No other Internet communications medium we've seen before has that kind of flexibility.
I'm, not sure I agree with that. I think you might be overlooking Skype.
And I think you might be overlooking the fact that, unlike Skype, Wave is an open platform. Google are open-sourcing much of their code, and developing communications protocols in an open forum that will allow others to create and run fully-featured, interoperable Wave implementations.
I'm as excited about that as I am about Wave's user features.
Robert Scoble calls it overhyped, claiming it's useful for little more than personal IM or small-scale project collaboration. He complains about the noisiness of tracking dozens of people chatting him at once in real-time and calls trying to use it a 'productivity killer' compared to simpler mediums like email and Twitter.
I think he's missing the point. You don't need to use Google Wave in "real time": you can treat it just like e-mail or twitter if you want. Open the wave, ignore anyone else who's editing it, make the changes or reply you want to, and leave it to come back to it later.
You can use Wave for anything from any level of communication synchronicity from e-mail, through IRC, to teleconference, on a completely continuous sliding scale. No other Internet communications medium we've seen before has that kind of flexibility.
I also think that a lot of the negative reactions are because it's a paradigm-shifting technology. People don't like change; they don't like adapting to new and unfamiliar ways of working. When e-mail first started becoming widespread, many people found it impossible to understand and deal with; now it's an intrinsic and familiar part of every working environment.
If you have any wind when the snow falls, you're going to have drifting which makes such measurements useless.
I take great exception to this statement and your dismissive attitude towards their results. Drifting will introduce uncertainty into the measurements, and that uncertainty can be estimated and accounted for. It by no means makes the measurements 'useless.' Scientific experiments are never carried out in ideal environments, and the mathematical methods that have been developed to extract information from poor-quality data are truly amazing.
For example, in my field of satellite synthetic aperture radar, all of our data contains high-power speckle noise, thermal noise and heavy multipath and shadowing artefacts. Nevertheless, there is always useful information to be extracted from even the most heavily-corrupted areas -- it's "just" a matter of creating probabilistic models of how the errors occur and use that to extract as much information as possible. We never say, "Oh, this area has some layover, it's useless."
Data always has useful information somewhere -- it's just a matter of putting in the work required to get at it. These researchers have demonstrated that the information on snowfall is present. Don't make the mistake of dismissing that result just because there are still some challenges to overcome.
Does it account for the fact that almost-melting snow will layer more compactly then sub-30C snow which is extremely crystalline and less likely to make compact layers?
Disclaimer: I haven't RTFPaper. I'll do that tomorrow, since it's of professional interest. What follows is guesswork.
Imagine you've got an RF antenna on a flat surface. Above the flat surface is a layer of snow of constant thickness h. Now place at least three point RF sources at different angles theta and distances r from the antenna. Assume that all the sources lie above the snow.
Now, the distance that each RF signal must travel through the snow, x, will depend on d and theta, but not on r. You'll find that x is linearly dependent on d. Let t = alpha * x be the increase in signal flight time due to the snow. alpha will be a function of the dielectric properties of the snow.
So, basically, I don't think you can tell the difference between an increase in d and an increase in alpha, and ergo, the answer to your question is, "No." On the other hand, IIRC there's actually very difference in terms of dielectric properties between different types of snow, so it could be that the effect is dominated by the snow depth.
Of course, it's accidental radar altimetry, rather than a dedicated instrument. Neat hack.
Um, no. It's not like SRA, apart from the use of a satellite, RF radiation, and the measurement of a distance.
Main differences:
This system is bistatic; SRA is monostatic.
This system uses an (almost) isotropic antenna to collect radiation from pretty much everywhere; SRA uses a high gain antenna to survey only a very narrow target swathe.
This system measures the effective speed of light in a multipath environment, assuming the multipath reflectors are at fixed distances; SRA measures the distance of multipath reflectors, assuming the effective speed of light is fixed.
Disclaimer: I work on satellite synthetic aperture radar, which is different again, and my knowledge of SRA isn't comprehensive.
Killing soldiers is considered fair game because they are (or should be) prepared to die. We call those that attack civilians "terrorists": see 9/11. I don't value soldiers' lives less, it's just a different level of wrong.
You do realise that not so long ago that it was considered normal for soldiers to rape and pillage in conquered lands? Indeed, some have suggested that the coalition's failure to carry out reprisals (e.g. decimation) on civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan suspected of sheltering guerillas is one of the reasons why the insurgents continue to receive popular support there.
