The iPhone (or applePhone) is a cool thing. And it is for people who buy iPods instead of other mp3-players or MacBooks instead of other Centrino laptops. It is for people who want a cool thingie. These people do not use Word for Windows and Outlook, they use Word for Mac and Mail.app on their MacBooks. So Mike Elgan is wrong in the point, that it would not meet the expectations of these people. A classic Blackberry user will not move to the iPhone. Why should he? But the classical Mac user will buy the iPhone. And wheen you see how many iPods are sold to people, just because it looks good and works. The same thing will happen to this iPhone. In addition it introduces a set of new usage concepts, which are not available on other smartphones. Even I am not sure if the iPhone counts as smartphone at all.
Another thing is, the 6 month delay between announcement and real availability. This time can be used to produce, test or announce software for other OS's to synchronize the iPhone. Also a better comparision can be made with other phones. This could help in refining things. Also it will create this "when is christmas?"-feeling, so everyone is eager to get it. And when the early adaptors start to get tired by the new look and feel and start counting the missing things, the iPhone2 comes out. And the iPhone nano. etc.
First of all you should write (in a human language) what you want to create. Lets say a simulator. At this point you should look into the nearest library or wikipedia to learn somethign about simulation. You will learn that there are different types of simulators. For instance time discret, event base simulations and simulations which use a continuous time model. Also you should look on what you want to simulate.
Lets say a simple computer thing. The best thing would be now to decompose the problem in smaller parts. You need a CPU and RAM and a cache, a harddrive, a keyboard and a graphic adaptor.
Now look at each of them and think what they do. etc.
This approach is similar to any other software engineering concept. Get the problem, devide it in smaller pieces, design an architecture, write a detailed design for your pieces and then implement them using whatever language you want.
May I ask one humble question? No offence but didn't you hear anything about software engineering, UML and project planning at university?
We had a shooting at school several years ago. At that time ego-shooters were pulled out as cause of the shooting. Nevertheless there were ohter, better explanations. (Problems with the schooling system, no future etc.)
Right now we have a second incident but this time the suicide note was published. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/24/24030/1.html
The Telegraph mentions the upcoming IPCC report and shows as proof of his part a graph about the temperature change and sets that in relation to the so called hockey stick curve. The first thing to say about this graph is that it compares apples with peaces or to be more percisely it compares the global climate development to local changes in Europe. This not very scientific as we all should know that an overall increase could cause also cooler regions.
Also I know this second curve. it has come up several times and it is flawed. There was also an article in the German version of the Scientific Amerian (Spektrum der Wissenschaft) which discusses these issues. The short answer is, the second curve is garbage.
Also there are OTHER indicators for an increasing temperature in total and more energy in the system earth. The mass of polar ice is decreasing. And the decrease is accelerating. I have seen such evidence at the AWI in Bremerhaven. And the trend will be public available in the next IPCC report, where this accelerating decrease is explained.
So don't give much thought in this document. He just want to insult the Canadian Government and the IPCC. For his reasons ask someone in the UK.
The article is somewhat confusing. Are they celebrating the invention of the Web (HTTP+HTML) or the invention of IP?
I go with the title and in that case they are right. So let us all write an email to Tim Berners-Lee and thank him for his cool idea. So he will regret it that he invented it in the first place:-)
I think RH is underestimating ubuntu. The market share in ZA and Europe is increasing rapidly. Also IBM dand some other vendors certified the distribution for their hardware. To make things even worse for RH. A friend of mine (former WinXP user) installed today Ubuntu from the live CD.
Ubuntu asked him 7 easy question and after that it took about 45 minutes to install. No errors, no fideling with the X setup. The machine was ready for work. It was really impressing. I haven't seen a RH or SUSE/Novell distribution to perform that well lately. Every time, they failed to get everything right. Sound problems, slightly broken X configuration, etc. Nothing really serious, nothing which couldn't be fixed in some minutes. But such errors are annoying and the average WinXP user cannot fix them. (the most annoying thing about SUSE is subfs)
First you have to decide if the study should be quantitative or qualtitative. For the first option you have to decie if you want to watch users use these DEs or if you want to give them questions to answer. In addition for this approach you need tasks, and people to perform these tasks. They should have no knowledge of KDE or GNOME desktops at all and should be a representative group of users (e.g. not more than 3% MacOS X users and 1.3% Linux Users)
In your conclusion. Don't say A is better than B, because your study is realtiv to the set of task you designed.
