I thought they were not supposed to be obvious to anyone skilled in the field. This is so damned obvious that anyone in or out of the field can see it. What the hell happened to common sense?
They spent so much time and energy defending their patents on "wing warping" that they fell behind in other areas. For what it's worth, they actually changed the shape of the entire wing by yanking on cables which bent the trailing edge up or down, Curtis (among others) use hinged sections of wing (now known as ailerons). I guess there was some argument about whether that itself was changing the shape of the wing, even tho the Wrights never used hinged ailerons. So somebody put ailerons between the biplane wings, and moved just them, so no wing changed shape, it was an entirely separate wing which moved by itself. And then Curtis sold his airplanes overseas without any ailerons or wing warping at all, but shipped the ailerons separately from a Canadian factory directly overseas, and since Canada didn't recognize the Wrights' patent, no violation.
Meanwhile, the Wrights had locked themselves into their position, couldn't change their designs without compromising their lawsuits, so got stuck with old fashioned tech, and lost market share as everyone else came up with new ideas.
In other words, better to keep innovating than to defend the old ways.
It is an incredible combination of fun, practical, reliable, economical. I have traveled across country with room to spare in the trunk; the current 3rd generation model is just as long and heavy and has no trunk. I don't get anywhere near the mileage I should because it is so much fun to take out on the backroads instead of the freeway.
I was working as a contractor, one of the permanent hires was new from college, thought he knew everything, took no advice and asked for none, but sure gave it out. I had a 1986 MR2; this was 1988. He came in one day bursting with ego and pride and told me he had bought a Fiero. I looked at him in amazement... why did you buy that piece of shit? He was startled, said Isn't that what you have?
Idiot had bought the car strictly based on what he thought I had. No research, no test drive, nothing.
My MR2 now has 330,000 miles and runs like a champ, still shifts at redline like it couldn't be happier.
I was interested in this several years ago, altho I think it was directpc. I wouldn't be surprised if things are the same, or even that they are the same company and/or equipment.
This was just after they came out with new equipment that was satellite in both directions. Before that, satellite was for downlink only, you still needed a modem for uplink.
The outstanding complaint was crap customer support. In general, for just about any complaint you had, they blamed it on the weather. A single cloud in the northern sky? Well, wait until it fails on a clear day and call back, buster.
Even those who liked the service otherwise had nothing good to say about the support. It was enough to persaude me to keep my slow modem.
Most man pages have long since been written from scratch for Linux. It would seem that any man pages still missing must be pretty rarely used, or for obsolete commands.
There are differences between UNIXes and Linux distributions and BSD distributions. What do the POSIX man pages document, and is it more trouble than it is worth to use them as a basis for Linux man pages?
I really don't know, this is not a troll, I didn't even know that there were POSIX man pages.
When some idiot plows into a crowd and claims his gas pedal stuck, we all know that's just his state of denial (no, Egypt is not the 51st state!), but in practical terms, it doesn't matter whether it was a car malfunction or a driver malfunction, it's still a car which hit the people. You can argue all you want that this is clueless media, but it involves a computer, and the technician is part of that computer system.
If a power supply fails, is that a computer glitch? Well, it came with the computer.
If the power cord itself fails, is that a computer glitch? It, too, came with the computer.
In practical terms, if it involves the computer, whether thru misconfigured software or whatever, it is a computer glitch.
Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.
So if that is what it takes for SCO to sue someone, their next target has to be themselves! Who else has done so much "to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO"... nobody but SCO!
I have the same gut feeling as you do, but prison is the wrong answer, at least for the first offense. Second offense, sure, they haven't learned squat. But reserve prison on the first offense for violent crimes.
What I want is for them to wear that electronic ankle bracelet and be denied all internet access. Let them have a computer, but no internet hookup. Let them use a computer at work, as long as there is no internet access.
See, I don't want to pay taxes to hold people in prison if they can hold down a job and pay restitution, or at least I don't want to support them in prison. I want them toiling away at some menial job, paying taxes, paying restitution. I'd just as soon force them to take whatever the current equivalent of antabuse is, I don't want them drinking or smoking, that wastes money that could go to restitution. I want them circulating between work and home, nowhere else, no parties, no visiting friends, no fun. Let themexplain to their friends why the friends have to come see them. Let their kids understand that daddy is a screwup and an asshole and can't go to school plays and weekend movies. I want them to do that for a year first offense, 5 years second offense. Or if the first offense is nasty enough, straight to prison, but only for exceptional cases. And the second offense, prison should be a likely result, but not mandatory.
