The thing that really matters is presenting ever better photos (i.e. evidence) as our technology improves so that future generations won't be tarnished by the cynicism and denial of conspiracy theorists.
Ahhhhh, so that's why we've never seen anything first-hand of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. We didn't have the technology to photograph the moon well enough.
If you can't verify and follow up your achievements, and allow others to follow as good science demands, then you've achieved zilch. I've never really fathomed why we should treat the moon landings any different from many early explorers who claimed that they'd climbed mountains and reached summits with photos to prove it.......until people went where they supposedly went and found out that the photos weren't taken where they said they were. It was on TV though, and nothing that comes down the tube is ever faked...........
The 'never went to the moon' crowd will only believe it when the can see it with their own eyes. Which is fine by me. Take them there and let them look. Jjust remember no helmets now, the visors could be ultra high def curved monitors.
Going back there to verify what was done is the whole point of science, so the unintentional irony is quite funny.
NASA has achieved a lot more every year since then than they did on the Apollo missions. Sorry if it wasn't sexy enough for you, but the real work rarely is...
Really? Wow, I must have missed all those achievements that put man further into space as opposed to crashing unmanned probes into things. Oh wait............
It's a moronic position when you consider that the same basic fact that no theory is complete applies to all theories, including theories like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics, both of which despite obvious missing pieces and flaws are among the most successful theories ever developed.
A theory does not need to be complete to have explanatory power.
Maybe after all the money they've managed to gobble up then it would be a good idea for climate 'scientists' to actually formulate a theory approaching something even close to that?
The accuracy of the assumption that dumping huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is harmful is much better supported than the notion that we can dump whatever we like without consequence.
This is the problem that I have with climate change scientists and proponents. While we cannot be averse to the notion that what we do affects our own climate, the question is how and by how much? Despite all protestations to the contrary that evidence is simply not there, and when you question it the above is a classic example of what the discussion boils down to - surely if we are doing something then it must have an effect.
The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers. Coming out with vindications this far from the initial story is like farting in the wind.
When they start using words like 'trick', trying to insult peoples' intelligence by telling them that it is a special scientific word and tacking data together that is unrelated to each other and measured in completely different ways I wonder why that would be?
Let's be blunt. Only nerds on tech sites worry about "closeness." They're a tiny niche that wants to keep their nerd playgrounds around. The vast majority simply wants good products that work.
Yes they do, which is why platforms that are not tied too closely and have greater supply in the market always end up winning. Or did you miss the whole period in history where Apple pissed the PC market away?
The outcome offers no strategic advance at all for Google.
I see this being written a lot with no evidence as to why people think that. Motorola has several times the patents of the Nortel deal, invented the mobile as we know it and is a working company with assets regardless of its state. $12.5 billion is pretty reasonable when you compare it to the Nortel free-for-all that Google wisely didn't get involved in.
You're not going to be able to manipulate anything directly over sftp without it being downloaded first. sftp does not give you a filesystem to work with.
Early in the interview he says that they need to write apps for "things that every computer needs to be able to do. Like managing photos, music and documents. So we want to write some of those basic utilities, that are more part of the OS than a third-party-application would be."
That can only make me laugh in astonishment because they spent the past decade trying to get decent apps for GTK and Gnome, and many of them had a crapload of venture capital funding pumped into them that no one got back - Nautilus and Evolution to name two. We then got a whole framework called Mono to try and develop more applications for GTK and Gnome. Now there needs to be new ones developed? Oh dear.
KDE ain't much better, open a file from the network and it will often try to copy it locally first before it can play. Very useful for large movie files I can tell you.
That's not down to KDE and that's going to happen everywhere I'm afraid, unless you mount something specifically as smbfs through the kernel or something.
The others paid 4 billion because they thought they were going to get patents they could throw at Android and thought they could get Google to overbid. Google then buys Motorola that practically invented the mobile as we know it now with three or four times the number of patents.....and it's a workable company to boot with assets. It doesn't take much to work out who got the better deal.
This one did. Many people (including insiders) are saying the talks with Motorola really started after Apple/Microsoft won the other patent bid.
You really don't know how long two companies have been talking off-the-record. Once the Nortel distraction had happened Google then probably moved to seal the deal quite quickly.
Both Apple and Microsoft are already in patent lawsuits with Motorola.
Errrr, yer.