For more about empirical studies, read some books about it (e.g. Karl Poppers books).
Lets say an almighty God, speaks to a primitve creature. then this God has three possible ways of doing so: 1. Talk to it in a language which can be understood by that creature. (type 1) 2. Talk to is in God-Language, which would not be understandable by that primitive creature. (type 2) 3. Make the creature intelligent enough to understand him/her.
A language is, semantics, syntax and meaning of words. So we are able to describe things around us. But these languages have to be expanded with new words to describe new things, because otherwise we are not able to handle it.
So if the language is of type 1 of my own hierarchy, then the language is not capable of transmitting the facts of the universe took 7 trillion years (or more or less) to form, because I wouldn't be able to express the numbr to the guy 6000 years ago. And even if I could write it down, he would understand.
So God made him such an intelligent guy, you could say. Ok, lets see. Then this guy is intelligent enough to understand the fabric of space, and the creation of the universe and now he wants to tell this to his friend. A, shit, his friend is still this dumb fool, the guy was some lines above.
Now God in his great power make him intelligent too, so he can understand the thing about the univers, life and the rest. Lets say they tried to told it to the women around them too. So we use induction and can conclude, we knew and we know exactly how the universe came into existance and we know exactly how it works.
But in fact we don't know, so God must have stopped with his make people intelligent program somewhere in the past. Or he didn't started at all.
To the point: God can make a language, which is so simple (e.g. only a few facts) that a shepherd can understand it and transmit the fact of the creation of the universe.
Lets say, this is possible, he is the almighty remember. Now we know, the bible is not written in the language, it is written in Hebrew and Greek. And by all means, these are human languages which are not more expressive than any other spoken or dead human language. (See language theory for reference.) So we reached the same point again. Somebody writes Gods words down in an inferior language. And so they messed up.
But as God is not an idiot, he knew this, so he used methaphors ot explain. So we know, there was an initial creational task, done by him. And on the other hand isn't it possible that God created natural laws just in a way that evolution and the rest could happen in the way we knew today?
I'm not a standard SUSE and KDE user, but my mother is. The causes were: - Better local support (as we live in Germany) - SuSE had better hardware support - most things work fine.
But since 8.x series, the SuSE-Linux started to get worse. In 9.0 USB-support was not working perfectly. In 9.1/9.2 it failed to work at all (at least with the camera my mother owns). So we updated it to 9.3 and now it worked again. At least for one day. But when we unplugged the camera and reattached it in the same session (which could happen, if the camera goes in suspend mode anytime), the camera got an new USB-identification. And the applications reacted in an unsatisfying manner. For example the photoalbum tool started and wasn't able to find the camera.
To get the machine totally confused, add a usb-stick.
Most of these problems come from the fact, that SuSE implemented their own solutions for hw detection and hotplugging.
SuSE uses subfs to mount CDROMs and sticks instantly. But this causes some trouble. And hal, dbus etc. are better solutions to the same problem. That's why they started using it in 9.3. but theirs still using subfs, which gets now confused with hal, hotplug and friends.
Beacause this change started before Novell aquired SuSE, I guess it has something to do with the move to business customers with special needs and away from the classical desktop (geek) user.
Sep. 29 I redd an article about the Mangan vs. TTTech thing on www.spiegel.de (in German sorry). According to this article Mangan worked for TTTech for 6 months in 2004. The company said that he never complained about the chip until he gots fired because they were unsatisfied with his performance.
Well that's what the company says. So the real facht is that he worked there for 6 months and that this chip development started years before 2004. Because they needed these chips for the ground tests. And before that these chips have to be tested. So Mangan was too much involved in this.
Also for me that looks like: He got that job, he scewed it up and was laid off in his probationary period.
Free enterprise, capitalism, open market, etc. The system works, and apparently very well.
There is no such thing like open market. The USA is protecting their market (food, steel etc.). The EU is protecting their market (food, clothing from China). And so are others.
Also a free market implies free access for laborers. Which is not granted by any state. Ever tried to work in India, EU or USA (remove own country from the list)?
