Hehe. Thanks for the followup! After I posted "MIT", I kept wondering if it was really from Georgia Tech. I guess the tickle in the back of my brain was because I probably read something from both.
At least the AH-64 in any incarnation is far from 'The best'
Okay, what is "the best". The Ka you're pointing at is a prototype and falls behind the comparable US effort, which is the Commanche. Furthermore, it's seriously questionable if the Ka-52 will ever see production.
Why would you not consider the Apache Longbow to be one of the world's best helicopter's? It's built to take punishment link a hind, but it actually can do something other than a straight line. It's data acquisition and shared battle field equipment is second to none. It has a fairly advanced flir system and it's a completely glass compit. It's 20mm guns offer a serious bite and it's hellfires defeat any armoured vehicle on earth. It can loop and roll and is considered fairly agile by helicopter standards. Which is impressive considering it's bulk and weight.
So, why would you dismiss the Apache Longbow so quickly?
You actually asked if any US copters could do rolls. I answered. The answer is, "yes". These coptors have been in production for a very long time.
Yes, many can loop. The Sea Stallion, the Apache, and one more that I can't think of right now, can. There may be others. I know the Commanche (not really counting because it's not in production) can do far, far more even.
By "dead loop", do you mean from a hover? If you mean from a dead-stop-hover, then that I'm not sure about. The three copters that I know of can do loops and rolls. They are just not allowed to unless situation dictates because it significantly stresses the airframes, transmissions, head units, and rotors.
Technologically solved does not mean it's technologically (because of scale) or even economically viable. Computers are cheap, fast and powerful now. Helicopters are well understood and, for the most part, very reliable. Electronic gyros are cheap, fast and accurate. It's now fairly easy to throw everything together to get a viable UAV helicopter workhorse. If college students have been doing this for the last 5+ years, with scaled r/c copters, I think any government funded program can easily do the fullsize deal, or any size in between. It's just that larger sizes are going to give you better ranges and more platform capibility. Basically, if college students have been able to do it for years, the military has been able to do it for much, much longer.
This, all without even touching on politics. Just fathom the politics of an Army, helicopter UAV versus an Air Force, fixed wing UAV. This topic here is more often than not, the reason projects are never developed.
Here's an example....did you know that the autopilot on the blackhawk and apache can control a fixed position (orientation), attitude and aoa, with fairly heavy and random gusts of winds? The pilots often joke about "parking it" in a hover, a couple feet above the ground, and going to get lunch. Apaches can do this to "park" into a forrest, allowing only the rotors to sit above the tree line. The rotors on both are computer controlled so that pilots can select more speed, best cruise, best range, least noise. Like I said, helicopters and rotor systems are well understood these days.
Helicopters are a vastly more complicated technology, which is why even the US Army, which has the best and most advanced helicopters in the world, continues to suffer repeated fatalities from training accidents and normal operations.
Most training accidents are from mechanical failure or human error. The fact that they are a very complex plane, is one of the reasons they have such mechanical failures, even though they require and get much more attention than fixed wing craft.
When comparing to a human, which is prone to messing up, often over worked, easily confused, and can become bored, with a computer, which if implemented correctly, does not suffer as such, you're left with simple mechanical failure as a possibility. In other words, it's not far fetched to expect a UAV helicopter, less mechanical failures, to perform with less error and more consistency than its human counterpart.
They pale, technologically speaking, in comparison to modern US helicopters. They've always been playing catch up in most technology arenas. Without their massive work force and significant downsizing, they've fallen even farther behind.
What happens when a big gust of wind hits it, or it flies into an area of much different air pressure?
The computer corrects for it and it continues to fly as it normally would. This is really a minor point and is easily solved by something as simple as a gyro and/or an altimeter. Childs play. It's been addressed for many, many decades now.
Don't forget, there are a number of piloted helicopter accidents each year, from CAREFlights to the guys in Hawaii who fly tourists around. It's very easy to lose control.
