Even as much as I tease you Linux guys, I got to say that no one - NO ONE - really has a case against Linux stealing from anyone.
Really, where do I send money for the Linux Defense Fund?
Really, you Linux guys make a Great Server, but not so convinced about your desktop - yet.
Good luck guys!
The Linux Servers I have seen are really quite good, and I imagine that they will more and more become a part of the Government IT infrastructure. I have seen them to be reliable, secure and stable: what more could one ask? I think they are a great alternative to the MS World when importing mass amounts of data from Custom Apps is not a requirement. Otherwise, the cost for thier deployment is prohibitively great. So...for Internet Servers, Proxys, File Servers, etc., I definetly would look at Linux first.
However, the Desktop is another story whose end is already written, and one chapter is called "Applications". Like it or not, "User Applications" are what matters on the desktop and for the majority of Desktop Users, Linux doesn't quite fit the bill, and probably never will. For example, although "Open Office" touts itself as a replacement for MS Office, it doesn't import graphics and spreadsheet data from MS Applications very well at all. Game over. Again...the cost to conversion is prohibitively expensive.
Likewise, Linux Desktop does not support sound cards, video cards or USB devices near as well as Windows (if at all in many cases), and these are some Applications that many Users insist on having. So...why should a user switch if they are going to get less of these things?
Then, there is non-stadardization: the achilles heel of Unix Desktop. Even is we had the software for Linux, not all versions of Linux support all software. I mean, it's a real "hit or miss" to determine whether or not a piece of code is supported by a particular brand of Linux. This really limits the ability to load user-specific software in any environment. Did I ever even mention Linux's "Dependancy Hell"?
Then, there is the Kernel. Although the Linux Kernel is nice, all versions do not support all types of Processors. Pretty bizzare. It feels really strange to here from a vendor that a particular Kernal does not support the new processor you oredered without first applying some obscure, untested third-party patch. Yuch. Well...so much for relatively easy upgrades.
Then there is IT support. With so many flavors of Linux floating around, no one knows them all, so support for any is limited. Not the case with MS. At least with MS there is a single intity insuring compatability and suppot. Meanwhile, Linux advocates are talking about forking the Kernel - another headache.
So, while fielding Linux Servers may be a good thing for an IT Department, going desktop would be a nightmare.
Hmmm...want to here about a REAL business model? Try listening to this blast from the past (August 16, 1996) from the National Public Radio (NPR) website.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?sto ry Id=1044538
Basically, this NPR website news story talks about how MS was playing catch-up to Netscape which, at that time, controlled 85% of the Internet Browser market. In short, Netscape was considered the Giant, and MS the "Upstart". Consensus seemed to be that MS would not be able to vanquish Netscape as long as Netscape kept innovating.
Seen anybody used Netscape recently?
Well...point of all this is indeed the Business Model Viability: first, foremost and always. I just hope that Firefox has a good business model - one that will allow them to profit and improve thier product, for when MS turns thier corporate sites back on the browser....welll...$60,000,000,000 cash on hand buys some potentially devastating competition.
"""Most of that stuff is already proven. The power source is what they just tested. If you can stabilize a camera well enough to center a projectile while taking its picture you can also illuminate it with a laser. Fact: Unlike mammals, light is FAST. A few hours logged in engineering classes will provide you with a proper appreciation for the possible. Sure there are problems, but this test was proof that the big questions are no longer outstanding.""
Focusing a COIL Laser to destroy a missle is not the same as taking the average Photo. According to the APS Study Group and others, "...Because the exact laser power and the target hardness values are classified, we have had to make estimates based on the best-available public information. The engagement time is also classified. The 5-s dwell time is consistent with public literature on the Theater Ballistic Missile Defense, for which the ABL is designed; the 20 s time is our estimate of a maximum useful time."
During this time, adjustments must be made for the real-world variables of cloud-cover, aircraft turbulance, etc. In effect, you are trying to focus a basket-ball sized beam (roughly 25 cm) on a missle travelling in excess of Mach 4 at up to 600 km for a period of 5 - 10 seconds. [note: and this is if the system can be built as designed - which is highly unlikely]
Certainly, this is not the basic "Camera Stabilization" Scenario that you referenced.