I don't agree with them -- I'm pretty certain there are viable alternatives -- but it makes you wonder.
Aparently, simply discrimating by skin color is not cool anymore.
It's not about discrimination based on race, it's about verifying whether someone is from where they say they are from to prevent normal emmigrants passing themselves off as refugees to bypass the emmigration system. It's stupid of course because it's based on the assumption that there is a tie between nationality and genetic ancestry. A fairly large proportion of british citizens would test as Indian under this scheme.
This is going to come across a bit grammar-Nazi-ish, but I think you're getting confused between "emigrate" and "immigrate". They are different words with completely opposite meanings! The initial "e" in "emigrate" comes from the Latin "ex", meaning "out of", and "emigration" is when you move away from a country. The initial "im" in "immigrate" comes from the Latin "in" (meaning obvious), and "immigration" is when you move into a country.
A bullshit number of course. There is simply no accurate way to evaluating neither the positive nor negative effects of copyright and patents. And that is before taking into considering stuff like fair use, legal private copying or compulsory licensing. All of which have been tried in different forms in different countries.
Why don't you READ THE PAPER before passing your omniscient judgement upon it from on high? Perhaps it would be too difficult to actually provide relevant criticism of the author's methods and research?
Objectively speaking, there's no accurate way to measure anything. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. The only sensible way to make policy is to gather evidence, evaluate the evidence in the light of a critical assessment of the processes used to gather it, and then to use the evidence to support the proposed changes.
From a pure societal economic perspective, copyright is probably best at zero years. Even if less media gets produced (an assumption in itself), letting the whole population have access to everything that has ever been created unmeasurable huge economic benefits. Not the least that you don't have to deal with it in the first place, which creates new levels of freedom. (just like legal private copying makes citizens more free in a real sense)
From a more balanced perspective, I am extremely skeptic of any copyright length over 10 years, and I consider even that quite long. If you can't make a profit over that many years, then you simply suck at business. Of course, there are always a few arguments brought up.
Hand-waving like this is not the way to formulate policy, despite the fact that so many politicians think it is.
Wow, that doesn't sound like an optimistic outlook for a smooth landing of their craft.
If you'd RTFA (yeah, new here, etc) you'd know that the whole point of their craft is to thump into the moon as hard as possible. A smooth landing would be a mission failure.
...a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted. This explicit exception for free software would counterbalance the effective exception for proprietary software. Even ten years ought to be enough, I think.
(Okay, not exactly, because the exception would be for software released with source code, rather than for Free software explicitly).
So you want your boss to double check everything you do? No You want a degree of professional trust.
You're putting words into my mouth: I never said anything of the sort.
Good management bad management people will get stressed and will make mistakes. There are some libraries that are GNU are very complete and could take weeks/months/years to build from scratch.
So you feel that you should be entitled to just take them and use them however you want to with no obligations attached? If you want to use the code, comply with the license; if you don't want to comply with the license, find an alternative. It's very simple. Microsoft Windows "could take weeks/months/years to build from scratch", but it's pretty clear that, if you want to use it, you need to pay for it. In the case of GNU libraries, you pay for the software by following the simple rules associated with it; in the case of MS Windows, you pay by writing a cheque.
Commercial versions of these libraries can be thousands of dollars. Your business model doesn't work well with the GNU, where support/distribution/consulting services wouldn't pay the bills. So you have the following options...
Oh, really! So I suppose I'm imagining the fact that Red Hat is in the S&P 500 and seems to have no problem paying the bills?
1. Open Source your software and loose money
If you think that Open Source = losing money, you must have been living in a hole for the last decade.
2. Purchase the expensive libraries and integrate them. Now approval may not get past the bean counters, or the fact it is a lot of work that code monkeys hate trying to justify paying a lot of money for a product.
"Bawwwwwwww! Why won't all these programmers do my work for me for free!"
3. Put the open source in and hope know one will find out.
But as you've seen, they will.
4. Make your own library taking a lot of man hours, and possibly pissing off the customer who is waiting for the product.
Maybe you should have negotiated a realistic delivery timescale? It's not GNU's fault that your sales team sucks.
5. Contact the maker of the library and beg for a license that will work for you. (which may be difficult as if they made a library GPL vs. LGPL means they are probably very anal on the GPL)
"Bawwwwwwww! You're not allowed to have principles if they conflict with my business model!"