Also your argument That, of course, is their decision to make, by the right of the fact that they created it. is flawed. This implies that if you have an idea it belongs to you alone. This is not free either. This the same thinking as in copyrights and patents. You get a privilege granted by the state (which real open marketeers want to remove). It is not natural, because ideas are not a limited resource.
At last I must say that capitalism != open market != freedom. But instead of going into detail here:-) read about free market and capitalism.
And I might also refer to Noam Chomsky.
Are you sure? That the Chinese government is not speaking for them on _foreign policies_? Well it is hard to come to an definitive conclusion. But let say they aren't at all. So there is no difference between the "US is not speaking for them" and the "China is not speaking for them" thing.
But beside China, I also mentioned the biggest democracy on earth, India. India has 1 to 1.2 billion citizens and their government is elected. Which count for now for speaking for their citizens.
So shall the US speak for them too? Maybe we shall give ICANN to India, then it will speak for them and as they are a democracy there would be no difference for the rest of the world (except the US but they are only 4-5% and India are at least 16-17%).
Or shall we count internet users?
Also this "We speak for them"-attitude is quite arrogant. You have no legitimacy to say so. Or missed I such an election lately?
So the WTO is not working and the ITU is not working too. These are both interational organisations, which work. Well not allways to our personal benefit:-) But that could neve be acieved. And ICANN doesn't do that either.
On the other hand. ICANN needed to think about the.eu TLD for several years. Maybe because the EU is no US-government approved state. bbut that is not the ICANN to decide as all member states of the EU told them otherwise. This is not very efficient.
Also the efficiency of interantional institutions depends highly on the interests of the member of such institution. If they want to work in the same directions, it works quite well. If there are different opinions then it will take some time. Well that's the price for a one state one voice democracy.
Right now the internet is controled by an "unelected international bureaucracy" if you are not an US-citizen. So this argument doesn't count for non US-citizens. On the other hand, my government is elected and in that way I have a voice in the UN. Also the general idea is, that a interantional comittee is controling the net. Which means, they develop the regulations which are needed. In such a comittee there will sit a US-representative.
The point why most people want to reduce the US influence is, that they are come out imperialistic lately. And as we all know: Growing empires are dangerous to their neighbours (which means right now the rest of the world). At least that matches with the (western) history of mankind. The Indians didn't like the GB-Empire or the South-Americans the Spanish.
On this basis. People want to reduce the US influence which is quite natural. Just htink what would you do if it were the other way round?
1. It is controled by the USA, which means by its government. Most peolpe don't trust this government. Is this so hard to accept for US-citizens? Why shall the US speak for 1.3 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, or the other 3.5 billion people?
2. The ICANN council is mostly "populated" by companies. And therefor their interests are served through ICANN.
You are wrong. Such international organisation is controled by the UN or could have a council which works similar to the UN.
In the US the ICANN is controled by the US-government. But most wolrd citizens do not trust this government. ICANN forces US interest and who would like that (beside the US).
Think about this: China own ICANN and controls the DNS-systems, would the USA like that? Or Iran is owning ICANN. What then? Or France:-) or some other "Old-Europe"-State.
All these states sit on the other side of the table and they want to have some control over DNS on there own.
If the the USA is not changing there position and a split occures, it would be US-Net/Rest-of-the-world-Net split. Because the rest could perfectly agree on a interational treaty.
Nuclear rockets are a insane concept and they will not work for affordable amounts of money. Also it would be far too dangerous to put so much uran or plutonium in orbit. Think about it. What will happen when one delivery fails and reenters earth atmosphere? Have you ever heard about the desaster in Tschernobyl. It radiated half Europe for years.
Also the pushes by nuclear explosions are short and strong, so you need either a great mass to be pushed so the persons will not be smashed, or you shall use a device without any people onboard.
A far better method is the use of ion-engines. They could savely delivered to orbit and they can produce a constant thrust (not much today but that could be increased)
Nuclear reactors are also no option. 1. they need cooling, which have to be radiated in space, because there are now rivers to heat up;-) => really big radiators 2. if the transport of the urn fails, we all are in trouble.
There is no good use of nuclear propulsion in space. I'm sorry but that technology is not a problem solver, it produces more problems then neccessary.