Piloted craft that wreck are almost always from human error, vertigo (causing human error), mechanical failure, or some combination of the three. A computer does not suffer from human error or vertigo. That leaves it only with mechanical failure as a possible issue. In other words, it should be far more reliable, assuming the technology base is sound and well implemented.
Not to mention all the software needed to interact with the payload, which might be anything from a camera that needs to send data back
Child's play. It's been done since before WWII.
securely
This has been done for decades. Again, child's play.
to something that needs to be dumped over a target (needing software to control the door and/or arm,
Child's play. It's been done forever. It's called servos, actuators, hydrolics. You open a value and can be done with only a couple lines o code or even embeeded in something like FPGAs, etc... Again, yawn. Nothing to see here.
and the ability to compensate when the payload is released and the vehicle is suddenly that much lighter
Computerized avionics will automatically correct for this. Again, it's called a gyro and/or an altimeter. Basic stuff.
and possibly automatic visual confirmation of location, because GPS may not be accurate enough, especially if this is a military venture)...
GPS for the military is very accurate and even modest levels of AI/video-terrain-cognition is enough to correct to the last inch.
Basically everything you've pointed out has been technologically solved for decades, if not longer.
Not so. On bikes, there are often two differing sizes. One for the front and one for the rear. On my bike, the rear tire costs anywhere from $120 - $250 each. The front tires cost anywhere from $60 - $180.
After saying that, this thing still has a front tire, it's use is just less than a two wheeler. So, based on the size and general appearance, assume something like $120 - $250 for the full size tire and maybe $60 (guess based on iregular size) for the tiny retract. Obviously, those are guesses. After you do the math, I think you'll see it's nowhere near half.
"The helicopter is unique. No other company in the world has succeeded in operating such a flying machine, capable of independent flying without remote control. Many companies have tried, but none of their tests worked."
That may be true, for a company, however, I've seen a fully autonomous remote control helicopter before. Which is to say, it was a remote control helicopter that flew via onboard computer and did not actually use a remote. In fact, it even has AI that it used to determine it's best route and best orientation to get from A to B. IIRC, this was the work of an MIT student. He had a video of his AI controlled helicopter flying around. It did it's own odd manuvering to get there and back. It even had an onboard camera.
I can't see that the stolen copter is much different...just on a larger scale.
It does appear that some code has been borrowed. Variable name after variable name and interface after interface seem to be an exact match.
Now then, that doesn't say which direction the code came from or even address if there are design/specification issues which dictated/influenced the variable names or the interface. Variables like, "defaultValue", "sysLogEquiv", etc., constants and/or enumeration names, all seem to support that the code has been borrowed/stolen.
Now then, I am not a Java coder, so, I can't speak to cultreal specifics which may explain some of these. What I mean by this, it is not uncommon for one language to adopt standard variable names and common and/or defacto standard ways of approaching or doing things. This may explain some, much, or even all of these, especially if they both borrow idioms from defacto java code and interfaces. Just the same, why are both using "defaultValue" versus "defVal" or "default" or "dv" or whatever. What about "sysLogEquiv"? Why isn't one something like, "sysLog", "sysLogLevel", "sysLogString", "sysLogStr", "level", and so on. The last three seem much more likely that one would of used, if it's not copied. The fact that they are the same on this one seems VERY suspect. Is there a "java culture" reason why they would both use "Equiv"?? If the answer is, "no", I think I have to agree that a seriously big, red flag just shot up the pole.
My son and his friends, as do many other people at his school, all seem to play PS1 and PS2 games on their PS2s. My son is a freshman in highschool.
Seems many people find a game or two that they just love that isn't replaced with a newer version. For example, some of the PS1 Amored Core and FF games, do not have a PS2 replacement. Function for function that is. As such, people that spend a lot of time with their beloved games, don't want to lose those games just because they upgraded their console.
In short, the problem is clearly worse than you think. People will miss backwards compatibility.
If I recall, for the port to actually function, it needed additional transaction support.
Also, IIRC, the data model had long since been ported by the developers to PostgreSQL, however, the effort came to a halt when they decided they needed additional feature support from PostgreSQL or significant code changes in their Java client.