I resent paying for prisons to guard nonviolent prisoners. But if ankle bracelets don't teach them a thing, then prison is fine.
Their point is that he could just register a new domain name, change the URLs, and keep all the work he put into the content.
They don't want the content, he can take that with him.
It's like parking next to a fire hydrant, they are saying move along, take your car.
And all you flamers who don't read very carefully, note that I make no mention of whether M$ is doing the smart thing, the right thing, the correct thing, or anything.
I used to get a kick out of getting guys to squirm when I lived in San Francisco with my girlfriend. Guys who only heard I was single would look at me weird, like I was contagious, and I'd just laugh, tell them that I loved it there, with so many gays it left more women for me, and they got really upset when I said they must be closet gays because real heterosexual males would rejoice at taking so many good looking sensitive guys out of competition for the women.
If someone asked you, other than beingannoyed at wasting your time, you wouldn't be embarassed to say where it was hosted. These people are. Both the management and the anchor don't want their audience to know. That means they think it is deceptive and wrong.
Read your parent post. If the anchor and radio station don't want the truth out, if it embarasses them, then they themselves know it is wrong. It is deceptive. They don't want the audience to know. If they had nothing to hide, then it would not be wrong.
If the perpetrators themselves think it is wrong, is that not good enough evidence for you?
Forgot all the angels on pins arguments, all the quibbling about telecommuting and whether or not everybody is doing it. Forget ALL that. Cut to the chase.
Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.
There is no mandate. Most people don't give a shit about the space program. No one will ever make the space program a cornerstone of their campaign. Thus funding for space always fluctuates on personal whims. All you have to do is look at the last 40 years to see that.
If you compare how much it owuld cost to maintain the HST as to what it cost to get it up there, or to fund a replacement, you will have a better understanding of long term. To ditch it now for some nebulous future project which will never go past the speech stage.... that is idiotic in teh extreme. That is not long term.
No one is arguing to stop funding NASa, your third point falls into a diatribe. You need to open your eyes to the reality of politics. These silly inane commenst are valid. If you thought the second impeachment is out history was deserved for a president who lied about who he had sex with, do you not think it is deserved for one who lies about the reasons for going to war? You sound like you think we will go to the moon and Mars simply because Bush says so. You are going to be sorely disappointed if you believ that. You want the facts, the facts say Bush is a liar and has hidden agendas up the wazoo.
Thanks to both of you for setting me straight without flamage:-)
And apologies to Terry Nation. Had some of the right initials at least:-)
His comment on Tom Baker's makeup really rankled me at the time, still does... change just for the sake of his own ego, no rationale. I think hoser really sums him up, pee on everything in sight to demonstrate who is in charge.
Almost the same. I took Spanish and French in high school, I was a natural at seeing an unfamiliar word and knowing how to pronounce it, or hearing an unfamiliar word and knowing how to spell it. Then I learned some Japanese, and not just the spelling and pronounciation went to pot, but I started using the wrong {there,their} and other 3rd grade screwups.
I figure the Spanish and French just reinforced my English, what with common roots and all. But Japanese is such a cleaner language from the spelling / pronunciation viewpoint (except for kanji:-) that my brain decided to forget a lot of the complications of English.
I may have the name wrong. I am talking about the director or producer who took over for the last year of Tom Baker. As far as I'm concerned, he ruined the show. Up til then, it was fun, it did not take itself too seriously, it just did a good job with a piss poor budget, and that was fine. I remember one comment in particular that summed up his regime, that up until he took charge, Tom Baker had used little or no makeup, but he insisted on full makeup. Why mess with success? he got more budget for special effects, but that was a losing proposition. Dr. Who was famous for cheesy special effects, and that was one of the ingredients of its success. When he boosted the budget, suddenly it was competing in a different league. He also brought in lots of gloomy deep thinking kind of scripts, lots of heavy pondering, without the slightest bit of humor.
I blame him for the show falling down. If it had stayed low budget and cheesy, it could have kept going for a long time. Once it got expensive, it had to have sterling ratings to match. It also ceased to be any kind of show for kids.
They were either sitting around idle beforehand, in which case there are no new expenses but were lots of unnecessary old expenses, or
they had to hire new staff to handle the new work load, or
the staff working on this SCO business fortuitously had just finished some other big project.
I kind of doubt #3. I kind of doubt #1. Whether the new staff is really new bodies, or just existing bodies working tons of overtime, this is certainly costing them something.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought they were not supposed to be obvious to anyone skilled in the field. This is so damned obvious that anyone in or out of the field can see it. What the hell happened to common sense?
