My informations are some 2-3 years old, I guess the current A380 problems are realy hurting Airbus nowadays. One troubled project (it still remains to be seen of it will end as a failure or as a success) doesn't mean a busted or even a bad company - before A380 problems started, Airbus was kicking Boeing around in nearly every single civilian airplane market in the world.
Clinton is not in the office any more, what he did or did not say is by no means binding for the future policy of the US of A. Actually, even if he *were* still in office, I would never take the word of a politician for granted - even if it is Clinton we are talking about.
The US has the ability to locally reduce the accuracy of the GPS in a serious manner as it likes. While I don't think that will happen any time soon, I do see the point in striving being independent from the US in that important point.
Now, for a joint effort, I'd be all for it - if I hadn't seen how international projects tend to be even more expensive than the national ones (ISS jumps to mind).
I'm afraid you're talking about the USA of the times long gone. Nowadays, I don't see that much you guys agree upon, except for being surprisingly inclined towards waging wars - at least at the beginning, soon after you start a war, you get very divided about it.
It seems we're all swimming in sligthly different sectors of the same sewer. Even worse, it looks like we'll all soon meet in the place where it stinks most.:-(
At least we don't have any software patents. Yet.;-)
Well, while he did criticise the bad sides of the EU, he never said he'd rather live some place else. I, for one, would not, despite being very well aware of the EU problems.
The parent gave us a good and interesting on-topic read on how the things are run in Best Buy. He admits to have adhered to that policy. He also tells us how bad he felt about it and how wrong it was.
Being a socialist state (actually, Serbia was one of the republics of the "Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", which in turn pretended to be socialistic) does not mean you need to be a Soviet state.;-)
Actually, Yugoslavia, and thus also Serbia, had a rather strained relationship with the USSR, especially as long as the Stalin was in charge. Yugoslavia was a "block-free" state, belonging neither to NATO nor to the Warshaw Pakt, yet keeping rather good connections to both west as well as east (starting some time after Stalin died).
That's what I thought of first, but I droped that idea exactly because of the problem you mentioned: it would burn up in the atmosphere, unless it's frigging HUGE!
MIR was frigging HUGE (at least compared to a telecom sat), and yet it burned up completely (?) in the atmosphere.
The "bringing down/disabling" part could be considered an attack by some, that's correct. However, in my book, it would be more of an annoyance...
If the positional thrusters are capable of producing enough delta-v for it to come down exactly at the right moment to ram the ascending space shuttle, then I guess yes, the technical possibility to attack the US does exist. Besides that, I can't imagine an attack vector going beyond simply turning the sat OFF, just to piss some US housewifes waiting for their sitcoms to start.
Well, I, for one, use my real address *on purpose* when posting to Usenet (just like I did in early 90's when I first found out about the Internet) and on web sites I'm in charge of. SpamAssassin takes care of almost all the spam I get (some 200+ mails a day). I refuse to hinder other people contacting me just because of some scumbag address harvesting bastards!
I am also pissed because of what happened to the Internet, but I guess it was just a question of *when*, not *if*.
Of course, if I see a benefit of staying anonymous, I do so - but for other reasons than address harvesters. See/. for example.:-)
> I've run Windows 2000 on my box since its inception... I've never had to re-install due to software fault. *NEVER*. Period.
Lucky you.
Regarding your hardware problems, you're just being unfair. You bought a windows machine, didn't get your hardware working, and now that's somehow Linux fault? Next time buy a box which is known to be Linux-compatible and you won't have to spend *WEEKS* worth of your time trying to get it to work.
Regarding your malware experience: the vaste AV software industry, as well as the plentitude of articles in various user groups, proves your experience is an exception, not the rule. I sometimes also boot Windows, and in the mean time I turned off the internet access completely under Windows because of the malware problem.
5/30 minute calls and all's well? You must be supporting ENTIRELY different kind of users than I (and the rest of the world) do.
I think Windows is not user friendly at all - at best, one could say it's BEGINNER friendly. As long as things go well, there is not much one could say against Windows. However, the moment you accidentally break something (like a driver going havoc, or incompatible libs installed on the system, or just simply the "bit rot", which seem to affect almost all Windows systems I had the lack of pleasure to support), you're basically out of luck: re-install is the only way to go.
Even if nothing breaks, Windows can be extremly user un-friendly. Ever tried to upgrade your computer by installing a new motherboard/processor? I have. Linux just booted, with a few quirks which were sorted out within 1-2 hours and which mainly concerned hardware which was not there any more. Windows refused to boot even into secure mode.
