It'll be interesting to see, but I suspect this is not a super-obnoxious alarm, or that might startle drivers so much it panics them and causes more harm than good. I suspect it it simply some sort of not-too-annoying chime or a mild beep. Sort of like the chime that some cars use to alert you that fuel level is low - I doubt most people find that so alarming that they panic, but it does get their attention.
"Admittedly this system might help when SoccerMom is distracted by the kids in back at exactly the moment traffic grinds to a halt ahead of her."
Or, when someone falls asleep at the wheel, and the alarm wakes them, possibly, in time to deal with the problem instead of crashing.
Maybe you're looking in the rear-view mirror for an opening to change langes, and someone just happens to change lanes in front of you at that exact moment, cutting off the assured distance you *used* to have (granted, peripheral vision *usually* catches things like that, but I suppose a little chime to catch your attention might not hurt).
Although, I do think you make a good point. My fear is that, adding these extra 'safety' features will put people at a false sense of greater security, and so they will tailgate more, do more distracting things like texting on cell phones, or whatever, because they figure the tech will save their asses, instead of being as vigilant as possible with respect to the road and other vehicles around them, and ultimately end up in situations where the alarm goes off, but it's too late because their very human reaction times are too slow to break soon enough.
On that note, it seems like one of the car companies, recently, has been advertising a car with a similar radar or sonar system, but instead of just flashing warning lights, it'll automatically activate the brakes? Again, not sure it's a great idea, but probably more useful than just an alarm.
Hmm, If I remember correctly from my physics class, any time electrons move through a magnetic field, don't they produce electric forces in a direction perpedicular to the motion through the magnetic field? Or something like that. Anyhow, electric generators, I remember, are just coils of wire that you rotate inside a strong magnetic field.
So, the question is, could exposure to magnetic fields strong enough to levitate you, also cause electric currents in your body, if you move through the field, strong enough to do things like cause currents across vital organs/nerves/brain strong enough to cause damage, irregular heart beats, or disrupt normal nervous function?
One of the common complaints about the G1 was that, while people liked the phone, they decided the battery life was just too short to be useful. How does the cliq fair in this department? You can have great features, but if the battery dies in 2 or 3 hours, no one will care.
Also, IIRC, another common complaint was no standard headset jack (I guess you could use a headset, but it had to plug in through USB port or some proprietary port or something, or else use BlueTooth). Did Moto learn from the HTC mistakes, and include the headset jack?
I have to say I can muster no enthusiasm for an idea of a single, monolithic international space program. The nice thing about separate national programs is that, if one of them has bad management, at least there's a chance that one or more of the other programs is being well run. It also encourages trying different technical approaches to problems, which means better chance of finding a 'better way' to do things.
I'm rather happy with the status-quo - cooperation in some things, competition in other things. Seems like it's working well enough - the ISS has been, mostly, successful as an international cooperation between seperate space programs.
I'm not sure, but my first inclination is that they probably want to encourage the development of Open Source software which is based upon Microsoft Technologies and Tools, so that such projects still require Windows to run, and maybe require Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc to build/implement/install?
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be *too* upset about Open Source software which depends upon Microsoft's software to actually work or be built.
Naturual gas prices, like any commodity, fluctuate, based on supply, demand, and occasionally, market fixing (for a somewhat recent example, look up Enron).
I think, based on historical prices, Nat Gas might be competitive, but if a sufficiently large number of households and businesses started setting up Nat. Gas. generators in their basements, I can guarantee prices would rise. The same way that, if a sufficiently large number of people start using plug-in hybrid cars, the price of electricity will likely rise (unless there is a corresponding increase in generating capacity, for example, lots of new solar/wind farms, coal plants, nuke plants, etc, come online at about the same time).
And a 4th-Gen (IFR-style) nuclear reactor would, I think, be like going for a ride in an armored troop transport. IFR-style (Integral Fast Reactor) was designed around a slightly different principle of nuclear physics, such that you aren't even trying to prevent a meltdown, because the very physics of the reaction is such that if it starts getting 'too hot', the nuclear reaction itself starts to shutdown - the temperature increase, if I understand correctlyl, prevents further fission, at which point the temperature stabilizes at a 'safe maximum', until proper cooling is restored). There's no 'active' safety systems that could theoretically fail - no control rods that might get stuck and fail to drop, or other systems that might fail.