6. Make as much money as possible if they ask for the source code you fax it to them, with the code officiated.
I don't know what you mean by "with the code officiated", but I will point you to the part of the GPL which says, "The 'source code' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think most developers would be able to make a convincing argument that a fax is not "the preferred form" for hacking on code.
So far, you've demonstrated that your company is too incompetent to negotiate contracts with clients at an achievable price or with a reasonable delivery timescale. You also put undue pressure on your programmers and refuse to give them the support they need to get their work done. You are so blinkered and focussed on what has worked in the past that you are unable to see beyond your failing business model to any other way of making money out of software. Finally, you think you should be able to compensate for these failings by stealing other people's hard work.
People misunderstanding a document that is several pages of dense legalese and is commonly advocated by people who have never read it? I'm absolutely shocked that this could be the case!
I'm absolutely shocked! The <set of people that do X> intersects with the set of irresponsible people! How could this thing be!
I think you'll find that, despite the inevitable idiots, most people who advocate the GPL have read it and do understand it. The GPL is actually very readable. Have you read the terms and conditions for your credit card recently? Or the fine print of your mortgage? The GPL doesn't have a patch on that pile of dense legalese.
Propagation of this misinformation, specifically, is the reason the GPL is so misunderstood: too many people out there that think GPL is the same thing as public domain and derive a sense of entitlement from it.
General Public License != Public Domain
Um, if Alice was distributing binaries of public domain source code, no-one would have any rights whatsoever to request source code from Alice. The rights of recipients of GPL software are considerably stronger than the rights of recipients of public domain software -- but there are obligations to go with those rights. This is what seems to confuse people: they think they are entitled to the rights without the obligation.
However it will also make people feel worried about using GPL software, and possibly being suied from honest mistakes.
Let me describe the typical GPL "enforcement" process (well documented: c.f. Linksys, BusyBox, lots of other examples):
User: "Oooh, your product which I just bought uses some GPL software. Can I get the source code, please?"
(Three months later) "You haven't replied to me... please can I get the source code?"
(Another month passes) "You have read the license, right? It says you have to give me the source code!"
(Another month passes) "(To developer) Hey, these guys are using your software but won't pass on the source code."
Developer: "Oi, you're using my software, and this dude says you won't give him the source code. What gives?"
(Another three months pass) "Look here, you comply with the terms of the license, or I'll send you a nasty letter."
(Another month passes) "Here is a nasty letter, detailing what you're doing wrong and how to fix it!"
(Another month passes) "This is your last chance, we mean it!"
(Another month passes) "See you in court, assholes!"
The aim of the GPL enforcement process isn't to slap the violators down, it's to encourage them to come into compliance. Going to court is a last resort, if every other measure fails. If it's just that you've made an honest mistake, the people who are complaining will be very happy to give you the help you need to fix the problem, and to direct you to experienced sources of reliable legal advice on GPL compliance.
If you say, "People won't use GPL software in their products because they're afraid of the legal ramifications," you are doing nothing but spreading FUD.
So there are a metric buttload of missiles lying around all over The Former Soviet Union, just waiting for coded radio signals that will launch them.
Firstly, the metric buttload of missiles are exactly the same missiles that would be launched in a non-Perimeter strike, if I understand the article correctly -- Perimeter is just an alternative way to transmit launch authorisation. This probably means that the normal warhead arming procedures would have to be carried out, probably as part of step 1 of arming the Perimeter system. So, no, the missiles are not sitting there armed at all times, waiting for a coded signal -- that would be silly and dangerous.
Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want.... I don't think OSS will ever "win" because it's not focused on the users desires, only the coders desires.
When I watched them, I wasn't sure if I should laugh or be horrified that they essentially are telling flight schools/independent instructors to be suspicious of people of Arabic heritage.
Which is extra hilarious when you reflect on the fact that many of these terrorists are of Iranian descent, and are therefore Caucasian!
As for DAB you are probably quite wrong there too. It's main problem is the up front costs
No, the problem is the way that the DAB multiplexes are configured. At the moment, all stations other than Radio 3 have an effective bandwidth that is less than they had on FM (most stations use a 24 kHz sample rate, i.e. 12 kHz Nyquist b/w, and then lossily compress to a 128kb/s bitrate). Basically, DAB as implemented in the UK sounds like shit, and you don't need to be an audiophile to tell it.
Slashdot Mirror
Public waves sounds a lot like 4chan.
Are you sure you're not thinking of pubic waves?
No other Internet communications medium we've seen before has that kind of flexibility.