If you are a beginner, with no interest whatsoever in learning anything about computer going above web browsing, e-mail reading or writing a letter to the grandma, Windows is most probably the way to go regarding user-friendlyness (except for those pesky security issues, but the people seem to be quite comfotrable with throwing their money at AV software companies and crippling the performance of their computers by installing 3+ virus scanners and firewalls, so - for some reason - that's not really a problem). A beginner or a technophobe probably won't even recognize the un-friendly face of Windows, but will accept the need to re-install as a god-given fact of life. A windows power-user might be able to extend the time between re-installs, of course, but will never ever come anywhere near Linux, which basically NEVER needs to be re-installed.
If you are a half-way technologically interested power-user, however, you will recognize the unbelievable flexibility and ease of use offered by Linux, provided you spend *some* time to learn something about it, and you will appreciate it. It will be way more user-friendly to you as Windows ever was. Sure, it doesn't have all that many gizmos as Windows does, and is not quite as polished as Windows is, but that's actually not of prime interest to me. When using Windows, I always feel like having my hands handcuffed.
What, then, *is* "evidence" in your book? Please give us a clear definition.
"Evidence" is a word with a defined meaning. You can't just take it and claim that "having a warm and fuzzy feeling about something" also qualifies as evidence, because... it doesn't.
If you need a word to describe your personal feelings about the existence of god, then go and invent one by yourself, instead of misusing a well-known terminus in an attempt to somehow give your personal beliefs more credibility.
Imagine a situation where a group of people works hard for a few years on an OSS project, brings it out, do the "marketing", sweat blood fixing the bugs and problems which never occured in the lab, builds up the reputation, finally sees that their product is GOOD and that there is a certain market for it and decides to try and make a living out of it by offering a commercial support while still keeping the product development at the same high level as up till now. The product, of course, should remain OSS.
Now imagine that at the same time, a mediocre closed source company with a competing but much worse product is also trying to make the living in the same area. They have a professionaly organized support, a great market presence due to being the only game in the town, but a bug-ridden, bloated and unstable product with horrible performance and unacceptable user interface. The only thing that keeps the company away from bankrupcy is that their project was first on the market and has some name recognition attached to it (it's not far fetched at all - just look at all the god-awful Rational products, and you'll know what I'm talking about).
For the company with OSS product, the life starts looking good. They are not rich, but they make a good living off of the hard work they invested in the past 4-5 years.
Now, if the OSS company went with the BSD licence, what would be there to keep the closed source company from fixing/improving their product by stealing parts of the OSS comany's work? By doing so, they might be able to improve their product up to a point where their customers stop running away to the OSS competition (more often than not, customers are quite shy of changing the software they use, even if the software sucks). Gradually, the image of the closed source product becomes better, and the market share starts increasing again. Due to the good work of our OSS heroes.
Where does that leave the OSS guys? They have a great product into which they invested a great amount of their time and blood, they have a good support, they decided to bet their future onto success of that product. And then they just said "look, guys, if somebody wants it, well - just take it away, we don't care".
Algorithms shall be as free as possible, of course. I could imagine accepting an idea of a *LIMITED* (say, 1-2, years AT MOST) software patents for REALLY new/innovative stuff, and only in the case the patent holder also has a product using that algorithm. The code, however, is what I want to keep as safe from leechers and competition as possible. You can take a look at it, you can learn from it, you can contribute to the code, but you can NOT steal it and close it.
BSD license is "a true freedom, my friend" for leechers. It's not a freedom for the author(s) of the code or for the code itself.
File system is handled by a kernel. File system compresses files before writing them to the disk, respectively decompresses them during read operations. Therefore, the compression is handled in kernel. Where would you handle it?
Data compression is not like black magic. As the matter of fact, the most data compression algorithms out there are mind boggingly simple and very well understood.
Of course you could move the file system into the user space, but that would introduce some bad performance penalty.
Slashdot Mirror
My informations are some 2-3 years old, I guess the current A380 problems are realy hurting Airbus nowadays. One troubled project (it still remains to be seen of it will end as a failure or as a success) doesn't mean a busted or even a bad company - before A380 problems started, Airbus was kicking Boeing around in nearly every single civilian airplane market in the world.
Clinton is not in the office any more, what he did or did not say is by no means binding for the future policy of the US of A. Actually, even if he *were* still in office, I would never take the word of a politician for granted - even if it is Clinton we are talking about.