I don't think anyone is currently planning on using that design in the near-term, but I hear that GE and Hitachi are in some sort of partnership to try to get approval for, and commercialize, small-scale reactors based on the IFR designs.
"You can't recycle the fuel indefinitely, eventually you will have waste. And eventually it needs to be dealt with."
But that waste you eventually have to deal with is almost completely different stuff. Instead of being a highly radioactive mess for a hundred thousand years, it's a much less radioactive mess for a thousand years (and during that last 500 years, it's pretty 'cool' anyhow). I don't know about you, but I suspect we *probably* have the engineering know how and materials science to contain stuff safely for 500-1000 years. I don't think anyone really thinks we currently have the knowledge to solve the problem of containing waste safely for 100,000 years.
I'd much rather try to solve the problem of containing waste safely for 1000 years than 100 times that.
Wine doesn't run all programs perfectly correctly (some programs don't run at all). As for the VM, most VMs don't allow accelerated 3D graphics (I think I rememember recently hearing something about VirtualBox adding 3D support for VMs, but I think they may be the only one). Granted, not all programs require 3D graphics, but what if the program you are required to use is something like SolidWorks, which is a Windows, 3D-accellerated CAD program? If it doesn't work well under Wine, and doesn't work at all in your VM because of the need for 3D graphics, then you pretty much run the native OS for that package.
I was a CS major at a public University in Ohio. While the College of Engineering and the CS Department were pretty Unix/Linux friendly, the physics labs which every engineering student is required to take through the college of arts and science at this university, required the use of MS Excel 2003 or 2007, because the physics lab reports had to use a highly customized excel 'template' file which included Excel macros. Now, it may be possible that you could open and save the Excel file using OpenOffice, I was rather worried to try, because of the extensive use of macros in the excel template, I was afraid something would get screwed up, which would cause me to unfairly lose points for the lab(s).
The point of this story is, even if the college/university is generally friendly towards other OSes (Linux, *BSD, whatever), you may run into some classes which require the use of some sort of software which isn't available on your chosen platform. For example, in an Engineering program, there might be some sort of CAD program which is Windows only, or in an architecture or visual arts/graphical design program, they may require some software which is only available on a Mac. It might be worth taking some time to look at the required and elective courses that your student is going to be taking, and finding out the requirements for those particular classes.
And of course, this is missing the obvious point that a) most people have never heard of truecrypt, and b) most girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses won't know that such a thing as a keylogger exists. It's true that either situation *could* change (the girlfriend gets a new boyfriend, or just a friend, who teaches her about keyloggers, for example).
Still, I suspect setting up a TC volume for your email is better than nothing. I've done this on my laptop - mostly just to protect my files in case of theft/loss; I think it's probably pretty good for that particular scenario - I realize that TC won't protect me from a determined or sophisticated person/organization, but should protect against the random thief. But, even against someone like a girlfriend/wife, it provides at least some barrier for them to have to penetrate.
Ok, so I can see how Joe/Jane Sixpack, getting their divorce, might only be a misdemeanor breaking into an email account without profiting from it (maybe just to do something mean to his/her ex, or dig up incriminating emails), but, with regards to these commercial services offering to do the hacking for a fee, isn't there some sort of statute which makes *any crime* which is done *for profit* a felony? I don't care if your hacking an email account is just a misdemeanor, but if you are doing it for hire, that should elevate the crime, seems like, the same way *any* crime committed with a weapon automatically adds felony charges?
"Let's say that the advertisers pay a fixed monthly payment. If I were an advertiser and my advertisement were run every time that three women are in front of the screen... well, I'd hire three actresses. .."
Wow, that sounds expensive. Ok, here's an idea - if you want your ad shown continuously, just hire a traditional billboard/sign? You're really making things too complicated. The point of such an advertising system is to, on the one hand, reduce costs for you as the advertising client, while increasing the overall revenue for the sign company (because each time an ad is shown, it's supposed to be *more valuable* -at least, I'm sure that's the hypothesis behind such schemes, though I tend to question the validity of that idea - so the sign company can charge more per ad, while potentially charging most clients less than they otherwise would have to pay).