For instance, it would be processor abuse to bring it online and subject it to a /.ing.
They spent so much time and energy defending their patents on "wing warping" that they fell behind in other areas. For what it's worth, they actually changed the shape of the entire wing by yanking on cables which bent the trailing edge up or down, Curtis (among others) use hinged sections of wing (now known as ailerons). I guess there was some argument about whether that itself was changing the shape of the wing, even tho the Wrights never used hinged ailerons. So somebody put ailerons between the biplane wings, and moved just them, so no wing changed shape, it was an entirely separate wing which moved by itself. And then Curtis sold his airplanes overseas without any ailerons or wing warping at all, but shipped the ailerons separately from a Canadian factory directly overseas, and since Canada didn't recognize the Wrights' patent, no violation.
Meanwhile, the Wrights had locked themselves into their position, couldn't change their designs without compromising their lawsuits, so got stuck with old fashioned tech, and lost market share as everyone else came up with new ideas.
In other words, better to keep innovating than to defend the old ways.
IANAH so take with many grains of salt.
It is an incredible combination of fun, practical, reliable, economical. I have traveled across country with room to spare in the trunk; the current 3rd generation model is just as long and heavy and has no trunk. I don't get anywhere near the mileage I should because it is so much fun to take out on the backroads instead of the freeway.
I was working as a contractor, one of the permanent hires was new from college, thought he knew everything, took no advice and asked for none, but sure gave it out. I had a 1986 MR2; this was 1988. He came in one day bursting with ego and pride and told me he had bought a Fiero. I looked at him in amazement ... why did you buy that piece of shit? He was startled, said Isn't that what you have?
Idiot had bought the car strictly based on what he thought I had. No research, no test drive, nothing.
My MR2 now has 330,000 miles and runs like a champ, still shifts at redline like it couldn't be happier.
I guess that makes me the silly man ...
You send packet --- up from you and down to them.
You get reply --- up from them and down to you.
Four trips. Twice as slow.
I was interested in this several years ago, altho I think it was directpc. I wouldn't be surprised if things are the same, or even that they are the same company and/or equipment.
This was just after they came out with new equipment that was satellite in both directions. Before that, satellite was for downlink only, you still needed a modem for uplink.
The outstanding complaint was crap customer support. In general, for just about any complaint you had, they blamed it on the weather. A single cloud in the northern sky? Well, wait until it fails on a clear day and call back, buster.
Even those who liked the service otherwise had nothing good to say about the support. It was enough to persaude me to keep my slow modem.
Which one?
Most man pages have long since been written from scratch for Linux. It would seem that any man pages still missing must be pretty rarely used, or for obsolete commands.
There are differences between UNIXes and Linux distributions and BSD distributions. What do the POSIX man pages document, and is it more trouble than it is worth to use them as a basis for Linux man pages?
I really don't know, this is not a troll, I didn't even know that there were POSIX man pages.
SMTP# you silly man.
When some idiot plows into a crowd and claims his gas pedal stuck, we all know that's just his state of denial (no, Egypt is not the 51st state!), but in practical terms, it doesn't matter whether it was a car malfunction or a driver malfunction, it's still a car which hit the people. You can argue all you want that this is clueless media, but it involves a computer, and the technician is part of that computer system.
If a power supply fails, is that a computer glitch? Well, it came with the computer.
If the power cord itself fails, is that a computer glitch? It, too, came with the computer.
In practical terms, if it involves the computer, whether thru misconfigured software or whatever, it is a computer glitch.
Catch this:
... nobody but SCO!
Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.
So if that is what it takes for SCO to sue someone, their next target has to be themselves! Who else has done so much "to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO"
I have the same gut feeling as you do, but prison is the wrong answer, at least for the first offense. Second offense, sure, they haven't learned squat. But reserve prison on the first offense for violent crimes.
What I want is for them to wear that electronic ankle bracelet and be denied all internet access. Let them have a computer, but no internet hookup. Let them use a computer at work, as long as there is no internet access.
See, I don't want to pay taxes to hold people in prison if they can hold down a job and pay restitution, or at least I don't want to support them in prison. I want them toiling away at some menial job, paying taxes, paying restitution. I'd just as soon force them to take whatever the current equivalent of antabuse is, I don't want them drinking or smoking, that wastes money that could go to restitution. I want them circulating between work and home, nowhere else, no parties, no visiting friends, no fun. Let themexplain to their friends why the friends have to come see them. Let their kids understand that daddy is a screwup and an asshole and can't go to school plays and weekend movies. I want them to do that for a year first offense, 5 years second offense. Or if the first offense is nasty enough, straight to prison, but only for exceptional cases. And the second offense, prison should be a likely result, but not mandatory.
