't be here typing again. What a dolt.
Literally tons of pointless research has been applied toward developing devices to make this happen (the same one could say about e.g. lossless random data compression, reusable key one time pad cryptography, homeopathy, perpetuum mobile, and any other snake oil)
LOL. This is awesome stuff! Thank you for making EXACTLY my point. You are one of the biggest idiots/trolls on/. that I've ever seen. LOL! You're a lost treasure of stupidity!!! LOL! If we listen to dolts like you, we wouldn't have cars or airplanes. Please specifically state the technology in question which qualifies as snake oil. While you randomly walk on topics which have no bearing, please, state, specifically, why BPL is snakeoil. Please. I've already stated why you're an idiot. Anyone with a brain agrees. Notice a stranger wondered in and spotted it right off. Now, specifically back up your statement. What technology, in development, as it relates to the original article, is snake oil. Since it's obviously not the technology that you mention, 1, how does it relate (thus you being offtopic), and 2, why does an unrelated article make the original post snake oil. Your obvious lack of ability to logically attack something is profound. If you can't logically connect the dots here, I don't think we have anything else to talk about, unless you just want to ensure everyone understands your gross stupidity.
There is a flaw in your reasoning here, even if somehow subtle, at least much subtler than those in other parts of your post. You say that copper is everywhere but it does not mean we can use it.
Really. I always hate it when physics shows me to be right and you wrong. Dang it. Hate it when physics means I'm right, yet I'm flawed. You are a dolt. LOL! This IS awesome stuff! Project after project shows that BPL has potential. The biggest problem seems to stem from RFI being emitted. The secondary issue seems to be getting it past transformers. I say secondary because it seems people are having success in addressing this issue. People seem to think they can get around it. In fact, in many experienments, they have, only to be shut down by RFI problems. I guess science, logic and physics seem to support that you are an idiot, which doesn't seem to know anything about what you are talking about.
is that everywhere when we have both copper lines and power lines it is always cheaper and easier, as well as having more bandwidth, to use the copper line.
Good thing you are an idiot, which obviously has no idea what you're talking about, otherwise, the laws of physics and economics would change before our eyes.
You are the first dolt, to ever make my foe list. What an idiot.
First, let me say, you're either an idiot or new to/. Having a score of 5, indicates that people will blindly buy into the information that it provided without thinking if it even applied. Thusly, pay attention now, this is where my comment comes in. That is, again, pay attention, the article is about a guy that rips people off by using physics which don't exists and hides that fact by mumbling about quantum attributes of magnetic fields that simply don't work they way he indicates. Second, let me say, it is fairly common to idiots to have moderation points and thusly, you have articles modded up, which only make sense to other idiots. This is exactly why meta-moderation exists...and even then meta-moderation is only partially effective. The fact that I have to point all this out, is reason enough to acknowledge that you're either new here or a complete idiot.
So, unless the current research is going to be applied toward developing quantum devices to make this happen, the long article is completely off topic. Besides, AFAIK, broadband over powerlines have long sense been a desire before that scam artists got involved with it. The article in question even mentions this. The only parallel for bringing him into the current thread is to remind everyone that there are scam artists out there. Yawn! Is anyone really that dumb that they didn't know that before hand? Yawn! So, unless the article is about scam artists in the technology field, the article offered is completely off topic. Interesting? Sure. Completely off topic? Absolutely!
So, unless the research is infringing on, or making use of, the patented idea mentioned in the article, we have nothing more to talk about. Case in point, it's impossible to make use of, or infringe on, a patent which is impossible according to the laws of physics. That being the case, we can completely ignore any reference to the scam artist in question, as it's only of value to idiots, which can not think for themselves and therefore, don't realize that it doesn't apply in the least.
Please read the article, it is not about some third world country where there is no copper.
Lastly, this does a wonderful job of highlighting how big of an idiot you are. Just because copper is everywhere doesn't mean we can have broadband on it. Case in point, most people don't have broadband because the technology to support braodband on everyone's copper, doesn't exist. On the other hand, powerlines are almost everywhere. So, it doesn't exactly take an IQ much higher than 5 to realize the appeal of being able to deploy broadband services over powerlines. Which, again, has everything to do with market forces and absoletely nothing to do with a scam artist that belongs in jail.