"If, on the contrary, the advertisers have to pay for each time his ad is shown, and my competitor's ad is shown when the system detects three men... well, in this case, I'd hire three actors to stay there, to force my rival to pay, pay and pay."
That's a possibility, but now consider the costs of hiring groups of actors to stand in front of the camera for many hours a week - and lets assume that there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of such signs scattered throughout a major city like NY, LA, or London. So, you're going to hire thousands of "actors" for many hours a week (you wouldn't necessarily have to keep them there all the time, just during 'peak' times, but that's still probably 20 or 30 hours a week *per sign*). How many millions of dollars did you budget for this denial of service campaign, when your competition is probably only paying a few thousand dollars a week for advertising on all those signs.
I'd love to have you as my competition, because you would obviously mismanage your companies resources so badly, it'd be easy to compete against you. I'd drive you out of business making you pay for actors till you were broke.
"Why do so many of my fellow Americans have trouble understanding this? Are you dense? Governments do this sort of thing. They actually want to have a say about what gets sold in their countries and by whom."
Yes, yes, that's all fine and good. However, seems to me that something like a merger of two foreign companies who both happen to do business in your country is rather a bit out of the purview of *another* country's authority.
"since you have no voice in any government but that of the US."
And why should any country's leaders feel they have the right to interfere in the U.S.? What I mean is, if Oracle or Sun got permission previously to do business in European countries, then after a merger, they should at least have a right to continue doing the same business as before. Now, granted, if they wish to *modify* their business in those foreign countries (for example, discontinue a product which has become redundant, or introduce new products they weren't selling in that country before), I certainly see the validity of that country reviewing the changes of *business* they wish to do, but not changes of *ownership*.
I'm sorry, but I just do not see that it is anything less than a loss of sovereignty for the US, to expect that US business must get foreign approval for changes in ownership.
The problem I have with it is that the Sun shareholders own something of value - namely the brands, technology, and organizational structure (that is, they don't own the employees of course, but the do 'own' existing business relationships with those employees which could be transferred, and those relationships have value). Even if the company is not worth what it once was, shouldn't the shareholders have the freedom to sell off the assets of value which they own to an interested buyer?
Capitalism is, first and foremost, about freedom - that people should have the freedom to do business without undo interference by the government. The great economic tragedy of the current political climate is that all the people who are hating on capitalism right now forget that the *reason* the USA has traditionally chosen a mostly capitalist economy (I say mostly because, it definitely hasn't been a 'pure' capitalist business system in a long time) is because that is the most Free system of business.
There must be a very compelling reason, indeed, to impinge on the freedom of others. Sun shareholders should have the right to sell what is left of the company to a willing buyer.
I'm just a little confused. How can the European Commission block the merger of two US firms? I can see why the FTC would be an issue, but once the US regulators are happy, how does the EC have *any say* in this at all? This seems like a really screwy thing - what's next - for any two companies to merge, they need the permission of EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH?
I suppose, what it comes down to is, those two need EC permission to have offices/do business in the EU, right? The way I see it, if this article is right about the delays hurting them that much, just finish the merger when they get US permisssion, and sort out with the Europeans later. EC can't really block the merger of two US companies in the US, and if they want to block them doing business in the EU, even though that would be a huge problem, that's got to be less of a problem than losing all the company's technical talent, right?
Better to ask forgiveness than permission, I think, is the expression.
So wrong. The Term Open Source is not ambiguous. It was well defined when it was first used/coined, by the Open Source Initiative, a non-profit who is responsible for beginning the use of the term open source, and who maintains The Definition of Open Source.
The way you are claiming the term "Open Source" is being used is in clear contradiction to the definition. In fact, THE VERY FIRST LINE of the definition is:
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"
A moment after posting my previous comment, I remembered PNG. PNG was developed, in large part, as a way to get around the patent claims on the GIF image format. Although, I suppose in that case, PNG might have been developed *anyhow*, because GIF had other drawbacks as well (one being, it was limited to 256 indexed colors). I suspect the (eventual) popularity of PNG had more to do with it being a *better* format than GIF, but the point still remains that part of the impetus for developing it in the first place, was a patent on GIF.