Uh-oh, now you kicked our EU asses, didn't you? You can be proud of your ignorant self.
Airbus is actually doing very well, compared to the Boeing, thank you very much.
The US has the ability to locally reduce the accuracy of the GPS in a serious manner as it likes. While I don't think that will happen any time soon, I do see the point in striving being independent from the US in that important point.
Now, for a joint effort, I'd be all for it - if I hadn't seen how international projects tend to be even more expensive than the national ones (ISS jumps to mind).
I'm afraid you're talking about the USA of the times long gone. Nowadays, I don't see that much you guys agree upon, except for being surprisingly inclined towards waging wars - at least at the beginning, soon after you start a war, you get very divided about it.
:-(
;-)
It seems we're all swimming in sligthly different sectors of the same sewer. Even worse, it looks like we'll all soon meet in the place where it stinks most.
At least we don't have any software patents. Yet.
Well, while he did criticise the bad sides of the EU, he never said he'd rather live some place else. I, for one, would not, despite being very well aware of the EU problems.
You, sir, are a twit.
The parent gave us a good and interesting on-topic read on how the things are run in Best Buy. He admits to have adhered to that policy. He also tells us how bad he felt about it and how wrong it was.
I applaud him for his article.
Being a socialist state (actually, Serbia was one of the republics of the "Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", which in turn pretended to be socialistic) does not mean you need to be a Soviet state. ;-)
Actually, Yugoslavia, and thus also Serbia, had a rather strained relationship with the USSR, especially as long as the Stalin was in charge. Yugoslavia was a "block-free" state, belonging neither to NATO nor to the Warshaw Pakt, yet keeping rather good connections to both west as well as east (starting some time after Stalin died).
That's what I thought of first, but I droped that idea exactly because of the problem you mentioned: it would burn up in the atmosphere, unless it's frigging HUGE!
MIR was frigging HUGE (at least compared to a telecom sat), and yet it burned up completely (?) in the atmosphere.
The "bringing down/disabling" part could be considered an attack by some, that's correct. However, in my book, it would be more of an annoyance...
If the positional thrusters are capable of producing enough delta-v for it to come down exactly at the right moment to ram the ascending space shuttle, then I guess yes, the technical possibility to attack the US does exist. Besides that, I can't imagine an attack vector going beyond simply turning the sat OFF, just to piss some US housewifes waiting for their sitcoms to start.
"hot" means "actually existing... and alive" around here. It's your own sexist definition of "hot" that is showing in your post!
Well, I, for one, use my real address *on purpose* when posting to Usenet (just like I did in early 90's when I first found out about the Internet) and on web sites I'm in charge of. SpamAssassin takes care of almost all the spam I get (some 200+ mails a day). I refuse to hinder other people contacting me just because of some scumbag address harvesting bastards!
/. for example. :-)
I am also pissed because of what happened to the Internet, but I guess it was just a question of *when*, not *if*.
Of course, if I see a benefit of staying anonymous, I do so - but for other reasons than address harvesters. See
Not to mention ACC's & Gentry Lee's "Rendezvous with Rama" series.
Oh... you mean, it's only the god-given right of you creationists to present your "theory" as a fact? :-)
It is modded funny, as it probably also was meant to be, but I'd also give it in "Insightfull".
> I've run Windows 2000 on my box since its inception... I've never had to re-install due to software fault. *NEVER*. Period.
Lucky you.
Regarding your hardware problems, you're just being unfair. You bought a windows machine, didn't get your hardware working, and now that's somehow Linux fault? Next time buy a box which is known to be Linux-compatible and you won't have to spend *WEEKS* worth of your time trying to get it to work.
Regarding your malware experience: the vaste AV software industry, as well as the plentitude of articles in various user groups, proves your experience is an exception, not the rule. I sometimes also boot Windows, and in the mean time I turned off the internet access completely under Windows because of the malware problem.
5/30 minute calls and all's well? You must be supporting ENTIRELY different kind of users than I (and the rest of the world) do.
I think Windows is not user friendly at all - at best, one could say it's BEGINNER friendly. As long as things go well, there is not much one could say against Windows. However, the moment you accidentally break something (like a driver going havoc, or incompatible libs installed on the system, or just simply the "bit rot", which seem to affect almost all Windows systems I had the lack of pleasure to support), you're basically out of luck: re-install is the only way to go.