So, unless you have more than just DDL, I don't think you have much to offer here.
As that's the spirit of the contract, the intent is fairly well spelled out. Just the same, it would be up to the spirit of the judge to determine it's real outcome. At any rate, the spirit is fairly clear. I do believe the GPL does have such a clause.
"Or perhaps they really are hoping to cash in on a strategy of "Your Honor, the GPL couldn't possibly mean what it actually says, so lets just presume the thousands of contributors actually meant to dump their contributions into the public domain instead."
On the other hand, any sane judge would recognize that the GPL specifically sought to avoid public domain status. As such, even if the GPL were struck down, the spirit is clear. A such, it would fall back on standard copyright law, whereby, TSG has no rights, but is free to negotiate a new license; should both parties wish to do so. At which time, it would be much more likely a class action suit would be filed against TSG for mass copyright violations, effectively bankrupting them.
This is a no-win situation for TSG. Only the execs and their pump-n-dump scheme turn out as winners here; assuming they are not already being investigated.
A contract that is invalid for any reason isn't binding.
There is a difference between a contract and a clause contained within a contract. Not sure where you got your information from. Generally speaking, a specific clause can be unenforceable but that does not necessarily invalidate the whole contract. I've been told this by three distinct lawyers. Only that specific clause would be invalid. If what you said were true, pretty much every employment contract that ever was would be invalidated on the spot. Which, of course, doesn't happen. Worse case, specific clauses are found to be invalid and the contract, as a whole is left in place.
It would be at this point in time, renegotiation can take place by request of one or more of the parties. Or, one can request the contract in whole to be invalid, requiring each party to start back at square one. Whereby, the second party has no rights granted.
In this case, should the GPL be declared invalid, any reasonable judge would understand the spirit of the license and deny rights to TSG, as none have been granted. At which, the code would fall under various copyrights, none of which TSG has rights to. Furthermore, should specific clauses be stricten, the FSF would be entitled to have the contract declared invalid and copyrights would then prevail. FSF would then be free to stablish new terms for the GPL which the court agrees with. At which time, TSG would be free to accept the new terms or reject and obtain copyright rights from every software author; which isn't going to happen.
This is a no-win situation for SCO, no matter how you look at it.
Since when do you need support on your CPU? Just because the company goes bust, which I doubt is going to happen, doesn't make the CPU's you've purchased suddenly bad.
Why would pcAnywhere be need since it already has remote desktop? For support needs, that's all that is needed. You're other points are well taken and spot on.
Of course, the obvious is, with a MS solution, you have to toss in rougly $500 - $100,000 in extra charges to compare to what you get free with OS. Why the huge range? Well, it depends on what the machine is going to be doing. Just imagine all of the free software you get with OS and then imagine all of the fees and extra support charges you would have to pay if you went with a MS solution.
Then, they need to figure out and add in the rising cost of MS software. They have plenty of trend data. What is the projected cost when it's time to renew? We all know, based on trends, it will only get more expensive. Remember, this is a recurring cost and the window will continue to get smaller if MS has anything to do with this. With OS, there is no recurring cost, other than test and deployment. Both of which, would have to be done with even a MS solution. So, it can be safely ignored or weigh equally on both camps.
Add in the cost of fighting viruses and trojans, and the fact that you have to have more MS admins than Linux admins, it quickly looks very poorly for MS from a TCO perspective.
It would be impossible for any *properly performed* TCO comparison to indicate a lower TCO with Windows. The sole exception would be if the machine uses are very, very meager and they never plan to upgrade their systems. Even then, it would be pretty iffy.
That's all fine and dandy, however, it's completely beside the point.
Why are so many American's using satellite and cable? Don't know about you, but most everywhere I've lived, open air broadcasts have pretty much sucked compared to digital cable and/or satellite. Doesn't it makes sense that there is a reason that people are rushing to pay good money for these services? Guess what, ABC, CBS, etc., etc., are still on the air, so what does that tell you? It's NOT just about content. To some extent, it clearly about quality and availability. Oddly enough, DTV address both of those issues. Wow!