Aren't very real improvements sometimes the results of someone needing to 'get around' patents, to find another way to do something? Don't get me wrong, because I think that patents cause more problems then good, but I'm just sayin', sometimes, forcing people to find a different way to do things leads them to discover a better way to do it, yes?
Aren't the poles the Land of the Midnight Sun. That means that during the antarctic 'summer', they can't do (any?) observations for a period of consecutive days, and have very short nights during a fairly long period surrounding the summer solstice? I mean, I suppose the upshot of that is there is also a period of continuous days of darkness at the winter solstice, and very long nights for a fairly long period surrounding it.
Perhaps the air down there is so pure that, as long as the telescope isn't aimed too near the Sun, they can still make observations despite the Sun?
To create a new term for the higher speed (768+), than to *re-define* an older term. Over the years, the only real definition I can come up with for how 'broadband' has been *used*, is, basically, anything faster than 56k dialup. If you want a 'marketing name' for something that meets specific technical values, why not come up with a new name, and start applying the new definition to the new name? That would be less confusing and more useful, IMHO.
How's that *any* different than now? See, what I see is people crying and whining that we shouldn't have any form of government/universal health coverage (even a 'basic' health plan, which could then be supplemented by private insurance, or if you prefer, completely opt out of the public program and buy fully private healthcare), because you make the claim that resources are finite, so therefor, someone's gonna die because the government decides it's 'not worth paying for'.
How exactly, do private health insurance companies get around the lack of infinite resources? Your statement can easily be turned around and directed at the private insurance companies: "There are not infinite resources. Some people will have their health care yanked so others will live. Surely you don't think that resources are infinite?"
It appears that, in your world, the lack of infinite resources is an insurmountable problem for a public healthcare plan, but magically, private insurance companies have infinite resources? What about all the people who are getting sick and/or dieing simply because they have no healthcare, so the only option for them is to go to the emergency room when it's already too late, and too expensive? What about the people who get screwed by the penny-pinchers at the health insurance companies who deny their legitimate claims?
Surely, a problem which universally affects both private and public healthcare plans, cannot be used as an argument against *either* of them?
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be interesting to see, but I suspect this is not a super-obnoxious alarm, or that might startle drivers so much it panics them and causes more harm than good. I suspect it it simply some sort of not-too-annoying chime or a mild beep. Sort of like the chime that some cars use to alert you that fuel level is low - I doubt most people find that so alarming that they panic, but it does get their attention.
"Admittedly this system might help when SoccerMom is distracted by the kids in back at exactly the moment traffic grinds to a halt ahead of her."
Or, when someone falls asleep at the wheel, and the alarm wakes them, possibly, in time to deal with the problem instead of crashing.
Maybe you're looking in the rear-view mirror for an opening to change langes, and someone just happens to change lanes in front of you at that exact moment, cutting off the assured distance you *used* to have (granted, peripheral vision *usually* catches things like that, but I suppose a little chime to catch your attention might not hurt).
Although, I do think you make a good point. My fear is that, adding these extra 'safety' features will put people at a false sense of greater security, and so they will tailgate more, do more distracting things like texting on cell phones, or whatever, because they figure the tech will save their asses, instead of being as vigilant as possible with respect to the road and other vehicles around them, and ultimately end up in situations where the alarm goes off, but it's too late because their very human reaction times are too slow to break soon enough.
On that note, it seems like one of the car companies, recently, has been advertising a car with a similar radar or sonar system, but instead of just flashing warning lights, it'll automatically activate the brakes? Again, not sure it's a great idea, but probably more useful than just an alarm.
Hmm, If I remember correctly from my physics class, any time electrons move through a magnetic field, don't they produce electric forces in a direction perpedicular to the motion through the magnetic field? Or something like that. Anyhow, electric generators, I remember, are just coils of wire that you rotate inside a strong magnetic field.
So, the question is, could exposure to magnetic fields strong enough to levitate you, also cause electric currents in your body, if you move through the field, strong enough to do things like cause currents across vital organs/nerves/brain strong enough to cause damage, irregular heart beats, or disrupt normal nervous function?
One of the common complaints about the G1 was that, while people liked the phone, they decided the battery life was just too short to be useful. How does the cliq fair in this department? You can have great features, but if the battery dies in 2 or 3 hours, no one will care.