These theses are flawed. In Germany those monorail designer, build a monorail based on a maglev technique. They told that a maglev trains is quieter than a normal train. So they compared ICE-trains (german high speed trains) with that new technology. The result was that such maglev train could be as noisy as a normal train. Because by increasing the speed the primary noise source is the wind.
The second argument is, hmm, strange. Normally people want to have that the transportation device integrates into the surrounding environment. On the other hand you can put normal trains on aqueducts just like these maglev things.
The safety argument is partly right. But only in one perspective. If a train build from waggons derails at high speed it is a dangerous device to the passengers and surrounding environment but. This can be minimized using Jakob-Bogies like the french TGV. On the other hand a maglev cannot be derailed but if you put something heavy onto the track the train has to go through it or...
For the fourth argument, they tried that in Germany. The ieda was to build a monorail-track between Hamburg and Berlin. They evaluated that. The maglev-industry told the government that it would be cheaper than a normal high speed train. The government agreed on that and said that they will support the project if it wouldn't be more expensive than the normal train.
After some month some flaws in the calculation were found. They assumed more passangers than projected. So after correcting that fact. The maglev train was more expensive than the other concept.
Also the argument that attrition is higher on a normal train compared to a maglev, is wrong. There are no wheels which have to be fixed but the rail is more complex and has to be fixed. Also it have to be heated in winter which increases the energy consumption.
The chineese bought such monorail from Germany (now running from Shanghai airport to the city border). But as they had to decide lately to build more monorails or to use normal high speed trains, they took the latter one.
There are two major ways to write software. One is based on design patterns and a concept, an architecture. The other is based on try and error. On coding without planning. The result is, that after some development cycles, improvements and addons. The software gets inmaintainable.
After 30 years MS accepts now that software development needs a plan (not a business plan) , a concept. As real methods for such plans are available since the 1990th they are pretty late in starting to use them. But on the other hand in the OSS-scene is not using such methods either.
It is time, even for you, to accept the inevitable. We are raning out of fossile fuels sooner or later. Also we increase the amount of CO_2, CO_1 etc. in the atmmosphere which is definitly affecting the temperature and plant life (oceans and land). Which results in various different changes to the global and local climate.
Beside these ecological effects, which may cause hunger, wars etc., we have to switch to another energy technology. This technology must have at least the following features:
1. It must not pollute any limited natural resource (air, water, land)
2. It must be save
3. If an accident happens, it must not devastate large areas.
4. It shall be affordable
5. It shall be decentralized, so single problems won't affect large areas.
6. It must be implementable
To meet these goals, it is important to change
a) certain human behaviour. Like driving around in cars instead of using more energy efficient methods.
b) certain production methods
c) the way we produce goods.
to c). today we produce a certain good, lets say a computer. It works normally for 4 years before it starts to break down. (Yes I know sometimes they work for maore than 4 yaers) Also most companies throw them out after 2 yaers.
Because most electornic equipment needs 10 times the energy to be produced than they ever consume during their use (even with standby). It is important to stretch their lifetime and/or reduce the energy consumed by producing them.
Also most tools cannot be repaired these days because their are not designed for it. And because nobody can repair them for a reasonable price.
When we change these things, we have a problem with the current economic system. It is based upon the idea, that the market should grow and to do so, more and more energy and other resources are needed.
This change would have two effects
1. we will have more services than production
2. we will have less to do in general, as we produce less and that stuff runs longer.
this leads to the point, that humans will have to work less in production. So we have to find other things to do.;-)
Well, yes, it is a common business practice. And?
This makes it not right, just because other do so too. This is a common method to restrict our freedom (freedom of choise).
Also there is another analogy. You can go to McD. and get Coke or you can go to BK+Pepsi. but you can also go home and cook something yourself can't you? And this will be better than those plastic food things Mc and BK are selling you.
OSS is such a selfmade meal. It might be more work but it is healthier an cheaper:-)
According to the wikipedia article mentioned above, blowing up a antimatter weapon, will not cause much damage, because most of the energy is radiated in form of neutrinos, which do not interact with matter that much.
If I am not completely mistaken, it is illegal to release it(8) or give it to someone else who does that and you know about that. If you don't know it is grossly negligent(7).
The ethically aspect would be 7 and 8 but 6 is close enough so 6 is not ok too.