Google has tried to get some smartphone patent portfolio for themselves too, but they just burned $12.5 billion on patents that
1) don't help them at all against Apple and Microsoft
2) alienates other Android manufacturers
Not entirely sure how you figure that one out. Motorola pretty much invented the mobile phone as we know it. Apple paid over the odds for something that doesn't have a quarter of the portfolio that Motorola has.
But there isn't much Google can do. People act weirdly and make mistakes when they're surrounded and desperate. Google made their mistake here.
Gentoo is a distribution that allows you to more easily manage source code installations for those who want and need to. Nothing more. God knows how this crap gets modified insightful.
Nice try, and I suppose they had to, but there are two premier platforms in the mobile world in iOS and Android and one is demonstrably closed and the other mostly open and free for manufacturers to put on their devices despite the Motorola takeover which I suspect has more to do with other reasons than Google wanting to make phones. Two platforms are more than enough, and there were even question marks for a while as to whether Android would gain traction and have the developer base of iOS. I just don't see what Windows brings. It's neither one thing nor the other.
The JIT compiles of assemblies are cached in the GAC, so it only happens once. After that it's native code for the platform you're running on, whether that's 32bit Intel, 64bit Intel, or Itanium. Or you can choose a specific platform in Visual Studio and compile directly to that platform and avoid the intermediate language altogether.
I think what the OP is arguing is, why bother that lot at all?
hopefully c# will be one of the last nails in VB's coffin.
This is being said after.Net is ten years old and here is still a massive amount of COM and VB code that is still kicking around that will never be rewritten. Keep hoping.
(And if you are a Java programmer, I hope you get something similar to Linq soon:-)
I have many games from years gone buy that I still like to play every now and again. So this means if Ubisoft turn off their servers the game stops working? No thanks.
How ten years ago of you. You do realize that MySQL and Postgres are getting rather close on feature parity right? Both of them have been adding features the other lacked. MySQL 5.5 has stored procedures, views, triggers, etc.
Not sure which way to take that to be honest. Postgres has got faster without sacrificing useful and sometimes essential features while MySQL has had to scramble to catch up. It's an ass backwards way of going about things and it's one of the reasons why there are so many problems with it. Facebook, Google and God knows who else has goodness knows how many forks of MySQL now. That's the complaint being levelled by the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody have any idea what happened to the Japanese orbiter that was also supposed to be taking good high resolution images of the moon?
The thing that really matters is presenting ever better photos (i.e. evidence) as our technology improves so that future generations won't be tarnished by the cynicism and denial of conspiracy theorists.
Ahhhhh, so that's why we've never seen anything first-hand of the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. We didn't have the technology to photograph the moon well enough.
Most people believe governments and businesses? That one is news to me.
Largely because there's no need to.
If you can't verify and follow up your achievements, and allow others to follow as good science demands, then you've achieved zilch. I've never really fathomed why we should treat the moon landings any different from many early explorers who claimed that they'd climbed mountains and reached summits with photos to prove it.......until people went where they supposedly went and found out that the photos weren't taken where they said they were. It was on TV though, and nothing that comes down the tube is ever faked...........
The 'never went to the moon' crowd will only believe it when the can see it with their own eyes. Which is fine by me. Take them there and let them look. Jjust remember no helmets now, the visors could be ultra high def curved monitors.
Going back there to verify what was done is the whole point of science, so the unintentional irony is quite funny.
NASA has achieved a lot more every year since then than they did on the Apollo missions. Sorry if it wasn't sexy enough for you, but the real work rarely is...
Really? Wow, I must have missed all those achievements that put man further into space as opposed to crashing unmanned probes into things. Oh wait............
It's a moronic position when you consider that the same basic fact that no theory is complete applies to all theories, including theories like Newtonian mechanics and Quantum mechanics, both of which despite obvious missing pieces and flaws are among the most successful theories ever developed.
A theory does not need to be complete to have explanatory power.
Maybe after all the money they've managed to gobble up then it would be a good idea for climate 'scientists' to actually formulate a theory approaching something even close to that?
The accuracy of the assumption that dumping huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is harmful is much better supported than the notion that we can dump whatever we like without consequence.
This is the problem that I have with climate change scientists and proponents. While we cannot be averse to the notion that what we do affects our own climate, the question is how and by how much? Despite all protestations to the contrary that evidence is simply not there, and when you question it the above is a classic example of what the discussion boils down to - surely if we are doing something then it must have an effect.
The "scientists are tricking us" motif is already well cemented in the minds of the GW deniers. Coming out with vindications this far from the initial story is like farting in the wind.