Does the article say that they are trying to use quantum theory and/or devices to make this work? If the answer is no, then your response is completely offtopic at best and karma whoring at worst.
Worse, you don't even know what a troll is. I clearly was not trolling. It's just the response was so sadly worthless and troll like. I responded far better than it deserved.
Oh ya, in case it's not obvious, that means up to a 50% reduction in the small percent of email which are false-positives. That means, if you have a 5% false-positive, you *may* see that reduced to as little as 2.5%! Technically, it may actually be higher than that. The reason being, it may be that 100% of the false-positives fall into the 50% that this technique properly identifies. Needless to say, that's very exciting. It also means that it creates the possibility to allow people to lower their spam threshold without fear for creating a higher false-positive hit rate. That in turn, means more spam identified with fewer false positives. Let's hope reality false close to my rambling speculations here!;)
Or simply not process the 53% with other spam detection software, which saves on CPU! In other words, make this the first anti-spam process, whereby, half of your email gets to skip spamassassin (or whatever). The other 50%, you process as usual.
but, this is one of the more bonehead ideads I've heard in a very long time.
If he really wants to make a difference, it's very, very easy to do. This smells like a worthless politician simply attempting to get some news coverage. He clearly is not attempting to address the problem. Addressing the problem really is fairly easy to do.
To address it, you fine people 20% (incrementally increasing for each offence (20%, 40%, etc) of their post-tax yearly income, due immediately. Failure to pay immediately results in the loss of their vehicle. If you retain your vehicle, it should then be required to have one of these devices installed, at your own expense. It should be required to remain in place, for some number of years. Inability to pay to have the device installed, should require the vehicle be impounded until it is installed. Repeat offenders, forfeit their license for a year or so, and pay their fine. Drunk drivers involved in even minor accidents (which is fairly common) should face all the above, loss of their vehicle, and the loss of their license for several years, and a mandatory 6-months in jail. Removal of the device from your vehicle should be loss of vehicle, fined as defined above, and a year in jail. Plus, drunk drivers with a record should be required to pay a premium drunk-driver's tax on all vehicles that they purchase for the next 20-years, or some such thing. This would help prevent the disposable car problem which also seems to pop up with some drunk drivers.
Seems like only the most idiotic of drunk drivers would willing want to get involved in something like that. Obviously, it's not going to stop the hard-core drunks, but I have a hard time imagining that a casual driver isn't going to reconsider.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to run a node for a couple of days for it to establish and cache good routes to many resources? I think last time I tried freenet, that was in one of the FAQs or something. In otherwords, I believe it's considered normal, especially after a good/.'ing, for it to be slow until your node has run for several days.. After which, the speed is supposed to be much, much faster.
Someone with more knowledge of freenet, feel free to validate or reject this statement.
And, even though it is, again, so obvious, I'm still going to point this out. AT&T did not have a monopoly position on applications, desktop computing, or operating systems. They had a monopoly on PSTN and LD services. A Very huge difference as it relates to UNIX and the world of computing. Hopefully you can understand why the rest of us are smugly smiling at your, well, simpleton statements.
how many times do you have to be kicked in the nuts from Microsoft before you're willing to accept facts.
You're in denial about things which are commonly accepted facts, supported time and time again by history. For every person which has stepped forward with such statements on their tongue, Microsoft got a free kick between their legs. Meanwhile, everyone else is laughing and pointing because it was so obvious and well earned.
Perhaps a simple life lesson is what common sense has ordered for you today. Enjoy this neat story here.
These are interesting comments. Hopefully someone will mod them. Sorry, I'm out of mod points and have already posted a half dozen times on this topic.
I remember when people asked, "What's the point?" with Linux... and Apache... and Mozilla.
Hmmm...I've been there with Linux since very early on...and never saw much of the "what's the point" come up. It was rather obvious. Same thing for Apache. It was rather obvious. I did, however, see some of that with Mozilla as many people considered the browser wars to be won and then asked, "what's the point". Just the same, those of us with long vision, new the answer was rather obvious.
Sadly, even with MONO, again, it's rather obvious, for those of us with long vision. The short and sweet of it is, Microsoft does not need any additional help for them to maintain their monolopy. MONO is only going to help fuel migration and adoption of a lock-in technology by Microsoft. Pro-MONO is to be pro-Microsoft monopoly.