Really good summary, but may I also add the following observations from a quick peruse of some Web Pages. I think the most illuminating quote is this one:
"In September of 1997, the General Accounting Office of the United States issued a report saying that "the levels of turbulence the ABL may encounter could be four times greater than the levels in which the system is being designed to operate." As a result, the ABL's beam would reach its advertised range of 350 to 520 kms only 20% of the time."
This was at a time that the ABL was designed to operate with 14 COIL modules onboard a 747 weighing a maximum weight of 180,000 pounds. However, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists makes the following observation:
"The six-module system to be used in initial tests scheduled for late 2004 is estimated to weigh 180,000 pounds--5,000 pounds more than an entire 14-module system's maximum weight limit."
So, doin' a little math, it looks like we only have about 10% of the needed power:
(6/14 * ¼) *100 = 10.7
Where 6/14 is a ratio of the number of COIL modules that can be flown due to weight constraints, and ¼ is the atmospheric turbulance adjustment.
In other words, this sucker is already 10 times underpowered!
Now, this is only 10% of the power needed in a scenario that did not even mention the other non-ideal considerations - like rain, cloud cover or countermeasures: other non-controllable factors that can inhibit missile shootdown during it's initial boost phase. For example, quoting the report you listed:
"Cirrus clouds between the ABL and the target would be a serious problem, because the scattering of the beam would be so severe as to make a successful engagement impossible. The ABL cannot "burn through" the clouds."
Now, please remember, this last consideration, and the entire APS Study Group report that is referenced above assumes that the system is designed with 14 COIL modules - not the maximum of 6 COIL modules currently possible. So...it appears that there is nothing to insure that a Terrorist country like North Korea can't simply wait for a "cloudy day" to strike. As we have come to know, Terrorists wait until it's most convenient for them to strike.
Also, notice that I didn't even hint at "Countermeasures"? No, I'm not talking anything exotic like ablative/reflective armor - or even a stainless steel exterior, just some stupid common sense - certainly capable of anyone capable of developing a Nuclear-tipped ICBM as a terror weapon. For example, an APS Study Group quote says the following:
"In a hit-to-kill boost-phase defense, the time remaining after an interceptor is fired is so short--less than 170 seconds for a liquid-propellant threat missile and less than 120 seconds for a solid-propellant threat missile--that the defense could fire only once, either a single interceptor or a salvo of interceptors fired virtually simultaneously. There would be no opportunity to recover from a misfire or failure of an intercept attempt (5.4-5.6)."
So...god help you if they launch 4-or-so simultaneous missiles and your job is to "pick one" with absolute certainty. And...if it's a cloudy day - well...you are just toast.
O.K....I've about had it with you immature Linux Turds: you make me sick. You waste no opportunity to bash MS (or...is that M$ to you?) at every turn, yet refuse to address the root of the problem: bad people who spread viruses are making the internet effectively unusable for millions.
I mean...effectively these Virus Creators are nothing but terrorists bent on nothing - other than maliciously attacking the innocent. But...do you guys verbally pour disdain on the Virus Creators, or insist that Law Enforcement crack down on Criminals? NO! Instead, all you Turds do is insist that Bill Gates is to blame and hound MS about their lack of security - while millions of innocent users suffer needlessly (or...is that Stupid Lusers to you turds?).
You pathetic bastards! You who blame terror on the victims. You who lend moral support to Internet Terrorists. You are blinded by a hate for one man - Bill Gates which renders you totally incapable of seeing your own flaws. It's pathetic.
what the i.t. world really needs is an apprenticeship programme......you get your degree, and then spend a year working as a "night operator" changing tapes. only once you've proven diligent enough to not screw up the back ups.....
You're a nutcase of the worst kind. Why the hell should any kid motivated enough to pursue a college-education want to start out doing a job we already pay Indians and the Uneducated to do?
