Why is it crazy? If those people intend on letting other people fly on New Year's day 2000, they either are confident that it's safe, or they are cynical assholes that deserve whatever they get.
Of course, if they still force them to fly if they come back late '99 and admit that it may be insecure to fly, then it will be crazy...
But this way they're at least sure that if the bosses considers it insecure to fly on New Year's day 2000, they'll admit it, and not just hope everything works out ok.
Uhm... Inmarsat has been around for years and years, and has offered channels of 64kbps data via wearable (suitcase size) satelite equipment. One of Inmarsats primary uses has always been for ships at sea.
Nothing fancy about that - it's old technology.
The "new" thing about this has nothing to to with Inmarsat terminals, but with preparing infrastructure. If you've wanted to use Inmarsat for internet access before now, you'd to put together a custom solution (don't expect your ordinary ISP to be able to help you with support for Inmarsat equipment:-)
It wasn't that stupid. There's very few mass marketed software applications developed in India. Especially because the low average wages and the low costs of living in India, combined with a pretty decent technological level means that they have a fair share of well qualified programmers that are available at an extremely low cost. The result is that contract work is a lot more attractive for a software company in India than one in the US or Europe.
On the contrary. This should be great for India, because it finally create a larger market for software development for domestic use, as opposed to for export.
Remember that India is one of the worlds largest software producers. Trouble is nearly no finished products are made there currently, because Indian software companies have made much more money by doing contract work for foreign companies than for developing software for the domestic market, which is still fairly small.
This move will increase the domestic Indian market quite a bit, and may help bring about a more solid Indian software industry, that doesn't put the entire emphasis on exporting contract work, and thus making them much less volatile to changes in the European and US markets.
Actually, their survey could be quite statistically accurate (with regard to the percentages) even with just a few thousand hosts, as long as the sample is representative.
I know of lots of IIS sites that isn't in the survey too. And I'm sure there's lots of all the major webserver types that aren't in the survey.
They've never claimed to sample all servers on the internet.
There's a whole lot of other stuff they could easily put on the CD's too, that I'd much rather have than KDE.
It's time you realize that the world doesn't revolve around you. RedHat has a commitment to their users. If they believe their users are best served by not shipping KDE, because of the license issues, that is their right. And you have no reason to bitch about it - you have more than enough choices in other distributions, including RedHat based distributions that include KDE.
I for one is a RedHat user that believe RedHat did something good by putting a focus on the nasty license issues the old QT license caused with KDE.
And the Microsoft vs. Netscape thing is a result of Microsoft being an extremely dominant player. RedHat isn't forcing it's distribution onto anyone. They even allow people to copy it, and make money of it and modify it without paying them any licenses, including full source. If Microsoft had done that with their core products, I wouldn't have had anything against them anymore either.
Ohh.. RedHat doesn't include program X but they include program Y, they don't give me any choice. Man, do I really have to DOWNLOAD it to use it? They're just evil bastards that want to become the next Microsoft...
Not... They're not forcing you to buy their distribution if you think it's so horrible to download packages they don't ship on the CD. Guess what? No matter what distribution you choose, you'll probably have to download an application they don't ship sooner or later, so what's you problem?
You can even buy RedHat based distributions like Mandrake that does include KDE. And RedHat allow anyone to take their entire distribution like that, and modify it.
So how are they not giving you a choice? Without RedHat, distributions like Mandrake and several other wouldn't be out there.
And without RedHats funding, Gnome wouldn't be nearly as mature, and we wouln't have a real choice of desktop suites yet - we'd be stuck with KDE.
So by your definition everyone that doesn't include more than one version of each piece of software in their distribution aren't being "open and fear" and haven't given the user a choice?
RedHat isn't forcing you to use Gnome. You can choose not to install it. You can download KDE if you prefer KDE.
RedHat made a choice for their distribution, but they don't have a monopoly. If you don't like their choice, fine, but don't whine about it. RedHat is even allowing people to take their entire distribution, remove Gnome and slap KDE on it, and redistribute it and SELL it, without paying RedHat for it.