Of course, these comments completely ignore the fact that your stats don't tell the whole story. Take them for what they are...and will a very large grain of salt.
I, like everyone I know, welcomes DTV. Just the same, no one I know is in a hurry to get raped buy the current, extremely premium pricing. So much so, it's clearly willful rape of their customer base. Which they then turn as cry, "wah...look FCC, only a small number of people are dumb enough to let us rape them. You must not force this issue because we haven't had enough time to rape everyone."
Please learn how to do math. In the mean time, I'm laughing at you.
BTW, your silly satire only works for people who share your beliefs that the UN did the wrong thing for the wrong reason w.r.t. invading Iraq. Some of us believe they did the right thing, possibly even for the right reason.
Actually, it works for anyone that understands the events that led up to the recent Gulf War. In other words, something called history. If the UN respected it's own paper it generates, the UN nations would of been with the US. But, it doesn't. In the UN knew what honor was, it would of been with the US. But it doesn't.
Yes, they're helpless in the face of a rogue superpower. Is that something to cheer about?
Still laughing at you...even harder. You don't get it do you? LOL. The UN's power IS the US. If by rogue, you mean honoring the paper that the UN generated, then yes, the US is a rogue country, as it pertains to this case.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
You do realize that the cease fire signed at the end of the first war gave the US carte blanche to go to war to fix the situation that the UN allowed to go on for 10+ years? You do realize that the UN agreed that they were in violation? You obviously don't know any of the facts.
Nuff said. Go learn some basics, including basic math, before you bother to reply again.
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe. Thanks for the followup! After I posted "MIT", I kept wondering if it was really from Georgia Tech. I guess the tickle in the back of my brain was because I probably read something from both.
Again, thanks.
At least the AH-64 in any incarnation is far from 'The best'
Okay, what is "the best". The Ka you're pointing at is a prototype and falls behind the comparable US effort, which is the Commanche. Furthermore, it's seriously questionable if the Ka-52 will ever see production.
Why would you not consider the Apache Longbow to be one of the world's best helicopter's? It's built to take punishment link a hind, but it actually can do something other than a straight line. It's data acquisition and shared battle field equipment is second to none. It has a fairly advanced flir system and it's a completely glass compit. It's 20mm guns offer a serious bite and it's hellfires defeat any armoured vehicle on earth. It can loop and roll and is considered fairly agile by helicopter standards. Which is impressive considering it's bulk and weight.
So, why would you dismiss the Apache Longbow so quickly?
You actually asked if any US copters could do rolls. I answered. The answer is, "yes". These coptors have been in production for a very long time.
Yes, many can loop. The Sea Stallion, the Apache, and one more that I can't think of right now, can. There may be others. I know the Commanche (not really counting because it's not in production) can do far, far more even.
By "dead loop", do you mean from a hover? If you mean from a dead-stop-hover, then that I'm not sure about. The three copters that I know of can do loops and rolls. They are just not allowed to unless situation dictates because it significantly stresses the airframes, transmissions, head units, and rotors.
It's called gryos and gps.
While it is impressive, it's far from earth shattering.
Effeciency and scale.
Technologically solved does not mean it's technologically (because of scale) or even economically viable. Computers are cheap, fast and powerful now. Helicopters are well understood and, for the most part, very reliable. Electronic gyros are cheap, fast and accurate. It's now fairly easy to throw everything together to get a viable UAV helicopter workhorse. If college students have been doing this for the last 5+ years, with scaled r/c copters, I think any government funded program can easily do the fullsize deal, or any size in between. It's just that larger sizes are going to give you better ranges and more platform capibility. Basically, if college students have been able to do it for years, the military has been able to do it for much, much longer.
This, all without even touching on politics. Just fathom the politics of an Army, helicopter UAV versus an Air Force, fixed wing UAV. This topic here is more often than not, the reason projects are never developed.