Yeah...and the amateurish construction of this countries IT Infrastructure reflects this fact. From so-called "Fast Access" that is years behind what is offered in Europe and Asia, to the overwhelmingly, bug-ridden software that forever costs us billions/year in wasted time and effort, the IT infrastructure we have is a complete mess: definitely not designed and implemented by anyone with a semblance of a formal education (i.e., FORMAL and STRUCTURED thought).
Jeez, why business keep investing in complex systems implemented by such uneducated, hyper-active morons just amazes me - all the while the God-Damned E-mail and File-Backup Systems still don't work reliably, and never freakin' did.
But...the idea that something as the design and implementation of IT infrastructure (Telephony included) should be to those who haven't at least a college degree is not surprising considering the fact that these same underpayed hackers are soon replaced by an even cheaper moronic alternative: the H1B or the Offshore Sweatshop Worker who's an ITT Graduate.
From College Degree, to Uneducated Hacker, to ITT Graduate: that's the endless cycle to push down wages. It's all about finding the cheapest labor (relatively unskilled), and the end result is that the perception (and skill levels) of IT workers is quickly and surely being lowered to the level of Janitors - well...at least Janitors have the title of "Maintenance Engineer". Seriously, is it's no small accident that so many Servers, Routers, PBXs and other IT equipment deployed in this country reside in closets which also house the Janitor's brooms, mops and slop buckets, while the IT - unlike the Janitor - guy doesn't even have a permanent job at the company!
So...go ahead and bash a College Education if you feel so compelled: it's your own epitaph you are writing. Business sees you as disposable geeks not even fit to have a permanent job, and it's why so many of you are chronically unemployed..
Now...tell me again how a College Degree doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Even as much as I tease you Linux guys, I got to say that no one - NO ONE - really has a case against Linux stealing from anyone. Really, where do I send money for the Linux Defense Fund? Really, you Linux guys make a Great Server, but not so convinced about your desktop - yet. Good luck guys!
The Linux Servers I have seen are really quite good, and I imagine that they will more and more become a part of the Government IT infrastructure. I have seen them to be reliable, secure and stable: what more could one ask? I think they are a great alternative to the MS World when importing mass amounts of data from Custom Apps is not a requirement. Otherwise, the cost for thier deployment is prohibitively great. So...for Internet Servers, Proxys, File Servers, etc., I definetly would look at Linux first.
However, the Desktop is another story whose end is already written, and one chapter is called "Applications". Like it or not, "User Applications" are what matters on the desktop and for the majority of Desktop Users, Linux doesn't quite fit the bill, and probably never will. For example, although "Open Office" touts itself as a replacement for MS Office, it doesn't import graphics and spreadsheet data from MS Applications very well at all. Game over. Again...the cost to conversion is prohibitively expensive.
Likewise, Linux Desktop does not support sound cards, video cards or USB devices near as well as Windows (if at all in many cases), and these are some Applications that many Users insist on having. So...why should a user switch if they are going to get less of these things?
Then, there is non-stadardization: the achilles heel of Unix Desktop. Even is we had the software for Linux, not all versions of Linux support all software. I mean, it's a real "hit or miss" to determine whether or not a piece of code is supported by a particular brand of Linux. This really limits the ability to load user-specific software in any environment. Did I ever even mention Linux's "Dependancy Hell"?
Then, there is the Kernel. Although the Linux Kernel is nice, all versions do not support all types of Processors. Pretty bizzare. It feels really strange to here from a vendor that a particular Kernal does not support the new processor you oredered without first applying some obscure, untested third-party patch. Yuch. Well...so much for relatively easy upgrades.
Then there is IT support. With so many flavors of Linux floating around, no one knows them all, so support for any is limited. Not the case with MS. At least with MS there is a single intity insuring compatability and suppot. Meanwhile, Linux advocates are talking about forking the Kernel - another headache.
So, while fielding Linux Servers may be a good thing for an IT Department, going desktop would be a nightmare.
>>>> Then...you should consider another car dealership, for these guys care nothing for your safety.
>>>>
Legal? Sure...WTF?
So, being Legal is more important to you than being alive, huh?
>>>>
You little snot - you know nothing - and I mean NOTHING - about upgrading vast amounts of PCs.