I was merely stating that if people listened to the crap other people say, some great projects would not exist.
I understood that, loud and clear the first time you said it. I have no idea how you came to the conclusions you made, based on my statements. Your assessment of my statement is far, far in left field.
As for the "impossible" quote, I don't think anyone really cares if it's possible. Heck, let's argue it is possible. Great! Now, MS will break it to cause incompatibilities every chance they get, just like they historically have. That didn't cause enough problems. Wonder how large the pantent royalty base is going to be from the MONO user base. Why is empowering Microsoft good for anyone other than Microsoft? If you think for even a second that MONO isn't empowering for Microsoft, then we have nothing else to talk about. Seriously! Period.
As far as stagnancy of Unix (and the creation of Linux), I think that is a narrow application.
Hmm... I thought it was very broad. Not sure how or why you decided to narrow it and then decide that I said it.
Your assertion would be similar to ".Net is going after Java," not development platforms in general.
Well, I asserted no such thing, in that context. While it is very obvious that it is a Java power play by Microsoft, I'm not sure why you'd bother to slant it this way to take it out of context from the original thread.
I'd think that since Microsoft is "betting the company" on.Net, they have bigger fish to fry than JUST Java, though I'm sure it is on the list.
Granted. They need their next vendor/developer lock-in. Java has them on the run.
I do agree with you about the UNIX market being stagnate, however, I do not believe Java has been. Java has continued to evolve from everything that I've read. Clearly 1.5 is getting some of the C# features, but look where they came from. That is, people that have been saying, we've been needing these features all along. If you want to say, they directly came about because.NET, fine...I don't really care. The point is, Java is fairly far from being stagnant.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as Iraq goes, we haven't lost that many (less than 20 I think). We've lost some attack helicopters almost everytime they've been used, but that's to be expected. They are low. They are slow compared to fixed wing aircraft. But to say that you don't need air support that can loiter is absurd. Attack helicopters tear through armored divisions. They do their job extremely well.
;)
I have to buzz in here. The fact that copters are being dropped from the air is more a statement of current battle doctrine rather than an indicatation of them innately being easy targets. An Apache flying at 20-50ft off the floor with an airspeed of ~170 knots is not an easy target; especially for something like an RPG.
The problem comes when they are taught to hover to engage targets or to fly at 20 knots circling a parameter. Any time you do that, you're begging to not only be fired at, but it greatly increases the risk from what would ordinareily be a low risk weapons, such as an RPG. Let's face it, at even 100 knots airspeed, you're going to have a hard time hitting it with an RPG.
Oddly enough, as I understand it, this is one of the reasons by battle doctrine is starting to change. Which is, they are teaching Apache pilots to perform straffing runs rather than hover and engage. Common sense is sometimes, a powerful weapon.
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
Sorry, but facts don't support your assertion in any way, shape, or form.
I would have to say that the article in question is complete crap.
The AH-64, is an awesome machine and it performs it's role very well. Modern helicopters, just being put into production by other nations, just barely equal or exceed what a Long Bow can do. And, that's by making specialized variants (Tiger comes to mind). Each of which, cost about what the Long Bow costs.
Seems to support rather well, that we are getting good value out of the AH-64 airframe. This also ignores the fact that the Apache can engage air targets too, however, the Air Force prevents the Army from doing this.
Radar reflection is caused by the material the radar is hitting, not by its movement.
Sorry, but that statement is incorrect.
The angle a radar hits a material is a major contributor of radar return. Since a rotor spins, it creates a constantly changing angle. This, in turn, creates a highly visible radar return. Sure, you can attempt to absorb as much of the radar as possible, but the constantly changing angle is a real bitch.
To offer proof of the validity of my statements, the reason why the F117 is such an ugly bird is because of EXACTLY the problem that I'm describing. Not because it has rotors, but because they could only accurately and timely calculate the radar return of right angles. With computers, we can now calcuate the return of any angle, however, it doesn't change the fact that we don't have a material that absorbs 100% of the signal. This means, until such a material comes into play, we have to deal with the fact that the angle a signal hits an object directly determines the amount of return seen by radar (minus what is absorbed by the material).