1,2,3,4,5a are definitly ok.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone (or applePhone) is a cool thing. And it is for people who buy iPods instead of other mp3-players or MacBooks instead of other Centrino laptops. It is for people who want a cool thingie. These people do not use Word for Windows and Outlook, they use Word for Mac and Mail.app on their MacBooks. So Mike Elgan is wrong in the point, that it would not meet the expectations of these people. A classic Blackberry user will not move to the iPhone. Why should he? But the classical Mac user will buy the iPhone. And wheen you see how many iPods are sold to people, just because it looks good and works. The same thing will happen to this iPhone. In addition it introduces a set of new usage concepts, which are not available on other smartphones. Even I am not sure if the iPhone counts as smartphone at all.
Another thing is, the 6 month delay between announcement and real availability. This time can be used to produce, test or announce software for other OS's to synchronize the iPhone. Also a better comparision can be made with other phones. This could help in refining things. Also it will create this "when is christmas?"-feeling, so everyone is eager to get it. And when the early adaptors start to get tired by the new look and feel and start counting the missing things, the iPhone2 comes out. And the iPhone nano. etc.
First of all you should write (in a human language) what you want to create. Lets say a simulator. At this point you should look into the nearest library or wikipedia to learn somethign about simulation. You will learn that there are different types of simulators. For instance time discret, event base simulations and simulations which use a continuous time model. Also you should look on what you want to simulate.
Lets say a simple computer thing. The best thing would be now to decompose the problem in smaller parts. You need a CPU and RAM and a cache, a harddrive, a keyboard and a graphic adaptor.
Now look at each of them and think what they do. etc.
This approach is similar to any other software engineering concept. Get the problem, devide it in smaller pieces, design an architecture, write a detailed design for your pieces and then implement them using whatever language you want.
May I ask one humble question? No offence but didn't you hear anything about software engineering, UML and project planning at university?
We had a shooting at school several years ago. At that time ego-shooters were pulled out as cause of the shooting. Nevertheless there were ohter, better explanations. (Problems with the schooling system, no future etc.) Right now we have a second incident but this time the suicide note was published. http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/24/24030/1.html
The Telegraph mentions the upcoming IPCC report and shows as proof of his part a graph about the temperature change and sets that in relation to the so called hockey stick curve. The first thing to say about this graph is that it compares apples with peaces or to be more percisely it compares the global climate development to local changes in Europe. This not very scientific as we all should know that an overall increase could cause also cooler regions.
Also I know this second curve. it has come up several times and it is flawed. There was also an article in the German version of the Scientific Amerian (Spektrum der Wissenschaft) which discusses these issues. The short answer is, the second curve is garbage.
Also there are OTHER indicators for an increasing temperature in total and more energy in the system earth. The mass of polar ice is decreasing. And the decrease is accelerating. I have seen such evidence at the AWI in Bremerhaven. And the trend will be public available in the next IPCC report, where this accelerating decrease is explained.
So don't give much thought in this document. He just want to insult the Canadian Government and the IPCC. For his reasons ask someone in the UK.
The article is somewhat confusing. Are they celebrating the invention of the Web (HTTP+HTML) or the invention of IP?
:-)
I go with the title and in that case they are right. So let us all write an email to Tim Berners-Lee and thank him for his cool idea. So he will regret it that he invented it in the first place
I think RH is underestimating ubuntu. The market share in ZA and Europe is increasing rapidly. Also IBM dand some other vendors certified the distribution for their hardware. To make things even worse for RH. A friend of mine (former WinXP user) installed today Ubuntu from the live CD.
Ubuntu asked him 7 easy question and after that it took about 45 minutes to install. No errors, no fideling with the X setup. The machine was ready for work. It was really impressing. I haven't seen a RH or SUSE/Novell distribution to perform that well lately. Every time, they failed to get everything right. Sound problems, slightly broken X configuration, etc. Nothing really serious, nothing which couldn't be fixed in some minutes. But such errors are annoying and the average WinXP user cannot fix them. (the most annoying thing about SUSE is subfs)
First you have to decide if the study should be quantitative or qualtitative. For the first option you have to decie if you want to watch users use these DEs or if you want to give them questions to answer. In addition for this approach you need tasks, and people to perform these tasks. They should have no knowledge of KDE or GNOME desktops at all and should be a representative group of users (e.g. not more than 3% MacOS X users and 1.3% Linux Users)
In your conclusion. Don't say A is better than B, because your study is realtiv to the set of task you designed.