Now...go back to whacking-off in your parent's basement and hurling smears at MS.
Asshole.
...will end anyone's illusion that this is a safe, "Smart" car.
Hmmm...want to here about a REAL business model? Try listening to this blast from the past (August 16, 1996) from the National Public Radio (NPR) website.
o ry Id=1044538
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st
Basically, this NPR website news story talks about how MS was playing catch-up to Netscape which, at that time, controlled 85% of the Internet Browser market. In short, Netscape was considered the Giant, and MS the "Upstart". Consensus seemed to be that MS would not be able to vanquish Netscape as long as Netscape kept innovating.
Seen anybody used Netscape recently?
Well...point of all this is indeed the Business Model Viability: first, foremost and always. I just hope that Firefox has a good business model - one that will allow them to profit and improve thier product, for when MS turns thier corporate sites back on the browser....welll...$60,000,000,000 cash on hand buys some potentially devastating competition.
Go Firefox!
Firefox is very good and, best of all, it's free. And...it's arguably the best.
Say what you want, but Internet Explorer - with bugs and all - is still free, and it comes already packaged with the Windows O/S.
On the other hand, Opera charges money.
Hmmm.....let's see how this business model goes...
1. Write Code others are giving away for free...
2. ?????????
3. Profit!
Yes...I see it all now.
"""Most of that stuff is already proven. The power source is what they just tested. If you can stabilize a camera well enough to center a projectile while taking its picture you can also illuminate it with a laser. Fact: Unlike mammals, light is FAST. A few hours logged in engineering classes will provide you with a proper appreciation for the possible. Sure there are problems, but this test was proof that the big questions are no longer outstanding."" Focusing a COIL Laser to destroy a missle is not the same as taking the average Photo. According to the APS Study Group and others, "...Because the exact laser power and the target hardness values are classified, we have had to make estimates based on the best-available public information. The engagement time is also classified. The 5-s dwell time is consistent with public literature on the Theater Ballistic Missile Defense, for which the ABL is designed; the 20 s time is our estimate of a maximum useful time." During this time, adjustments must be made for the real-world variables of cloud-cover, aircraft turbulance, etc. In effect, you are trying to focus a basket-ball sized beam (roughly 25 cm) on a missle travelling in excess of Mach 4 at up to 600 km for a period of 5 - 10 seconds. [note: and this is if the system can be built as designed - which is highly unlikely] Certainly, this is not the basic "Camera Stabilization" Scenario that you referenced.
Really good summary, but may I also add the following observations from a quick peruse of some Web Pages. I think the most illuminating quote is this one:
m j0 3priebe
n md 03.cfm
"In September of 1997, the General Accounting Office of the United States issued a report saying that "the levels of turbulence the ABL may encounter could be four times greater than the levels in which the system is being designed to operate." As a result, the ABL's beam would reach its advertised range of 350 to 520 kms only 20% of the time."
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=40&prin t=1
This was at a time that the ABL was designed to operate with 14 COIL modules onboard a 747 weighing a maximum weight of 180,000 pounds. However, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists makes the following observation:
"The six-module system to be used in initial tests scheduled for late 2004 is estimated to weigh 180,000 pounds--5,000 pounds more than an entire 14-module system's maximum weight limit."
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=
So, doin' a little math, it looks like we only have about 10% of the needed power:
(6/14 * ¼) *100 = 10.7
Where 6/14 is a ratio of the number of COIL modules that can be flown due to weight constraints, and ¼ is the atmospheric turbulance adjustment.
In other words, this sucker is already 10 times underpowered!
Now, this is only 10% of the power needed in a scenario that did not even mention the other non-ideal considerations - like rain, cloud cover or countermeasures: other non-controllable factors that can inhibit missile shootdown during it's initial boost phase. For example, quoting the report you listed:
"Cirrus clouds between the ABL and the target would be a serious problem, because the scattering of the beam would be so severe as to make a successful engagement impossible. The ABL cannot "burn through" the clouds."