The mirror trick is how that F-117 was shot down back in the late 90's in bosnia, which was thought to be one radar (the flashlight) shining across, with a receiver across the valley (like standing by the wall and figuring out the deflection of the beam and back-calculating the location of the deflecting object)
I'm sorry, but that doesn't jive with anything I've heard about that. The story that I've heard is, they forced the planes to constantly travel the same routes with fixed altitudes. This was quickly figured out. Then then waited for planes to fly over. They then fired 4-6 missiles...manually aimed. One lucky shot scored a hit and downed the plane.
Lesson learned? Don't be an idiot and let the enemy know where you're going to be before you get there. The AF now requires different routes to followed to avoid this exact situation.
This is one of those stories which highlights the oxymoron known as, "military intelligence".
The biggest problem, IMOHO, is that current battle doctrine requires helicopters to hover or move fairly slowly, in far too many situations. This, makes them prime cannon fodder.
In Blackhawk Down, it does a fairly good job of highlighting this. It's fairly easy to RPG a hovering copter. While slightly harder, a copter moving in straight lines at 20 or 30 MPH is still a fairly easy target. Especially if you have someone that's accurate with a RPG.
I would like to also point out that during Operation Anaconda, we had two Apaches take direct RPG hits...both flew home. One took a direct hit in its transmission (right behind cockpit) and flew home without tranny fluid. The other took a direct hit on the nose...blew the flir pod off, damaged the gun, and many other systems. It flew home too. In both cases, none of the four pilots were injurred.
Apaches are clearly pretty tough too.
The biggest problem with apaches taking fire, is IMOHO, the battle doctrine for Apache Longbows need to be slightly updated to better address gorilla tactics.
Current battle doctrine dictates otherwise.
Which means that therefore, I guess, I somehow lost the argument?
/. that I've ever seen. LOL! You're a lost treasure of stupidity!!! LOL! If we listen to dolts like you, we wouldn't have cars or airplanes. Please specifically state the technology in question which qualifies as snake oil. While you randomly walk on topics which have no bearing, please, state, specifically, why BPL is snakeoil. Please. I've already stated why you're an idiot. Anyone with a brain agrees. Notice a stranger wondered in and spotted it right off. Now, specifically back up your statement. What technology, in development, as it relates to the original article, is snake oil. Since it's obviously not the technology that you mention, 1, how does it relate (thus you being offtopic), and 2, why does an unrelated article make the original post snake oil. Your obvious lack of ability to logically attack something is profound. If you can't logically connect the dots here, I don't think we have anything else to talk about, unless you just want to ensure everyone understands your gross stupidity.
No, it means you're either too dumb to understand the moderation system or too new to know better than to make statements, such as you made. The fact that I have to spell out, with such an obvious statement, pretty squarely points the needle on the, "you're an idiot", rather than the, "you're new", indicator.
I see.
Sadly, you don't, or I wouldn't be here typing again. What a dolt.
Literally tons of pointless research has been applied toward developing devices to make this happen (the same one could say about e.g. lossless random data compression, reusable key one time pad cryptography, homeopathy, perpetuum mobile, and any other snake oil)
LOL. This is awesome stuff! Thank you for making EXACTLY my point. You are one of the biggest idiots/trolls on
There is a flaw in your reasoning here, even if somehow subtle, at least much subtler than those in other parts of your post. You say that copper is everywhere but it does not mean we can use it.
Really. I always hate it when physics shows me to be right and you wrong. Dang it. Hate it when physics means I'm right, yet I'm flawed. You are a dolt. LOL! This IS awesome stuff! Project after project shows that BPL has potential. The biggest problem seems to stem from RFI being emitted. The secondary issue seems to be getting it past transformers. I say secondary because it seems people are having success in addressing this issue. People seem to think they can get around it. In fact, in many experienments, they have, only to be shut down by RFI problems. I guess science, logic and physics seem to support that you are an idiot, which doesn't seem to know anything about what you are talking about.
is that everywhere when we have both copper lines and power lines it is always cheaper and easier, as well as having more bandwidth, to use the copper line.
Good thing you are an idiot, which obviously has no idea what you're talking about, otherwise, the laws of physics and economics would change before our eyes.
You are the first dolt, to ever make my foe list. What an idiot.