Also, IIRC, another common complaint was no standard headset jack (I guess you could use a headset, but it had to plug in through USB port or some proprietary port or something, or else use BlueTooth). Did Moto learn from the HTC mistakes, and include the headset jack?
I have to say I can muster no enthusiasm for an idea of a single, monolithic international space program. The nice thing about separate national programs is that, if one of them has bad management, at least there's a chance that one or more of the other programs is being well run. It also encourages trying different technical approaches to problems, which means better chance of finding a 'better way' to do things.
I'm rather happy with the status-quo - cooperation in some things, competition in other things. Seems like it's working well enough - the ISS has been, mostly, successful as an international cooperation between seperate space programs.
I'm not sure, but my first inclination is that they probably want to encourage the development of Open Source software which is based upon Microsoft Technologies and Tools, so that such projects still require Windows to run, and maybe require Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc to build/implement/install?
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be *too* upset about Open Source software which depends upon Microsoft's software to actually work or be built.
Naturual gas prices, like any commodity, fluctuate, based on supply, demand, and occasionally, market fixing (for a somewhat recent example, look up Enron).
I think, based on historical prices, Nat Gas might be competitive, but if a sufficiently large number of households and businesses started setting up Nat. Gas. generators in their basements, I can guarantee prices would rise. The same way that, if a sufficiently large number of people start using plug-in hybrid cars, the price of electricity will likely rise (unless there is a corresponding increase in generating capacity, for example, lots of new solar/wind farms, coal plants, nuke plants, etc, come online at about the same time).
And a 4th-Gen (IFR-style) nuclear reactor would, I think, be like going for a ride in an armored troop transport. IFR-style (Integral Fast Reactor) was designed around a slightly different principle of nuclear physics, such that you aren't even trying to prevent a meltdown, because the very physics of the reaction is such that if it starts getting 'too hot', the nuclear reaction itself starts to shutdown - the temperature increase, if I understand correctlyl, prevents further fission, at which point the temperature stabilizes at a 'safe maximum', until proper cooling is restored). There's no 'active' safety systems that could theoretically fail - no control rods that might get stuck and fail to drop, or other systems that might fail.
I don't think anyone is currently planning on using that design in the near-term, but I hear that GE and Hitachi are in some sort of partnership to try to get approval for, and commercialize, small-scale reactors based on the IFR designs.
"You can't recycle the fuel indefinitely, eventually you will have waste. And eventually it needs to be dealt with."
But that waste you eventually have to deal with is almost completely different stuff. Instead of being a highly radioactive mess for a hundred thousand years, it's a much less radioactive mess for a thousand years (and during that last 500 years, it's pretty 'cool' anyhow). I don't know about you, but I suspect we *probably* have the engineering know how and materials science to contain stuff safely for 500-1000 years. I don't think anyone really thinks we currently have the knowledge to solve the problem of containing waste safely for 100,000 years.
I'd much rather try to solve the problem of containing waste safely for 1000 years than 100 times that.
Wine doesn't run all programs perfectly correctly (some programs don't run at all). As for the VM, most VMs don't allow accelerated 3D graphics (I think I rememember recently hearing something about VirtualBox adding 3D support for VMs, but I think they may be the only one). Granted, not all programs require 3D graphics, but what if the program you are required to use is something like SolidWorks, which is a Windows, 3D-accellerated CAD program? If it doesn't work well under Wine, and doesn't work at all in your VM because of the need for 3D graphics, then you pretty much run the native OS for that package.
I was a CS major at a public University in Ohio. While the College of Engineering and the CS Department were pretty Unix/Linux friendly, the physics labs which every engineering student is required to take through the college of arts and science at this university, required the use of MS Excel 2003 or 2007, because the physics lab reports had to use a highly customized excel 'template' file which included Excel macros. Now, it may be possible that you could open and save the Excel file using OpenOffice, I was rather worried to try, because of the extensive use of macros in the excel template, I was afraid something would get screwed up, which would cause me to unfairly lose points for the lab(s).
The point of this story is, even if the college/university is generally friendly towards other OSes (Linux, *BSD, whatever), you may run into some classes which require the use of some sort of software which isn't available on your chosen platform. For example, in an Engineering program, there might be some sort of CAD program which is Windows only, or in an architecture or visual arts/graphical design program, they may require some software which is only available on a Mac. It might be worth taking some time to look at the required and elective courses that your student is going to be taking, and finding out the requirements for those particular classes.