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/
Now, please remember, this last consideration, and the entire APS Study Group report that is referenced above assumes that the system is designed with 14 COIL modules - not the maximum of 6 COIL modules currently possible. So...it appears that there is nothing to insure that a Terrorist country like North Korea can't simply wait for a "cloudy day" to strike. As we have come to know, Terrorists wait until it's most convenient for them to strike.
Also, notice that I didn't even hint at "Countermeasures"? No, I'm not talking anything exotic like ablative/reflective armor - or even a stainless steel exterior, just some stupid common sense - certainly capable of anyone capable of developing a Nuclear-tipped ICBM as a terror weapon. For example, an APS Study Group quote says the following:
"In a hit-to-kill boost-phase defense, the time remaining after an interceptor is fired is so short--less than 170 seconds for a liquid-propellant threat missile and less than 120 seconds for a solid-propellant threat missile--that the defense could fire only once, either a single interceptor or a salvo of interceptors fired virtually simultaneously. There would be no opportunity to recover from a misfire or failure of an intercept attempt (5.4-5.6)."
So...god help you if they launch 4-or-so simultaneous missiles and your job is to "pick one" with absolute certainty. And...if it's a cloudy day - well...you are just toast.
Windows XP Insecure?
What?
O.K....I've about had it with you immature Linux Turds: you make me sick. You waste no opportunity to bash MS (or...is that M$ to you?) at every turn, yet refuse to address the root of the problem: bad people who spread viruses are making the internet effectively unusable for millions.
I mean...effectively these Virus Creators are nothing but terrorists bent on nothing - other than maliciously attacking the innocent. But...do you guys verbally pour disdain on the Virus Creators, or insist that Law Enforcement crack down on Criminals? NO! Instead, all you Turds do is insist that Bill Gates is to blame and hound MS about their lack of security - while millions of innocent users suffer needlessly (or...is that Stupid Lusers to you turds?).
You pathetic bastards! You who blame terror on the victims. You who lend moral support to Internet Terrorists. You are blinded by a hate for one man - Bill Gates which renders you totally incapable of seeing your own flaws. It's pathetic.
what the i.t. world really needs is an apprenticeship programme......you get your degree, and then spend a year working as a "night operator" changing tapes. only once you've proven diligent enough to not screw up the back ups.....
You're a nutcase of the worst kind. Why the hell should any kid motivated enough to pursue a college-education want to start out doing a job we already pay Indians and the Uneducated to do?
Yeah...and the amateurish construction of this countries IT Infrastructure reflects this fact. From so-called "Fast Access" that is years behind what is offered in Europe and Asia, to the overwhelmingly, bug-ridden software that forever costs us billions/year in wasted time and effort, the IT infrastructure we have is a complete mess: definitely not designed and implemented by anyone with a semblance of a formal education (i.e., FORMAL and STRUCTURED thought).
Jeez, why business keep investing in complex systems implemented by such uneducated, hyper-active morons just amazes me - all the while the God-Damned E-mail and File-Backup Systems still don't work reliably, and never freakin' did.
But...the idea that something as the design and implementation of IT infrastructure (Telephony included) should be to those who haven't at least a college degree is not surprising considering the fact that these same underpayed hackers are soon replaced by an even cheaper moronic alternative: the H1B or the Offshore Sweatshop Worker who's an ITT Graduate.
From College Degree, to Uneducated Hacker, to ITT Graduate: that's the endless cycle to push down wages. It's all about finding the cheapest labor (relatively unskilled), and the end result is that the perception (and skill levels) of IT workers is quickly and surely being lowered to the level of Janitors - well...at least Janitors have the title of "Maintenance Engineer". Seriously, is it's no small accident that so many Servers, Routers, PBXs and other IT equipment deployed in this country reside in closets which also house the Janitor's brooms, mops and slop buckets, while the IT - unlike the Janitor - guy doesn't even have a permanent job at the company!
So...go ahead and bash a College Education if you feel so compelled: it's your own epitaph you are writing. Business sees you as disposable geeks not even fit to have a permanent job, and it's why so many of you are chronically unemployed..
Now...tell me again how a College Degree doesn't matter.