How's that for open and fair?
Oh, and RedHat gave a decent reason for not including KDE - the non-free QT license. I'd rather run a distribution from someone that care about the license issues, like RedHat and Debian, than someone who's ignored it.
I sincerely hope they'll only use these widgets for the forms, and hopefully support native widgets there too in some time. I'm perfectly happy with most of the apps I run using GTK with themes, and would prefer themes support for all of Mozilla as well, including forms.
But there is at least one good side to this:
It will be great for embedded use of Mozilla. One of the companies I do consulting for is building a (Linux based) set top box thingie (well, not really going after the same market as WebTV etc., but..), and have been considering Mozilla for the browser, but since we won't be running X (too damn big - flash isn't cheap), we would've had to implement the entire widget set.
It's not that big a deal - the new UI code in Mozilla is pretty lean - but with this, hopefully we'll only have to implement a thin drawing layer instead. That would be great. I'll have to take a new look at the Mozilla source soon.
The difference is that the bank isn't supposed to accept checks that aren't endorsed. So to prove that he committed bank fraud, the bank would have to show that he either forgot, or believed that the bank would ignore or overlook the missing endorsement.
Also, the check was technically valid, since, as the author of the article pointed out, printing "not negotiable" on a check, doesn't invalidate it, as it does for other negotiable instruments.
So the reason the bank demanded the money back wasn't that the check was invalid, but that the check had been returned by the issuer and the issuers bank. p The bank might be able to sway a court in the direction of bank fraud if they were able to show that he both was aware that the check was intended just as a sample of checks he could receive from others, and not as a real check, even though it looked completely valid - even to the point that the bank itself let it slip - and expected the bank to accept an unendorsed check.
In other words, they would have to demonstrate that their banking services are unprofessional, and insecure, and in addition the defense would ridicule them about slipping the midnight deadline for demanding a return... So even if they could get a court to agree, it would cost them big in public relations.
Ehh... Why would you want a spaceship to stop once it has left Earth, if it is meant to go somewhere else after the initial stop? It's much better to use the momentum the ship already has, and use the gravity of the other planets as a slingshot. Otherwise you have to have fuel for a whole lot of extra acceleration and braking...
I don't see how a space station placed at a Lagrange point would help either. It isn't any easier to reach from earth. And if you launch from a station in Earth orbit instead, you get the benefit of easily using Earths gravity to accelerate.
It was people like you who ridiculed Edison when he claimed to be able to power a lamp with electricity, and record sound, and who ridiculed Marconi when he claimed it was possible to transmit sound without wires, etc.
If you have solid proof of why it "will never happen", present it. Otherwise you can just shut up until you have something constructive to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think this idea is stupid? And why do you think the people in power in China are communists?
Of course, if they still force them to fly if they come back late '99 and admit that it may be insecure to fly, then it will be crazy...
But this way they're at least sure that if the bosses considers it insecure to fly on New Year's day 2000, they'll admit it, and not just hope everything works out ok.
Nothing fancy about that - it's old technology.
The "new" thing about this has nothing to to with Inmarsat terminals, but with preparing infrastructure. If you've wanted to use Inmarsat for internet access before now, you'd to put together a custom solution (don't expect your ordinary ISP to be able to help you with support for Inmarsat equipment :-)
It wasn't that stupid. There's very few mass marketed software applications developed in India. Especially because the low average wages and the low costs of living in India, combined with a pretty decent technological level means that they have a fair share of well qualified programmers that are available at an extremely low cost. The result is that contract work is a lot more attractive for a software company in India than one in the US or Europe.
Remember that India is one of the worlds largest software producers. Trouble is nearly no finished products are made there currently, because Indian software companies have made much more money by doing contract work for foreign companies than for developing software for the domestic market, which is still fairly small.
This move will increase the domestic Indian market quite a bit, and may help bring about a more solid Indian software industry, that doesn't put the entire emphasis on exporting contract work, and thus making them much less volatile to changes in the European and US markets.