For more about empirical studies, read some books about it (e.g. Karl Poppers books).
Your logic is flawed.
Lets say an almighty God, speaks to a primitve creature. then this God has three possible ways of doing so:
1. Talk to it in a language which can be understood by that creature. (type 1)
2. Talk to is in God-Language, which would not be understandable by that primitive creature. (type 2)
3. Make the creature intelligent enough to understand him/her.
A language is, semantics, syntax and meaning of words. So we are able to describe things around us. But these languages have to be expanded with new words to describe new things, because otherwise we are not able to handle it.
So if the language is of type 1 of my own hierarchy, then the language is not capable of transmitting the facts of the universe took 7 trillion years (or more or less) to form, because I wouldn't be able to express the numbr to the guy 6000 years ago. And even if I could write it down, he would understand.
So God made him such an intelligent guy, you could say. Ok, lets see. Then this guy is intelligent enough to understand the fabric of space, and the creation of the universe and now he wants to tell this to his friend. A, shit, his friend is still this dumb fool, the guy was some lines above.
Now God in his great power make him intelligent too, so he can understand the thing about the univers, life and the rest. Lets say they tried to told it to the women around them too. So we use induction and can conclude, we knew and we know exactly how the universe came into existance and we know exactly how it works.
But in fact we don't know, so God must have stopped with his make people intelligent program somewhere in the past. Or he didn't started at all.
To the point: God can make a language, which is so simple (e.g. only a few facts) that a shepherd can understand it and transmit the fact of the creation of the universe.
Lets say, this is possible, he is the almighty remember. Now we know, the bible is not written in the language, it is written in Hebrew and Greek. And by all means, these are human languages which are not more expressive than any other spoken or dead human language.
(See language theory for reference.) So we reached the same point again. Somebody writes Gods words down in an inferior language. And so they messed up.
But as God is not an idiot, he knew this, so he used methaphors ot explain. So we know, there was an initial creational task, done by him. And on the other hand isn't it possible that God created natural laws just in a way that evolution and the rest could happen in the way we knew today?
Greetings
Reiner
I'm not a standard SUSE and KDE user, but my mother is. The causes were:
- Better local support (as we live in Germany)
- SuSE had better hardware support
- most things work fine.
But since 8.x series, the SuSE-Linux started to get worse.
In 9.0 USB-support was not working perfectly.
In 9.1/9.2 it failed to work at all (at least with the camera my mother owns).
So we updated it to 9.3 and now it worked again. At least for one day. But when we unplugged the camera and reattached it in the same session (which could happen, if the camera goes in suspend mode anytime), the camera got an new USB-identification. And the applications reacted in an unsatisfying manner. For example the photoalbum tool started and wasn't able to find the camera.
To get the machine totally confused, add a usb-stick.
Most of these problems come from the fact, that SuSE implemented their own solutions for hw detection and hotplugging.
SuSE uses subfs to mount CDROMs and sticks instantly. But this causes some trouble. And hal, dbus etc. are better solutions to the same problem. That's why they started using it in 9.3. but theirs still using subfs, which gets now confused with hal, hotplug and friends.
Beacause this change started before Novell aquired SuSE, I guess it has something to do with the move to business customers with special needs and away from the classical desktop (geek) user.
Well that's what the company says. So the real facht is that he worked there for 6 months and that this chip development started years before 2004. Because they needed these chips for the ground tests. And before that these chips have to be tested. So Mangan was too much involved in this.
Also for me that looks like: He got that job, he scewed it up and was laid off in his probationary period.
There is no such thing like open market. The USA is protecting their market (food, steel etc.). The EU is protecting their market (food, clothing from China). And so are others. Also a free market implies free access for laborers. Which is not granted by any state. Ever tried to work in India, EU or USA (remove own country from the list)?
Also your argument That, of course, is their decision to make, by the right of the fact that they created it. is flawed. This implies that if you have an idea it belongs to you alone. This is not free either. This the same thinking as in copyrights and patents. You get a privilege granted by the state (which real open marketeers want to remove). It is not natural, because ideas are not a limited resource. :-) read about free market and capitalism.