Here's an example....did you know that the autopilot on the blackhawk and apache can control a fixed position (orientation), attitude and aoa, with fairly heavy and random gusts of winds? The pilots often joke about "parking it" in a hover, a couple feet above the ground, and going to get lunch. Apaches can do this to "park" into a forrest, allowing only the rotors to sit above the tree line. The rotors on both are computer controlled so that pilots can select more speed, best cruise, best range, least noise. Like I said, helicopters and rotor systems are well understood these days.
Helicopters are a vastly more complicated technology, which is why even the US Army, which has the best and most advanced helicopters in the world, continues to suffer repeated fatalities from training accidents and normal operations.
Most training accidents are from mechanical failure or human error. The fact that they are a very complex plane, is one of the reasons they have such mechanical failures, even though they require and get much more attention than fixed wing craft.
When comparing to a human, which is prone to messing up, often over worked, easily confused, and can become bored, with a computer, which if implemented correctly, does not suffer as such, you're left with simple mechanical failure as a possibility. In other words, it's not far fetched to expect a UAV helicopter, less mechanical failures, to perform with less error and more consistency than its human counterpart.
They pale, technologically speaking, in comparison to modern US helicopters. They've always been playing catch up in most technology arenas. Without their massive work force and significant downsizing, they've fallen even farther behind.
What happens when a big gust of wind hits it, or it flies into an area of much different air pressure?
The computer corrects for it and it continues to fly as it normally would. This is really a minor point and is easily solved by something as simple as a gyro and/or an altimeter. Childs play. It's been addressed for many, many decades now.
Don't forget, there are a number of piloted helicopter accidents each year, from CAREFlights to the guys in Hawaii who fly tourists around. It's very easy to lose control.
Piloted craft that wreck are almost always from human error, vertigo (causing human error), mechanical failure, or some combination of the three. A computer does not suffer from human error or vertigo. That leaves it only with mechanical failure as a possible issue. In other words, it should be far more reliable, assuming the technology base is sound and well implemented.
Not to mention all the software needed to interact with the payload, which might be anything from a camera that needs to send data back
Child's play. It's been done since before WWII.
securely
This has been done for decades. Again, child's play.
to something that needs to be dumped over a target (needing software to control the door and/or arm,
Child's play. It's been done forever. It's called servos, actuators, hydrolics. You open a value and can be done with only a couple lines o code or even embeeded in something like FPGAs, etc... Again, yawn. Nothing to see here.
and the ability to compensate when the payload is released and the vehicle is suddenly that much lighter
Computerized avionics will automatically correct for this. Again, it's called a gyro and/or an altimeter. Basic stuff.
and possibly automatic visual confirmation of location, because GPS may not be accurate enough, especially if this is a military venture)...
GPS for the military is very accurate and even modest levels of AI/video-terrain-cognition is enough to correct to the last inch.
Basically everything you've pointed out has been technologically solved for decades, if not longer.
Not so. On bikes, there are often two differing sizes. One for the front and one for the rear. On my bike, the rear tire costs anywhere from $120 - $250 each. The front tires cost anywhere from $60 - $180.
After saying that, this thing still has a front tire, it's use is just less than a two wheeler. So, based on the size and general appearance, assume something like $120 - $250 for the full size tire and maybe $60 (guess based on iregular size) for the tiny retract. Obviously, those are guesses. After you do the math, I think you'll see it's nowhere near half.
Cheers!
"The helicopter is unique. No other company in the world has succeeded in operating such a flying machine, capable of independent flying without remote control. Many companies have tried, but none of their tests worked."
That may be true, for a company, however, I've seen a fully autonomous remote control helicopter before. Which is to say, it was a remote control helicopter that flew via onboard computer and did not actually use a remote. In fact, it even has AI that it used to determine it's best route and best orientation to get from A to B. IIRC, this was the work of an MIT student. He had a video of his AI controlled helicopter flying around. It did it's own odd manuvering to get there and back. It even had an onboard camera.
I can't see that the stolen copter is much different...just on a larger scale.