And of course, this is missing the obvious point that a) most people have never heard of truecrypt, and b) most girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses won't know that such a thing as a keylogger exists. It's true that either situation *could* change (the girlfriend gets a new boyfriend, or just a friend, who teaches her about keyloggers, for example).
Still, I suspect setting up a TC volume for your email is better than nothing. I've done this on my laptop - mostly just to protect my files in case of theft/loss; I think it's probably pretty good for that particular scenario - I realize that TC won't protect me from a determined or sophisticated person/organization, but should protect against the random thief. But, even against someone like a girlfriend/wife, it provides at least some barrier for them to have to penetrate.
Ok, so I can see how Joe/Jane Sixpack, getting their divorce, might only be a misdemeanor breaking into an email account without profiting from it (maybe just to do something mean to his/her ex, or dig up incriminating emails), but, with regards to these commercial services offering to do the hacking for a fee, isn't there some sort of statute which makes *any crime* which is done *for profit* a felony? I don't care if your hacking an email account is just a misdemeanor, but if you are doing it for hire, that should elevate the crime, seems like, the same way *any* crime committed with a weapon automatically adds felony charges?
"Let's say that the advertisers pay a fixed monthly payment. If I were an advertiser and my advertisement were run every time that three women are in front of the screen... well, I'd hire three actresses. . ."
Wow, that sounds expensive. Ok, here's an idea - if you want your ad shown continuously, just hire a traditional billboard/sign? You're really making things too complicated. The point of such an advertising system is to, on the one hand, reduce costs for you as the advertising client, while increasing the overall revenue for the sign company (because each time an ad is shown, it's supposed to be *more valuable* -at least, I'm sure that's the hypothesis behind such schemes, though I tend to question the validity of that idea - so the sign company can charge more per ad, while potentially charging most clients less than they otherwise would have to pay).
"If, on the contrary, the advertisers have to pay for each time his ad is shown, and my competitor's ad is shown when the system detects three men... well, in this case, I'd hire three actors to stay there, to force my rival to pay, pay and pay."
That's a possibility, but now consider the costs of hiring groups of actors to stand in front of the camera for many hours a week - and lets assume that there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of such signs scattered throughout a major city like NY, LA, or London. So, you're going to hire thousands of "actors" for many hours a week (you wouldn't necessarily have to keep them there all the time, just during 'peak' times, but that's still probably 20 or 30 hours a week *per sign*). How many millions of dollars did you budget for this denial of service campaign, when your competition is probably only paying a few thousand dollars a week for advertising on all those signs.
I'd love to have you as my competition, because you would obviously mismanage your companies resources so badly, it'd be easy to compete against you. I'd drive you out of business making you pay for actors till you were broke.
"Why do so many of my fellow Americans have trouble understanding this? Are you dense? Governments do this sort of thing. They actually want to have a say about what gets sold in their countries and by whom."
Yes, yes, that's all fine and good. However, seems to me that something like a merger of two foreign companies who both happen to do business in your country is rather a bit out of the purview of *another* country's authority.
"since you have no voice in any government but that of the US."
And why should any country's leaders feel they have the right to interfere in the U.S.? What I mean is, if Oracle or Sun got permission previously to do business in European countries, then after a merger, they should at least have a right to continue doing the same business as before. Now, granted, if they wish to *modify* their business in those foreign countries (for example, discontinue a product which has become redundant, or introduce new products they weren't selling in that country before), I certainly see the validity of that country reviewing the changes of *business* they wish to do, but not changes of *ownership*.
I'm sorry, but I just do not see that it is anything less than a loss of sovereignty for the US, to expect that US business must get foreign approval for changes in ownership.
The problem I have with it is that the Sun shareholders own something of value - namely the brands, technology, and organizational structure (that is, they don't own the employees of course, but the do 'own' existing business relationships with those employees which could be transferred, and those relationships have value). Even if the company is not worth what it once was, shouldn't the shareholders have the freedom to sell off the assets of value which they own to an interested buyer?