I'm, not sure I agree with that. I think you might be overlooking Skype.
And I think you might be overlooking the fact that, unlike Skype, Wave is an open platform. Google are open-sourcing much of their code, and developing communications protocols in an open forum that will allow others to create and run fully-featured, interoperable Wave implementations.
I'm as excited about that as I am about Wave's user features.
Robert Scoble calls it overhyped, claiming it's useful for little more than personal IM or small-scale project collaboration. He complains about the noisiness of tracking dozens of people chatting him at once in real-time and calls trying to use it a 'productivity killer' compared to simpler mediums like email and Twitter.
I think he's missing the point. You don't need to use Google Wave in "real time": you can treat it just like e-mail or twitter if you want. Open the wave, ignore anyone else who's editing it, make the changes or reply you want to, and leave it to come back to it later.
You can use Wave for anything from any level of communication synchronicity from e-mail, through IRC, to teleconference, on a completely continuous sliding scale. No other Internet communications medium we've seen before has that kind of flexibility.
I also think that a lot of the negative reactions are because it's a paradigm-shifting technology. People don't like change; they don't like adapting to new and unfamiliar ways of working. When e-mail first started becoming widespread, many people found it impossible to understand and deal with; now it's an intrinsic and familiar part of every working environment.
If you have any wind when the snow falls, you're going to have drifting which makes such measurements useless.
I take great exception to this statement and your dismissive attitude towards their results. Drifting will introduce uncertainty into the measurements, and that uncertainty can be estimated and accounted for. It by no means makes the measurements 'useless.' Scientific experiments are never carried out in ideal environments, and the mathematical methods that have been developed to extract information from poor-quality data are truly amazing.
For example, in my field of satellite synthetic aperture radar, all of our data contains high-power speckle noise, thermal noise and heavy multipath and shadowing artefacts. Nevertheless, there is always useful information to be extracted from even the most heavily-corrupted areas -- it's "just" a matter of creating probabilistic models of how the errors occur and use that to extract as much information as possible. We never say, "Oh, this area has some layover, it's useless."
Data always has useful information somewhere -- it's just a matter of putting in the work required to get at it. These researchers have demonstrated that the information on snowfall is present. Don't make the mistake of dismissing that result just because there are still some challenges to overcome.
Heh. Having read the paper, it seems that it's not that simple, unfortunately. However, they seem to have assumed a standard model for snow:
We assumed density of 240 kg m3 for the new snow and a snow temperature of 2C ( = 1.48 i2.76 × 104), after Jacobson [2008].
Does it account for the fact that almost-melting snow will layer more compactly then sub-30C snow which is extremely crystalline and less likely to make compact layers?
Disclaimer: I haven't RTFPaper. I'll do that tomorrow, since it's of professional interest. What follows is guesswork.
Imagine you've got an RF antenna on a flat surface. Above the flat surface is a layer of snow of constant thickness h. Now place at least three point RF sources at different angles theta and distances r from the antenna. Assume that all the sources lie above the snow.
Now, the distance that each RF signal must travel through the snow, x, will depend on d and theta, but not on r. You'll find that x is linearly dependent on d. Let t = alpha * x be the increase in signal flight time due to the snow. alpha will be a function of the dielectric properties of the snow.
So, basically, I don't think you can tell the difference between an increase in d and an increase in alpha, and ergo, the answer to your question is, "No." On the other hand, IIRC there's actually very difference in terms of dielectric properties between different types of snow, so it could be that the effect is dominated by the snow depth.
satellite radar altimetry.
Of course, it's accidental radar altimetry, rather than a dedicated instrument. Neat hack.
Um, no. It's not like SRA, apart from the use of a satellite, RF radiation, and the measurement of a distance.
Main differences:
Disclaimer: I work on satellite synthetic aperture radar, which is different again, and my knowledge of SRA isn't comprehensive.
Killing soldiers is considered fair game because they are (or should be) prepared to die. We call those that attack civilians "terrorists": see 9/11. I don't value soldiers' lives less, it's just a different level of wrong.
You do realise that not so long ago that it was considered normal for soldiers to rape and pillage in conquered lands? Indeed, some have suggested that the coalition's failure to carry out reprisals (e.g. decimation) on civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan suspected of sheltering guerillas is one of the reasons why the insurgents continue to receive popular support there.
I don't agree with them -- I'm pretty certain there are viable alternatives -- but it makes you wonder.
Aparently, simply discrimating by skin color is not cool anymore.