Microsoft is taking security seriously.
LOL. The correct quote is, "Microsoft 's Marketing Group is taking security hype seriously."
I think it was a misprint. Seems Bill doesn't know anything about the security initative that his marketing group spoke of.
...from looking at the code....
It does appear that some code has been borrowed. Variable name after variable name and interface after interface seem to be an exact match.
Now then, that doesn't say which direction the code came from or even address if there are design/specification issues which dictated/influenced the variable names or the interface. Variables like, "defaultValue", "sysLogEquiv", etc., constants and/or enumeration names, all seem to support that the code has been borrowed/stolen.
Now then, I am not a Java coder, so, I can't speak to cultreal specifics which may explain some of these. What I mean by this, it is not uncommon for one language to adopt standard variable names and common and/or defacto standard ways of approaching or doing things. This may explain some, much, or even all of these, especially if they both borrow idioms from defacto java code and interfaces. Just the same, why are both using "defaultValue" versus "defVal" or "default" or "dv" or whatever. What about "sysLogEquiv"? Why isn't one something like, "sysLog", "sysLogLevel", "sysLogString", "sysLogStr", "level", and so on. The last three seem much more likely that one would of used, if it's not copied. The fact that they are the same on this one seems VERY suspect. Is there a "java culture" reason why they would both use "Equiv"?? If the answer is, "no", I think I have to agree that a seriously big, red flag just shot up the pole.
Would love to hear move about the tools you use in conjunction with POV...
Please share...
My son and his friends, as do many other people at his school, all seem to play PS1 and PS2 games on their PS2s. My son is a freshman in highschool.
Seems many people find a game or two that they just love that isn't replaced with a newer version. For example, some of the PS1 Amored Core and FF games, do not have a PS2 replacement. Function for function that is. As such, people that spend a lot of time with their beloved games, don't want to lose those games just because they upgraded their console.
In short, the problem is clearly worse than you think. People will miss backwards compatibility.
If I recall, for the port to actually function, it needed additional transaction support.
Also, IIRC, the data model had long since been ported by the developers to PostgreSQL, however, the effort came to a halt when they decided they needed additional feature support from PostgreSQL or significant code changes in their Java client.
So, unless you have more than just DDL, I don't think you have much to offer here.
As that's the spirit of the contract, the intent is fairly well spelled out. Just the same, it would be up to the spirit of the judge to determine it's real outcome. At any rate, the spirit is fairly clear. I do believe the GPL does have such a clause.
But the courts do.
"Or perhaps they really are hoping to cash in on a strategy of "Your Honor, the GPL couldn't possibly mean what it actually says, so lets just presume the thousands of contributors actually meant to dump their contributions into the public domain instead."
On the other hand, any sane judge would recognize that the GPL specifically sought to avoid public domain status. As such, even if the GPL were struck down, the spirit is clear. A such, it would fall back on standard copyright law, whereby, TSG has no rights, but is free to negotiate a new license; should both parties wish to do so. At which time, it would be much more likely a class action suit would be filed against TSG for mass copyright violations, effectively bankrupting them.
This is a no-win situation for TSG. Only the execs and their pump-n-dump scheme turn out as winners here; assuming they are not already being investigated.
A contract that is invalid for any reason isn't binding.
There is a difference between a contract and a clause contained within a contract. Not sure where you got your information from. Generally speaking, a specific clause can be unenforceable but that does not necessarily invalidate the whole contract. I've been told this by three distinct lawyers. Only that specific clause would be invalid. If what you said were true, pretty much every employment contract that ever was would be invalidated on the spot. Which, of course, doesn't happen. Worse case, specific clauses are found to be invalid and the contract, as a whole is left in place.
It would be at this point in time, renegotiation can take place by request of one or more of the parties. Or, one can request the contract in whole to be invalid, requiring each party to start back at square one. Whereby, the second party has no rights granted.