First, let me say, you're either an idiot or new to /. Having a score of 5, indicates that people will blindly buy into the information that it provided without thinking if it even applied. Thusly, pay attention now, this is where my comment comes in. That is, again, pay attention, the article is about a guy that rips people off by using physics which don't exists and hides that fact by mumbling about quantum attributes of magnetic fields that simply don't work they way he indicates. Second, let me say, it is fairly common to idiots to have moderation points and thusly, you have articles modded up, which only make sense to other idiots. This is exactly why meta-moderation exists...and even then meta-moderation is only partially effective. The fact that I have to point all this out, is reason enough to acknowledge that you're either new here or a complete idiot.
So, unless the current research is going to be applied toward developing quantum devices to make this happen, the long article is completely off topic. Besides, AFAIK, broadband over powerlines have long sense been a desire before that scam artists got involved with it. The article in question even mentions this. The only parallel for bringing him into the current thread is to remind everyone that there are scam artists out there. Yawn! Is anyone really that dumb that they didn't know that before hand? Yawn! So, unless the article is about scam artists in the technology field, the article offered is completely off topic. Interesting? Sure. Completely off topic? Absolutely!
So, unless the research is infringing on, or making use of, the patented idea mentioned in the article, we have nothing more to talk about. Case in point, it's impossible to make use of, or infringe on, a patent which is impossible according to the laws of physics. That being the case, we can completely ignore any reference to the scam artist in question, as it's only of value to idiots, which can not think for themselves and therefore, don't realize that it doesn't apply in the least.
Please read the article, it is not about some third world country where there is no copper.
Lastly, this does a wonderful job of highlighting how big of an idiot you are. Just because copper is everywhere doesn't mean we can have broadband on it. Case in point, most people don't have broadband because the technology to support braodband on everyone's copper, doesn't exist. On the other hand, powerlines are almost everywhere. So, it doesn't exactly take an IQ much higher than 5 to realize the appeal of being able to deploy broadband services over powerlines. Which, again, has everything to do with market forces and absoletely nothing to do with a scam artist that belongs in jail.
Does the article say that they are trying to use quantum theory and/or devices to make this work? If the answer is no, then your response is completely offtopic at best and karma whoring at worst.
You really are pethetic.
Worse, you don't even know what a troll is. I clearly was not trolling. It's just the response was so sadly worthless and troll like. I responded far better than it deserved.
LOLOL....LOL...LOL....
That's the best joke I've heard all day!
LOL! LOL!!!!!
LOL!!
Too bad MS' horrible web site specifically checks for IE before allowing you to even read the link you provided.
When is MS going to figure out that they are idiots...
Oh ya, in case it's not obvious, that means up to a 50% reduction in the small percent of email which are false-positives. That means, if you have a 5% false-positive, you *may* see that reduced to as little as 2.5%! Technically, it may actually be higher than that. The reason being, it may be that 100% of the false-positives fall into the 50% that this technique properly identifies. Needless to say, that's very exciting. It also means that it creates the possibility to allow people to lower their spam threshold without fear for creating a higher false-positive hit rate. That in turn, means more spam identified with fewer false positives. Let's hope reality false close to my rambling speculations here! ;)
Very interesting indeed!
Or simply not process the 53% with other spam detection software, which saves on CPU! In other words, make this the first anti-spam process, whereby, half of your email gets to skip spamassassin (or whatever). The other 50%, you process as usual.
but, this is one of the more bonehead ideads I've heard in a very long time.
If he really wants to make a difference, it's very, very easy to do. This smells like a worthless politician simply attempting to get some news coverage. He clearly is not attempting to address the problem. Addressing the problem really is fairly easy to do.
To address it, you fine people 20% (incrementally increasing for each offence (20%, 40%, etc) of their post-tax yearly income, due immediately. Failure to pay immediately results in the loss of their vehicle. If you retain your vehicle, it should then be required to have one of these devices installed, at your own expense. It should be required to remain in place, for some number of years. Inability to pay to have the device installed, should require the vehicle be impounded until it is installed. Repeat offenders, forfeit their license for a year or so, and pay their fine. Drunk drivers involved in even minor accidents (which is fairly common) should face all the above, loss of their vehicle, and the loss of their license for several years, and a mandatory 6-months in jail. Removal of the device from your vehicle should be loss of vehicle, fined as defined above, and a year in jail. Plus, drunk drivers with a record should be required to pay a premium drunk-driver's tax on all vehicles that they purchase for the next 20-years, or some such thing. This would help prevent the disposable car problem which also seems to pop up with some drunk drivers.