And I might also refer to Noam Chomsky.
At last I must say that capitalism != open market != freedom. But instead of going into detail here
Are you sure? That the Chinese government is not speaking for them on _foreign policies_? Well it is hard to come to an definitive conclusion. But let say they aren't at all. So there is no difference between the "US is not speaking for them" and the "China is not speaking for them" thing.
But beside China, I also mentioned the biggest democracy on earth, India. India has 1 to 1.2 billion citizens and their government is elected. Which count for now for speaking for their citizens.
So shall the US speak for them too? Maybe we shall give ICANN to India, then it will speak for them and as they are a democracy there would be no difference for the rest of the world (except the US but they are only 4-5% and India are at least 16-17%).
Or shall we count internet users?
Also this "We speak for them"-attitude is quite arrogant. You have no legitimacy to say so. Or missed I such an election lately?
So the WTO is not working and the ITU is not working too. These are both interational organisations, which work. Well not allways to our personal benefit :-) But that could neve be acieved. And ICANN doesn't do that either.
On the other hand. ICANN needed to think about the .eu TLD for several years. Maybe because the EU is no US-government approved state. bbut that is not the ICANN to decide as all member states of the EU told them otherwise. This is not very efficient.
Also the efficiency of interantional institutions depends highly on the interests of the member of such institution. If they want to work in the same directions, it works quite well. If there are different opinions then it will take some time. Well that's the price for a one state one voice democracy.
Right now the internet is controled by an "unelected international bureaucracy" if you are not an US-citizen. So this argument doesn't count for non US-citizens. On the other hand, my government is elected and in that way I have a voice in the UN. Also the general idea is, that a interantional comittee is controling the net. Which means, they develop the regulations which are needed. In such a comittee there will sit a US-representative.
The point why most people want to reduce the US influence is, that they are come out imperialistic lately. And as we all know: Growing empires are dangerous to their neighbours (which means right now the rest of the world). At least that matches with the (western) history of mankind. The Indians didn't like the GB-Empire or the South-Americans the Spanish.
On this basis. People want to reduce the US influence which is quite natural. Just htink what would you do if it were the other way round?
There are multiple problems with ICANN.
1. It is controled by the USA, which means by its government. Most peolpe don't trust this government. Is this so hard to accept for US-citizens? Why shall the US speak for 1.3 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians, or the other 3.5 billion people?
2. The ICANN council is mostly "populated" by companies. And therefor their interests are served through ICANN.
You are wrong. Such international organisation is controled by the UN or could have a council which works similar to the UN.
:-) or some other "Old-Europe"-State.
In the US the ICANN is controled by the US-government. But most wolrd citizens do not trust this government. ICANN forces US interest and who would like that (beside the US).
Think about this: China own ICANN and controls the DNS-systems, would the USA like that? Or Iran is owning ICANN. What then? Or France
All these states sit on the other side of the table and they want to have some control over DNS on there own.
If the the USA is not changing there position and a split occures, it would be US-Net/Rest-of-the-world-Net split. Because the rest could perfectly agree on a interational treaty.
greetings
Nuclear rockets are a insane concept and they will not work for affordable amounts of money. Also it would be far too dangerous to put so much uran or plutonium in orbit. Think about it. What will happen when one delivery fails and reenters earth atmosphere? Have you ever heard about the desaster in Tschernobyl. It radiated half Europe for years.
;-) => really big radiators
Also the pushes by nuclear explosions are short and strong, so you need either a great mass to be pushed so the persons will not be smashed, or you shall use a device without any people onboard.
A far better method is the use of ion-engines. They could savely delivered to orbit and they can produce a constant thrust (not much today but that could be increased)
Nuclear reactors are also no option.
1. they need cooling, which have to be radiated in space, because there are now rivers to heat up
2. if the transport of the urn fails, we all are in trouble.
There is no good use of nuclear propulsion in space. I'm sorry but that technology is not a problem solver, it produces more problems then neccessary.
cu
Reiner
These theses are flawed. In Germany those monorail designer, build a monorail based on a maglev technique. They told that a maglev trains is quieter than a normal train. So they compared ICE-trains (german high speed trains) with that new technology. The result was that such maglev train could be as noisy as a normal train. Because by increasing the speed the primary noise source is the wind.