It's not about discrimination based on race, it's about verifying whether someone is from where they say they are from to prevent normal emmigrants passing themselves off as refugees to bypass the emmigration system. It's stupid of course because it's based on the assumption that there is a tie between nationality and genetic ancestry. A fairly large proportion of british citizens would test as Indian under this scheme.
This is going to come across a bit grammar-Nazi-ish, but I think you're getting confused between "emigrate" and "immigrate". They are different words with completely opposite meanings! The initial "e" in "emigrate" comes from the Latin "ex", meaning "out of", and "emigration" is when you move away from a country. The initial "im" in "immigrate" comes from the Latin "in" (meaning obvious), and "immigration" is when you move into a country.
Hopefully the distinction is clearer now.
A bullshit number of course. There is simply no accurate way to evaluating neither the positive nor negative effects of copyright and patents. And that is before taking into considering stuff like fair use, legal private copying or compulsory licensing. All of which have been tried in different forms in different countries.
Why don't you READ THE PAPER before passing your omniscient judgement upon it from on high? Perhaps it would be too difficult to actually provide relevant criticism of the author's methods and research?
Objectively speaking, there's no accurate way to measure anything. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. The only sensible way to make policy is to gather evidence, evaluate the evidence in the light of a critical assessment of the processes used to gather it, and then to use the evidence to support the proposed changes.
From a pure societal economic perspective, copyright is probably best at zero years. Even if less media gets produced (an assumption in itself), letting the whole population have access to everything that has ever been created unmeasurable huge economic benefits. Not the least that you don't have to deal with it in the first place, which creates new levels of freedom. (just like legal private copying makes citizens more free in a real sense)
From a more balanced perspective, I am extremely skeptic of any copyright length over 10 years, and I consider even that quite long. If you can't make a profit over that many years, then you simply suck at business. Of course, there are always a few arguments brought up.
Hand-waving like this is not the way to formulate policy, despite the fact that so many politicians think it is.
I've yet to work out where the sweet spot is for copyright.
About 14 years, apparently.
Wow, that doesn't sound like an optimistic outlook for a smooth landing of their craft.
If you'd RTFA (yeah, new here, etc) you'd know that the whole point of their craft is to thump into the moon as hard as possible. A smooth landing would be a mission failure.
How quickly people forget that the GPL relies on copyright to function.
No, it's not forgotten at all. Stallman raised this issue a few weeks ago, and since then the Pirate Party UK, at least, has decided to adopt the solution he proposed:
...a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted. This explicit exception for free software would counterbalance the effective exception for proprietary software. Even ten years ought to be enough, I think.
(Okay, not exactly, because the exception would be for software released with source code, rather than for Free software explicitly).
I want a British pirate party now. We need one :/
That's okay, because we've got one! Just passed 500 paid-up members, too.
So you want your boss to double check everything you do? No You want a degree of professional trust.
You're putting words into my mouth: I never said anything of the sort.
Good management bad management people will get stressed and will make mistakes. There are some libraries that are GNU are very complete and could take weeks/months/years to build from scratch.
So you feel that you should be entitled to just take them and use them however you want to with no obligations attached? If you want to use the code, comply with the license; if you don't want to comply with the license, find an alternative. It's very simple. Microsoft Windows "could take weeks/months/years to build from scratch", but it's pretty clear that, if you want to use it, you need to pay for it. In the case of GNU libraries, you pay for the software by following the simple rules associated with it; in the case of MS Windows, you pay by writing a cheque.
Commercial versions of these libraries can be thousands of dollars. Your business model doesn't work well with the GNU, where support/distribution/consulting services wouldn't pay the bills. So you have the following options...
Oh, really! So I suppose I'm imagining the fact that Red Hat is in the S&P 500 and seems to have no problem paying the bills?
1. Open Source your software and loose money
If you think that Open Source = losing money, you must have been living in a hole for the last decade.
2. Purchase the expensive libraries and integrate them. Now approval may not get past the bean counters, or the fact it is a lot of work that code monkeys hate trying to justify paying a lot of money for a product.
"Bawwwwwwww! Why won't all these programmers do my work for me for free!"
3. Put the open source in and hope know one will find out.
But as you've seen, they will.
4. Make your own library taking a lot of man hours, and possibly pissing off the customer who is waiting for the product.
Maybe you should have negotiated a realistic delivery timescale? It's not GNU's fault that your sales team sucks.