Capitalism is, first and foremost, about freedom - that people should have the freedom to do business without undo interference by the government. The great economic tragedy of the current political climate is that all the people who are hating on capitalism right now forget that the *reason* the USA has traditionally chosen a mostly capitalist economy (I say mostly because, it definitely hasn't been a 'pure' capitalist business system in a long time) is because that is the most Free system of business.
There must be a very compelling reason, indeed, to impinge on the freedom of others. Sun shareholders should have the right to sell what is left of the company to a willing buyer.
I'm just a little confused. How can the European Commission block the merger of two US firms? I can see why the FTC would be an issue, but once the US regulators are happy, how does the EC have *any say* in this at all? This seems like a really screwy thing - what's next - for any two companies to merge, they need the permission of EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH?
I suppose, what it comes down to is, those two need EC permission to have offices/do business in the EU, right? The way I see it, if this article is right about the delays hurting them that much, just finish the merger when they get US permisssion, and sort out with the Europeans later. EC can't really block the merger of two US companies in the US, and if they want to block them doing business in the EU, even though that would be a huge problem, that's got to be less of a problem than losing all the company's technical talent, right?
Better to ask forgiveness than permission, I think, is the expression.
Oh, by the way, one additional point. Richard Stallman hates the term Open Source. He thinks it minimizes the importance of Software Freedom.
So wrong. The Term Open Source is not ambiguous. It was well defined when it was first used/coined, by the Open Source Initiative, a non-profit who is responsible for beginning the use of the term open source, and who maintains The Definition of Open Source.
The way you are claiming the term "Open Source" is being used is in clear contradiction to the definition. In fact, THE VERY FIRST LINE of the definition is:
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:"
A moment after posting my previous comment, I remembered PNG. PNG was developed, in large part, as a way to get around the patent claims on the GIF image format. Although, I suppose in that case, PNG might have been developed *anyhow*, because GIF had other drawbacks as well (one being, it was limited to 256 indexed colors). I suspect the (eventual) popularity of PNG had more to do with it being a *better* format than GIF, but the point still remains that part of the impetus for developing it in the first place, was a patent on GIF.
Aren't very real improvements sometimes the results of someone needing to 'get around' patents, to find another way to do something? Don't get me wrong, because I think that patents cause more problems then good, but I'm just sayin', sometimes, forcing people to find a different way to do things leads them to discover a better way to do it, yes?
Aren't the poles the Land of the Midnight Sun. That means that during the antarctic 'summer', they can't do (any?) observations for a period of consecutive days, and have very short nights during a fairly long period surrounding the summer solstice? I mean, I suppose the upshot of that is there is also a period of continuous days of darkness at the winter solstice, and very long nights for a fairly long period surrounding it.
Perhaps the air down there is so pure that, as long as the telescope isn't aimed too near the Sun, they can still make observations despite the Sun?
To create a new term for the higher speed (768+), than to *re-define* an older term. Over the years, the only real definition I can come up with for how 'broadband' has been *used*, is, basically, anything faster than 56k dialup. If you want a 'marketing name' for something that meets specific technical values, why not come up with a new name, and start applying the new definition to the new name? That would be less confusing and more useful, IMHO.
How's that *any* different than now? See, what I see is people crying and whining that we shouldn't have any form of government/universal health coverage (even a 'basic' health plan, which could then be supplemented by private insurance, or if you prefer, completely opt out of the public program and buy fully private healthcare), because you make the claim that resources are finite, so therefor, someone's gonna die because the government decides it's 'not worth paying for'.
How exactly, do private health insurance companies get around the lack of infinite resources? Your statement can easily be turned around and directed at the private insurance companies: "There are not infinite resources. Some people will have their health care yanked so others will live. Surely you don't think that resources are infinite?"
It appears that, in your world, the lack of infinite resources is an insurmountable problem for a public healthcare plan, but magically, private insurance companies have infinite resources? What about all the people who are getting sick and/or dieing simply because they have no healthcare, so the only option for them is to go to the emergency room when it's already too late, and too expensive? What about the people who get screwed by the penny-pinchers at the health insurance companies who deny their legitimate claims?
Surely, a problem which universally affects both private and public healthcare plans, cannot be used as an argument against *either* of them?
Certainly any real problem, no matter how minor, is more important than a non-existant problem you just made up, right?