Even if nothing breaks, Windows can be extremly user un-friendly. Ever tried to upgrade your computer by installing a new motherboard/processor? I have. Linux just booted, with a few quirks which were sorted out within 1-2 hours and which mainly concerned hardware which was not there any more. Windows refused to boot even into secure mode.
If you are a beginner, with no interest whatsoever in learning anything about computer going above web browsing, e-mail reading or writing a letter to the grandma, Windows is most probably the way to go regarding user-friendlyness (except for those pesky security issues, but the people seem to be quite comfotrable with throwing their money at AV software companies and crippling the performance of their computers by installing 3+ virus scanners and firewalls, so - for some reason - that's not really a problem). A beginner or a technophobe probably won't even recognize the un-friendly face of Windows, but will accept the need to re-install as a god-given fact of life. A windows power-user might be able to extend the time between re-installs, of course, but will never ever come anywhere near Linux, which basically NEVER needs to be re-installed.
If you are a half-way technologically interested power-user, however, you will recognize the unbelievable flexibility and ease of use offered by Linux, provided you spend *some* time to learn something about it, and you will appreciate it. It will be way more user-friendly to you as Windows ever was. Sure, it doesn't have all that many gizmos as Windows does, and is not quite as polished as Windows is, but that's actually not of prime interest to me. When using Windows, I always feel like having my hands handcuffed.
YMMV, of course.
What is there to be proud of in this case? This is like saying "haven't tasted fish in 10 years and proud of it".
Thanks for a good laugh guys (alchemy101, thebjorn, jesus_666)! Not being a USian, I never heard of "truthiness" before.
How about
;-)
"Thanks for the explanation, it went completely over my head".
What, then, *is* "evidence" in your book? Please give us a clear definition.
"Evidence" is a word with a defined meaning. You can't just take it and claim that "having a warm and fuzzy feeling about something" also qualifies as evidence, because... it doesn't.
If you need a word to describe your personal feelings about the existence of god, then go and invent one by yourself, instead of misusing a well-known terminus in an attempt to somehow give your personal beliefs more credibility.
I wanted to read you're mesage, but You're gramar and speling ar realy POUR, you know, I didnt understadn a word of what your saing...
Imagine a situation where a group of people works hard for a few years on an OSS project, brings it out, do the "marketing", sweat blood fixing the bugs and problems which never occured in the lab, builds up the reputation, finally sees that their product is GOOD and that there is a certain market for it and decides to try and make a living out of it by offering a commercial support while still keeping the product development at the same high level as up till now. The product, of course, should remain OSS.
Now imagine that at the same time, a mediocre closed source company with a competing but much worse product is also trying to make the living in the same area. They have a professionaly organized support, a great market presence due to being the only game in the town, but a bug-ridden, bloated and unstable product with horrible performance and unacceptable user interface. The only thing that keeps the company away from bankrupcy is that their project was first on the market and has some name recognition attached to it (it's not far fetched at all - just look at all the god-awful Rational products, and you'll know what I'm talking about).
For the company with OSS product, the life starts looking good. They are not rich, but they make a good living off of the hard work they invested in the past 4-5 years.
Now, if the OSS company went with the BSD licence, what would be there to keep the closed source company from fixing/improving their product by stealing parts of the OSS comany's work? By doing so, they might be able to improve their product up to a point where their customers stop running away to the OSS competition (more often than not, customers are quite shy of changing the software they use, even if the software sucks). Gradually, the image of the closed source product becomes better, and the market share starts increasing again. Due to the good work of our OSS heroes.
Where does that leave the OSS guys? They have a great product into which they invested a great amount of their time and blood, they have a good support, they decided to bet their future onto success of that product. And then they just said "look, guys, if somebody wants it, well - just take it away, we don't care".
Algorithms shall be as free as possible, of course. I could imagine accepting an idea of a *LIMITED* (say, 1-2, years AT MOST) software patents for REALLY new/innovative stuff, and only in the case the patent holder also has a product using that algorithm. The code, however, is what I want to keep as safe from leechers and competition as possible. You can take a look at it, you can learn from it, you can contribute to the code, but you can NOT steal it and close it.
BSD license is "a true freedom, my friend" for leechers. It's not a freedom for the author(s) of the code or for the code itself.
Why?
File system is handled by a kernel. File system compresses files before writing them to the disk, respectively decompresses them during read operations. Therefore, the compression is handled in kernel. Where would you handle it?
Data compression is not like black magic. As the matter of fact, the most data compression algorithms out there are mind boggingly simple and very well understood.
Of course you could move the file system into the user space, but that would introduce some bad performance penalty.