5. Contact the maker of the library and beg for a license that will work for you. (which may be difficult as if they made a library GPL vs. LGPL means they are probably very anal on the GPL)
"Bawwwwwwww! You're not allowed to have principles if they conflict with my business model!"
6. Make as much money as possible if they ask for the source code you fax it to them, with the code officiated.
I don't know what you mean by "with the code officiated", but I will point you to the part of the GPL which says, "The 'source code' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." I think most developers would be able to make a convincing argument that a fax is not "the preferred form" for hacking on code.
So far, you've demonstrated that your company is too incompetent to negotiate contracts with clients at an achievable price or with a reasonable delivery timescale. You also put undue pressure on your programmers and refuse to give them the support they need to get their work done. You are so blinkered and focussed on what has worked in the past that you are unable to see beyond your failing business model to any other way of making money out of software. Finally, you think you should be able to compensate for these failings by stealing other people's hard work.
Care to dig any deeper?
Scenario, Code monkey is stressed and short for time...
Poor management practices and business methods get the results they deserve. News at 11!
People misunderstanding a document that is several pages of dense legalese and is commonly advocated by people who have never read it? I'm absolutely shocked that this could be the case!
I'm absolutely shocked! The <set of people that do X> intersects with the set of irresponsible people! How could this thing be!
I think you'll find that, despite the inevitable idiots, most people who advocate the GPL have read it and do understand it. The GPL is actually very readable. Have you read the terms and conditions for your credit card recently? Or the fine print of your mortgage? The GPL doesn't have a patch on that pile of dense legalese.
Propagation of this misinformation, specifically, is the reason the GPL is so misunderstood: too many people out there that think GPL is the same thing as public domain and derive a sense of entitlement from it.
General Public License != Public Domain
Um, if Alice was distributing binaries of public domain source code, no-one would have any rights whatsoever to request source code from Alice. The rights of recipients of GPL software are considerably stronger than the rights of recipients of public domain software -- but there are obligations to go with those rights. This is what seems to confuse people: they think they are entitled to the rights without the obligation.
However it will also make people feel worried about using GPL software, and possibly being suied from honest mistakes.
Let me describe the typical GPL "enforcement" process (well documented: c.f. Linksys, BusyBox, lots of other examples):
The aim of the GPL enforcement process isn't to slap the violators down, it's to encourage them to come into compliance. Going to court is a last resort, if every other measure fails. If it's just that you've made an honest mistake, the people who are complaining will be very happy to give you the help you need to fix the problem, and to direct you to experienced sources of reliable legal advice on GPL compliance.
If you say, "People won't use GPL software in their products because they're afraid of the legal ramifications," you are doing nothing but spreading FUD.
So there are a metric buttload of missiles lying around all over The Former Soviet Union, just waiting for coded radio signals that will launch them.
Firstly, the metric buttload of missiles are exactly the same missiles that would be launched in a non-Perimeter strike, if I understand the article correctly -- Perimeter is just an alternative way to transmit launch authorisation. This probably means that the normal warhead arming procedures would have to be carried out, probably as part of step 1 of arming the Perimeter system. So, no, the missiles are not sitting there armed at all times, waiting for a coded signal -- that would be silly and dangerous.
Well, that's how I'd do it, anyway.
Back in my day, college was all about drinking, sex and illicit drug use.
Exactly!
Sorry, but I disagree. Why? Because OSS doesn't always provide what people want since it's made by nerds coding software that THEY want, not what the users want. ... I don't think OSS will ever "win" because it's not focused on the users desires, only the coders desires.
Oh, for a (-1, Missing The Point) moderation...
When I watched them, I wasn't sure if I should laugh or be horrified that they essentially are telling flight schools/independent instructors to be suspicious of people of Arabic heritage.
Which is extra hilarious when you reflect on the fact that many of these terrorists are of Iranian descent, and are therefore Caucasian!
...half of the programming is apparently commissioned by women who attach great importance to handbags and shoes
Fortunately, the other half of the programming is still excellent. So I'm not worrying yet.
As for DAB you are probably quite wrong there too. It's main problem is the up front costs
No, the problem is the way that the DAB multiplexes are configured. At the moment, all stations other than Radio 3 have an effective bandwidth that is less than they had on FM (most stations use a 24 kHz sample rate, i.e. 12 kHz Nyquist b/w, and then lossily compress to a 128kb/s bitrate). Basically, DAB as implemented in the UK sounds like shit, and you don't need to be an audiophile to tell it.