Seems like only the most idiotic of drunk drivers would willing want to get involved in something like that. Obviously, it's not going to stop the hard-core drunks, but I have a hard time imagining that a casual driver isn't going to reconsider.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to run a node for a couple of days for it to establish and cache good routes to many resources? I think last time I tried freenet, that was in one of the FAQs or something. In otherwords, I believe it's considered normal, especially after a good /.'ing, for it to be slow until your node has run for several days.. After which, the speed is supposed to be much, much faster.
Someone with more knowledge of freenet, feel free to validate or reject this statement.
And, even though it is, again, so obvious, I'm still going to point this out. AT&T did not have a monopoly position on applications, desktop computing, or operating systems. They had a monopoly on PSTN and LD services. A Very huge difference as it relates to UNIX and the world of computing. Hopefully you can understand why the rest of us are smugly smiling at your, well, simpleton statements.
LOL...
how many times do you have to be kicked in the nuts from Microsoft before you're willing to accept facts.
You're in denial about things which are commonly accepted facts, supported time and time again by history. For every person which has stepped forward with such statements on their tongue, Microsoft got a free kick between their legs. Meanwhile, everyone else is laughing and pointing because it was so obvious and well earned.
Perhaps a simple life lesson is what common sense has ordered for you today. Enjoy this neat story here.
These are interesting comments. Hopefully someone will mod them. Sorry, I'm out of mod points and have already posted a half dozen times on this topic.
Good questions!
How come you couldn't use a combination of ethanol and solar power for that step?
I mean, just because that's the way it is now, I wouldn't think, means it has to always remain that way.
I remember when people asked, "What's the point?" with Linux ... and Apache ... and Mozilla.
Hmmm...I've been there with Linux since very early on...and never saw much of the "what's the point" come up. It was rather obvious. Same thing for Apache. It was rather obvious. I did, however, see some of that with Mozilla as many people considered the browser wars to be won and then asked, "what's the point". Just the same, those of us with long vision, new the answer was rather obvious.
Sadly, even with MONO, again, it's rather obvious, for those of us with long vision. The short and sweet of it is, Microsoft does not need any additional help for them to maintain their monolopy. MONO is only going to help fuel migration and adoption of a lock-in technology by Microsoft. Pro-MONO is to be pro-Microsoft monopoly.
I was merely stating that if people listened to the crap other people say, some great projects would not exist.
.Net, they have bigger fish to fry than JUST Java, though I'm sure it is on the list.
.NET, fine...I don't really care. The point is, Java is fairly far from being stagnant.
I understood that, loud and clear the first time you said it. I have no idea how you came to the conclusions you made, based on my statements. Your assessment of my statement is far, far in left field.
As for the "impossible" quote, I don't think anyone really cares if it's possible. Heck, let's argue it is possible. Great! Now, MS will break it to cause incompatibilities every chance they get, just like they historically have. That didn't cause enough problems. Wonder how large the pantent royalty base is going to be from the MONO user base. Why is empowering Microsoft good for anyone other than Microsoft? If you think for even a second that MONO isn't empowering for Microsoft, then we have nothing else to talk about. Seriously! Period.
As far as stagnancy of Unix (and the creation of Linux), I think that is a narrow application.
Hmm... I thought it was very broad. Not sure how or why you decided to narrow it and then decide that I said it.
Your assertion would be similar to ".Net is going after Java," not development platforms in general.
Well, I asserted no such thing, in that context. While it is very obvious that it is a Java power play by Microsoft, I'm not sure why you'd bother to slant it this way to take it out of context from the original thread.
I'd think that since Microsoft is "betting the company" on
Granted. They need their next vendor/developer lock-in. Java has them on the run.
I do agree with you about the UNIX market being stagnate, however, I do not believe Java has been. Java has continued to evolve from everything that I've read. Clearly 1.5 is getting some of the C# features, but look where they came from. That is, people that have been saying, we've been needing these features all along. If you want to say, they directly came about because
Yes. I'm happy to ignore it. :)
But thanks for the link, just the same!