I know of lots of IIS sites that isn't in the survey too. And I'm sure there's lots of all the major webserver types that aren't in the survey.
They've never claimed to sample all servers on the internet.
GTK doesn't have a fixed look, it has whatever lookp is on the theme you use.
Well, sending info via the power line need NOT be low bandwidth and prone to error, so that's not really a good reason.
And in most civilized countries that license is nil and void exactly because it contains lots of nonsense like that...
It's time you realize that the world doesn't revolve around you. RedHat has a commitment to their users. If they believe their users are best served by not shipping KDE, because of the license issues, that is their right. And you have no reason to bitch about it - you have more than enough choices in other distributions, including RedHat based distributions that include KDE.
I for one is a RedHat user that believe RedHat did something good by putting a focus on the nasty license issues the old QT license caused with KDE.
And the Microsoft vs. Netscape thing is a result of Microsoft being an extremely dominant player. RedHat isn't forcing it's distribution onto anyone. They even allow people to copy it, and make money of it and modify it without paying them any licenses, including full source. If Microsoft had done that with their core products, I wouldn't have had anything against them anymore either.
Not... They're not forcing you to buy their distribution if you think it's so horrible to download packages they don't ship on the CD. Guess what? No matter what distribution you choose, you'll probably have to download an application they don't ship sooner or later, so what's you problem?
You can even buy RedHat based distributions like Mandrake that does include KDE. And RedHat allow anyone to take their entire distribution like that, and modify it.
So how are they not giving you a choice? Without RedHat, distributions like Mandrake and several other wouldn't be out there.
And without RedHats funding, Gnome wouldn't be nearly as mature, and we wouln't have a real choice of desktop suites yet - we'd be stuck with KDE.
RedHat isn't forcing you to use Gnome. You can choose not to install it. You can download KDE if you prefer KDE.
RedHat made a choice for their distribution, but they don't have a monopoly. If you don't like their choice, fine, but don't whine about it. RedHat is even allowing people to take their entire distribution, remove Gnome and slap KDE on it, and redistribute it and SELL it, without paying RedHat for it.
How's that for open and fair?
Oh, and RedHat gave a decent reason for not including KDE - the non-free QT license. I'd rather run a distribution from someone that care about the license issues, like RedHat and Debian, than someone who's ignored it.
But there is at least one good side to this:
It will be great for embedded use of Mozilla. One of the companies I do consulting for is building a (Linux based) set top box thingie (well, not really going after the same market as WebTV etc., but..), and have been considering Mozilla for the browser, but since we won't be running X (too damn big - flash isn't cheap), we would've had to implement the entire widget set.
It's not that big a deal - the new UI code in Mozilla is pretty lean - but with this, hopefully we'll only have to implement a thin drawing layer instead. That would be great. I'll have to take a new look at the Mozilla source soon.
Also, the check was technically valid, since, as the author of the article pointed out, printing "not negotiable" on a check, doesn't invalidate it, as it does for other negotiable instruments.
So the reason the bank demanded the money back wasn't that the check was invalid, but that the check had been returned by the issuer and the issuers bank. p The bank might be able to sway a court in the direction of bank fraud if they were able to show that he both was aware that the check was intended just as a sample of checks he could receive from others, and not as a real check, even though it looked completely valid - even to the point that the bank itself let it slip - and expected the bank to accept an unendorsed check.
In other words, they would have to demonstrate that their banking services are unprofessional, and insecure, and in addition the defense would ridicule them about slipping the midnight deadline for demanding a return... So even if they could get a court to agree, it would cost them big in public relations.
I don't see how a space station placed at a Lagrange point would help either. It isn't any easier to reach from earth. And if you launch from a station in Earth orbit instead, you get the benefit of easily using Earths gravity to accelerate.
If you have solid proof of why it "will never happen", present it. Otherwise you can just shut up until you have something constructive to say.