I think the whole thing falls under the "I have a great idea, but I actually don't have the foggiest idea how infrastructure works now, but hey, I need to a BIG SEXY CONTROVERSIAL headline."
Imagine if even a tenth of the fucking morons out there who pontificate on subjects for which they had no real knowledge at all actually did have that knowledge. My God, we'd probably be terraforming Pluto by now!
PC-DOS was MS-DOS. Maybe in the final days after the marriage had dissolved it might have had some divergences, but I remember using PC-DOS 7, and there wasn't anything terribly different from MS-DOS. MS-DOS largely existed so Microsoft could sell the operating system to clone manufacturers (the beginning of Redmond's OEM empire).
Jerry Pournelle is a seriously demented guy. I popped on to his blog last week where he and some equally daft people were insisting Special Relativity was wrong and that he still felt there was validity in the ether theory. No seriously, this guy (who did write some good military-themed SF back in the day), rejects much of 20th century physics in favor of a debunked classical theory that everyone knew had serious problems decades before Einstein came on the scene.
And a nation that can land a 900lb probe within 2km of the planned spot on another planet has developed some pretty impressive technical abilities that potential enemies can see as well.
1. Legal documents don't magically influence supply. 2. Commodities are globally priced. Are you arguing that the US force domestic producers sell at a lower price than the open market can supply? Will you also insist closely aligned foreign producers take a hit on prices?
I don't quite get your point. Since value is frequently defined in terms of scarcity, are you saying events that could create even a temporary drop in supply shouldn't have an effect on the value (as a function of the relative scarcity)?
Sure the this tweet was fake and doubtless was quickly corrected, but let's pretend it was true. Most assuredly it would alter the supply of oil, and hence it's value. But you don't that reflected in the price?
You basically slander a billion people and when cornered on it try to shut up your opponents with being autistic homosexuals, before explaining how bad it is for homosexuals. You're a loud mouthed halfwit
Not me. I set about using the semi-graphics mode of my TRS-80 MC-10, my first computer, to make my own version of Pacman. The resolution was insufficient for any kind of animation but I did get it to the point where you could move the man around a maze.
I simply don't believe it. I'm not saying the US is a completely reliable steward, but it's known quantity. You live in a fantasy land if you think wresting the Internet from the US is going to make nonsense impossible.
Until we have full-blown mesh networks and other ways of networking equipment together and central control of any kind becomes irrelevant, I'm sticking with the current management.
Except that, good or bad, the US's governance of the Internet is a known quantity. It may not be perfect and may have its own inherent risks, but thus far, the US has been a reasonably good steward. Handing it off to the UN, where some major players are unabashed censors of the Internet and would have considerable motivation to undermine certain aspects of how it works, carries significant risks, and risks we may not even be aware of.
This is a situation where I say better than devil we know than the devil we don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely fucking brilliant.
How about "Santorums?"
We have to modernize Yahoo so that when Microsoft and Google want to buy us out we can demand top price!
I think the whole thing falls under the "I have a great idea, but I actually don't have the foggiest idea how infrastructure works now, but hey, I need to a BIG SEXY CONTROVERSIAL headline."
Imagine if even a tenth of the fucking morons out there who pontificate on subjects for which they had no real knowledge at all actually did have that knowledge. My God, we'd probably be terraforming Pluto by now!
But, of course, it's all going to be running on top of TCP/IP. This isn't a replacement, it's just another widget you run on the tubes.
It looks that way, and of course, it raises the obvious question "What transport layers do you propose to move this data around with?"
PC-DOS was MS-DOS. Maybe in the final days after the marriage had dissolved it might have had some divergences, but I remember using PC-DOS 7, and there wasn't anything terribly different from MS-DOS. MS-DOS largely existed so Microsoft could sell the operating system to clone manufacturers (the beginning of Redmond's OEM empire).
I've played around on a machine running MS-DOS 1. Believe me, it wasn't that much better than CP/M. The good stuff didn't start to appear until DOS 2.
Jerry Pournelle is a seriously demented guy. I popped on to his blog last week where he and some equally daft people were insisting Special Relativity was wrong and that he still felt there was validity in the ether theory. No seriously, this guy (who did write some good military-themed SF back in the day), rejects much of 20th century physics in favor of a debunked classical theory that everyone knew had serious problems decades before Einstein came on the scene.
He's pretty much an Internet crank now.
And Dalvik rips off Java.
And a nation that can land a 900lb probe within 2km of the planned spot on another planet has developed some pretty impressive technical abilities that potential enemies can see as well.
1. Legal documents don't magically influence supply.
2. Commodities are globally priced. Are you arguing that the US force domestic producers sell at a lower price than the open market can supply? Will you also insist closely aligned foreign producers take a hit on prices?
But there will always be pathetic yahoos who, out of some desire to make themselves feel important will deny our species' technical abilities.
I don't quite get your point. Since value is frequently defined in terms of scarcity, are you saying events that could create even a temporary drop in supply shouldn't have an effect on the value (as a function of the relative scarcity)?
Sure the this tweet was fake and doubtless was quickly corrected, but let's pretend it was true. Most assuredly it would alter the supply of oil, and hence it's value. But you don't that reflected in the price?
Frankly you're showing more signs of Aspergers than anyone else here.
You basically slander a billion people and when cornered on it try to shut up your opponents with being autistic homosexuals, before explaining how bad it is for homosexuals. You're a loud mouthed halfwit
All I've got to say is that you are stupid fucking moron. God your family must absolutely fucking hate you.
We were hardly any better 100 years ago, and there are no lack of Westerners who wouldn't mind seeing homosexuals shoved back in the closet.
And what is with these Aspergers accusations?
You could simplify it down to "virtually all wars are essentially economic."
And what makes you an authority on the matter? Fuck, you don't even have the balls to post with an account.
Three words; Dungeons Of Dagorath. I wore out a keyboard on that game.
Not me. I set about using the semi-graphics mode of my TRS-80 MC-10, my first computer, to make my own version of Pacman. The resolution was insufficient for any kind of animation but I did get it to the point where you could move the man around a maze.
I simply don't believe it. I'm not saying the US is a completely reliable steward, but it's known quantity. You live in a fantasy land if you think wresting the Internet from the US is going to make nonsense impossible.
Until we have full-blown mesh networks and other ways of networking equipment together and central control of any kind becomes irrelevant, I'm sticking with the current management.
Except that, good or bad, the US's governance of the Internet is a known quantity. It may not be perfect and may have its own inherent risks, but thus far, the US has been a reasonably good steward. Handing it off to the UN, where some major players are unabashed censors of the Internet and would have considerable motivation to undermine certain aspects of how it works, carries significant risks, and risks we may not even be aware of.
This is a situation where I say better than devil we know than the devil we don't.
To a very corrupt democratically elected government. The keys will be in the hands of Russian mobsters in a few days.