I resent paying for prisons to guard nonviolent prisoners. But if ankle bracelets don't teach them a thing, then prison is fine.
Their point is that he could just register a new domain name, change the URLs, and keep all the work he put into the content.
They don't want the content, he can take that with him.
It's like parking next to a fire hydrant, they are saying move along, take your car.
And all you flamers who don't read very carefully, note that I make no mention of whether M$ is doing the smart thing, the right thing, the correct thing, or anything.
I used to get a kick out of getting guys to squirm when I lived in San Francisco with my girlfriend. Guys who only heard I was single would look at me weird, like I was contagious, and I'd just laugh, tell them that I loved it there, with so many gays it left more women for me, and they got really upset when I said they must be closet gays because real heterosexual males would rejoice at taking so many good looking sensitive guys out of competition for the women.
If someone asked you, other than beingannoyed at wasting your time, you wouldn't be embarassed to say where it was hosted. These people are. Both the management and the anchor don't want their audience to know. That means they think it is deceptive and wrong.
Read your parent post. If the anchor and radio station don't want the truth out, if it embarasses them, then they themselves know it is wrong. It is deceptive. They don't want the audience to know. If they had nothing to hide, then it would not be wrong.
If the perpetrators themselves think it is wrong, is that not good enough evidence for you?
Forgot all the angels on pins arguments, all the quibbling about telecommuting and whether or not everybody is doing it. Forget ALL that. Cut to the chase.
Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.
There is no mandate. Most people don't give a shit about the space program. No one will ever make the space program a cornerstone of their campaign. Thus funding for space always fluctuates on personal whims. All you have to do is look at the last 40 years to see that.
.... that is idiotic in teh extreme. That is not long term.
If you compare how much it owuld cost to maintain the HST as to what it cost to get it up there, or to fund a replacement, you will have a better understanding of long term. To ditch it now for some nebulous future project which will never go past the speech stage
No one is arguing to stop funding NASa, your third point falls into a diatribe. You need to open your eyes to the reality of politics. These silly inane commenst are valid. If you thought the second impeachment is out history was deserved for a president who lied about who he had sex with, do you not think it is deserved for one who lies about the reasons for going to war? You sound like you think we will go to the moon and Mars simply because Bush says so. You are going to be sorely disappointed if you believ that. You want the facts, the facts say Bush is a liar and has hidden agendas up the wazoo.
Thanks to both of you for setting me straight without flamage :-)
:-)
... change just for the sake of his own ego, no rationale. I think hoser really sums him up, pee on everything in sight to demonstrate who is in charge.
And apologies to Terry Nation. Had some of the right initials at least
His comment on Tom Baker's makeup really rankled me at the time, still does
Almost the same. I took Spanish and French in high school, I was a natural at seeing an unfamiliar word and knowing how to pronounce it, or hearing an unfamiliar word and knowing how to spell it. Then I learned some Japanese, and not just the spelling and pronounciation went to pot, but I started using the wrong {there,their} and other 3rd grade screwups.
:-) that my brain decided to forget a lot of the complications of English.
I figure the Spanish and French just reinforced my English, what with common roots and all. But Japanese is such a cleaner language from the spelling / pronunciation viewpoint (except for kanji
I may have the name wrong. I am talking about the director or producer who took over for the last year of Tom Baker. As far as I'm concerned, he ruined the show. Up til then, it was fun, it did not take itself too seriously, it just did a good job with a piss poor budget, and that was fine. I remember one comment in particular that summed up his regime, that up until he took charge, Tom Baker had used little or no makeup, but he insisted on full makeup. Why mess with success? he got more budget for special effects, but that was a losing proposition. Dr. Who was famous for cheesy special effects, and that was one of the ingredients of its success. When he boosted the budget, suddenly it was competing in a different league. He also brought in lots of gloomy deep thinking kind of scripts, lots of heavy pondering, without the slightest bit of humor.
I blame him for the show falling down. If it had stayed low budget and cheesy, it could have kept going for a long time. Once it got expensive, it had to have sterling ratings to match. It also ceased to be any kind of show for kids.
But it's not a C ontract, it's a L icense.
They were either sitting around idle beforehand, in which case there are no new expenses but were lots of unnecessary old expenses, or
they had to hire new staff to handle the new work load, or
the staff working on this SCO business fortuitously had just finished some other big project.
I kind of doubt #3. I kind of doubt #1. Whether the new staff is really new bodies, or just existing bodies working tons of overtime, this is certainly costing them something.