In this case, should the GPL be declared invalid, any reasonable judge would understand the spirit of the license and deny rights to TSG, as none have been granted. At which, the code would fall under various copyrights, none of which TSG has rights to. Furthermore, should specific clauses be stricten, the FSF would be entitled to have the contract declared invalid and copyrights would then prevail. FSF would then be free to stablish new terms for the GPL which the court agrees with. At which time, TSG would be free to accept the new terms or reject and obtain copyright rights from every software author; which isn't going to happen.
This is a no-win situation for SCO, no matter how you look at it.
What a troll!
Since when do you need support on your CPU? Just because the company goes bust, which I doubt is going to happen, doesn't make the CPU's you've purchased suddenly bad.
What troll. What dolt.
Why would pcAnywhere be need since it already has remote desktop? For support needs, that's all that is needed. You're other points are well taken and spot on.
Of course, the obvious is, with a MS solution, you have to toss in rougly $500 - $100,000 in extra charges to compare to what you get free with OS. Why the huge range? Well, it depends on what the machine is going to be doing. Just imagine all of the free software you get with OS and then imagine all of the fees and extra support charges you would have to pay if you went with a MS solution.
Then, they need to figure out and add in the rising cost of MS software. They have plenty of trend data. What is the projected cost when it's time to renew? We all know, based on trends, it will only get more expensive. Remember, this is a recurring cost and the window will continue to get smaller if MS has anything to do with this. With OS, there is no recurring cost, other than test and deployment. Both of which, would have to be done with even a MS solution. So, it can be safely ignored or weigh equally on both camps.
Add in the cost of fighting viruses and trojans, and the fact that you have to have more MS admins than Linux admins, it quickly looks very poorly for MS from a TCO perspective.
It would be impossible for any *properly performed* TCO comparison to indicate a lower TCO with Windows. The sole exception would be if the machine uses are very, very meager and they never plan to upgrade their systems. Even then, it would be pretty iffy.
That's all fine and dandy, however, it's completely beside the point.
Why are so many American's using satellite and cable? Don't know about you, but most everywhere I've lived, open air broadcasts have pretty much sucked compared to digital cable and/or satellite. Doesn't it makes sense that there is a reason that people are rushing to pay good money for these services? Guess what, ABC, CBS, etc., etc., are still on the air, so what does that tell you? It's NOT just about content. To some extent, it clearly about quality and availability. Oddly enough, DTV address both of those issues. Wow!
Of course, these comments completely ignore the fact that your stats don't tell the whole story. Take them for what they are...and will a very large grain of salt.
I, like everyone I know, welcomes DTV. Just the same, no one I know is in a hurry to get raped buy the current, extremely premium pricing. So much so, it's clearly willful rape of their customer base. Which they then turn as cry, "wah...look FCC, only a small number of people are dumb enough to let us rape them. You must not force this issue because we haven't had enough time to rape everyone."
Go figure.
Fair enough, I stand corrected.
That is so not funny! Everyone knows you have to disconnect from the network AND turn it off!
Funny... they disarmed Iraq during that decade.
Please learn how to do math. In the mean time, I'm laughing at you.
BTW, your silly satire only works for people who share your beliefs that the UN did the wrong thing for the wrong reason w.r.t. invading Iraq. Some of us believe they did the right thing, possibly even for the right reason.
Actually, it works for anyone that understands the events that led up to the recent Gulf War. In other words, something called history. If the UN respected it's own paper it generates, the UN nations would of been with the US. But, it doesn't. In the UN knew what honor was, it would of been with the US. But it doesn't.
Yes, they're helpless in the face of a rogue superpower. Is that something to cheer about?
Still laughing at you...even harder. You don't get it do you? LOL. The UN's power IS the US. If by rogue, you mean honoring the paper that the UN generated, then yes, the US is a rogue country, as it pertains to this case.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
You do realize that the cease fire signed at the end of the first war gave the US carte blanche to go to war to fix the situation that the UN allowed to go on for 10+ years? You do realize that the UN agreed that they were in violation? You obviously don't know any of the facts.
Nuff said. Go learn some basics, including basic math, before you bother to reply again.