...
The second argument is, hmm, strange. Normally people want to have that the transportation device integrates into the surrounding environment. On the other hand you can put normal trains on aqueducts just like these maglev things.
The safety argument is partly right. But only in one perspective. If a train build from waggons derails at high speed it is a dangerous device to the passengers and surrounding environment but. This can be minimized using Jakob-Bogies like the french TGV. On the other hand a maglev cannot be derailed but if you put something heavy onto the track the train has to go through it or
For the fourth argument, they tried that in Germany. The ieda was to build a monorail-track between Hamburg and Berlin. They evaluated that. The maglev-industry told the government that it would be cheaper than a normal high speed train. The government agreed on that and said that they will support the project if it wouldn't be more expensive than the normal train.
After some month some flaws in the calculation were found. They assumed more passangers than projected. So after correcting that fact. The maglev train was more expensive than the other concept.
Also the argument that attrition is higher on a normal train compared to a maglev, is wrong. There are no wheels which have to be fixed but the rail is more complex and has to be fixed. Also it have to be heated in winter which increases the energy consumption.
The chineese bought such monorail from Germany (now running from Shanghai airport to the city border). But as they had to decide lately to build more monorails or to use normal high speed trains, they took the latter one.
There are two major ways to write software. One is based on design patterns and a concept, an architecture. The other is based on try and error. On coding without planning. The result is, that after some development cycles, improvements and addons. The software gets inmaintainable.
After 30 years MS accepts now that software development needs a plan (not a business plan) , a concept. As real methods for such plans are available since the 1990th they are pretty late in starting to use them. But on the other hand in the OSS-scene is not using such methods either.
It is time, even for you, to accept the inevitable. We are raning out of fossile fuels sooner or later. Also we increase the amount of CO_2, CO_1 etc. in the atmmosphere which is definitly affecting the temperature and plant life (oceans and land). Which results in various different changes to the global and local climate. Beside these ecological effects, which may cause hunger, wars etc., we have to switch to another energy technology. This technology must have at least the following features: 1. It must not pollute any limited natural resource (air, water, land) 2. It must be save 3. If an accident happens, it must not devastate large areas. 4. It shall be affordable 5. It shall be decentralized, so single problems won't affect large areas. 6. It must be implementable To meet these goals, it is important to change a) certain human behaviour. Like driving around in cars instead of using more energy efficient methods. b) certain production methods c) the way we produce goods. to c). today we produce a certain good, lets say a computer. It works normally for 4 years before it starts to break down. (Yes I know sometimes they work for maore than 4 yaers) Also most companies throw them out after 2 yaers. Because most electornic equipment needs 10 times the energy to be produced than they ever consume during their use (even with standby). It is important to stretch their lifetime and/or reduce the energy consumed by producing them. Also most tools cannot be repaired these days because their are not designed for it. And because nobody can repair them for a reasonable price. When we change these things, we have a problem with the current economic system. It is based upon the idea, that the market should grow and to do so, more and more energy and other resources are needed. This change would have two effects 1. we will have more services than production 2. we will have less to do in general, as we produce less and that stuff runs longer. this leads to the point, that humans will have to work less in production. So we have to find other things to do. ;-)
Well, yes, it is a common business practice. And? This makes it not right, just because other do so too. This is a common method to restrict our freedom (freedom of choise). Also there is another analogy. You can go to McD. and get Coke or you can go to BK+Pepsi. but you can also go home and cook something yourself can't you? And this will be better than those plastic food things Mc and BK are selling you. OSS is such a selfmade meal. It might be more work but it is healthier an cheaper :-)
According to the wikipedia article mentioned above, blowing up a antimatter weapon, will not cause much damage, because most of the energy is radiated in form of neutrinos, which do not interact with matter that much.
Well then, maybe Kevins reputation is better than Svens. But you could be right.
Yes. I know, but this Sven is more or less not such a brain bug, like Kevin Mitnick.
If I am not completely mistaken, it is illegal to release it(8) or give it to someone else who does that and you know about that. If you don't know it is grossly negligent(7). The ethically aspect would be 7 and 8 but 6 is close enough so 6 is not ok too. 1,2,3,4,5a are definitly ok.