When they start using words like 'trick', trying to insult peoples' intelligence by telling them that it is a special scientific word and tacking data together that is unrelated to each other and measured in completely different ways I wonder why that would be?
Let's be blunt. Only nerds on tech sites worry about "closeness." They're a tiny niche that wants to keep their nerd playgrounds around. The vast majority simply wants good products that work.
Yes they do, which is why platforms that are not tied too closely and have greater supply in the market always end up winning. Or did you miss the whole period in history where Apple pissed the PC market away?
The outcome offers no strategic advance at all for Google.
I see this being written a lot with no evidence as to why people think that. Motorola has several times the patents of the Nortel deal, invented the mobile as we know it and is a working company with assets regardless of its state. $12.5 billion is pretty reasonable when you compare it to the Nortel free-for-all that Google wisely didn't get involved in.
You're not going to be able to manipulate anything directly over sftp without it being downloaded first. sftp does not give you a filesystem to work with.
Early in the interview he says that they need to write apps for "things that every computer needs to be able to do. Like managing photos, music and documents. So we want to write some of those basic utilities, that are more part of the OS than a third-party-application would be."
That can only make me laugh in astonishment because they spent the past decade trying to get decent apps for GTK and Gnome, and many of them had a crapload of venture capital funding pumped into them that no one got back - Nautilus and Evolution to name two. We then got a whole framework called Mono to try and develop more applications for GTK and Gnome. Now there needs to be new ones developed? Oh dear.
KDE ain't much better, open a file from the network and it will often try to copy it locally first before it can play. Very useful for large movie files I can tell you.
That's not down to KDE and that's going to happen everywhere I'm afraid, unless you mount something specifically as smbfs through the kernel or something.
The others paid 4 billion because they thought they were going to get patents they could throw at Android and thought they could get Google to overbid. Google then buys Motorola that practically invented the mobile as we know it now with three or four times the number of patents.....and it's a workable company to boot with assets. It doesn't take much to work out who got the better deal.
This one did. Many people (including insiders) are saying the talks with Motorola really started after Apple/Microsoft won the other patent bid.
You really don't know how long two companies have been talking off-the-record. Once the Nortel distraction had happened Google then probably moved to seal the deal quite quickly.
Both Apple and Microsoft are already in patent lawsuits with Motorola.
Errrr, yer.
Google has tried to get some smartphone patent portfolio for themselves too, but they just burned $12.5 billion on patents that 1) don't help them at all against Apple and Microsoft 2) alienates other Android manufacturers
Not entirely sure how you figure that one out. Motorola pretty much invented the mobile phone as we know it. Apple paid over the odds for something that doesn't have a quarter of the portfolio that Motorola has.
But there isn't much Google can do. People act weirdly and make mistakes when they're surrounded and desperate. Google made their mistake here.
Uh, huh.
Gentoo is a distribution that allows you to more easily manage source code installations for those who want and need to. Nothing more. God knows how this crap gets modified insightful.
Nice try, and I suppose they had to, but there are two premier platforms in the mobile world in iOS and Android and one is demonstrably closed and the other mostly open and free for manufacturers to put on their devices despite the Motorola takeover which I suspect has more to do with other reasons than Google wanting to make phones. Two platforms are more than enough, and there were even question marks for a while as to whether Android would gain traction and have the developer base of iOS. I just don't see what Windows brings. It's neither one thing nor the other.
Software company whose business model failed the first time makes extremely minor release of software.
The JIT compiles of assemblies are cached in the GAC, so it only happens once. After that it's native code for the platform you're running on, whether that's 32bit Intel, 64bit Intel, or Itanium. Or you can choose a specific platform in Visual Studio and compile directly to that platform and avoid the intermediate language altogether.
I think what the OP is arguing is, why bother that lot at all?
hopefully c# will be one of the last nails in VB's coffin.
This is being said after .Net is ten years old and here is still a massive amount of COM and VB code that is still kicking around that will never be rewritten. Keep hoping.
(And if you are a Java programmer, I hope you get something similar to Linq soon :-)
Ruby on Rails had it for longer.
.......that we're not going to get another Debian release for another fifty years?
I have many games from years gone buy that I still like to play every now and again. So this means if Ubisoft turn off their servers the game stops working? No thanks.
How ten years ago of you. You do realize that MySQL and Postgres are getting rather close on feature parity right? Both of them have been adding features the other lacked. MySQL 5.5 has stored procedures, views, triggers, etc.
Not sure which way to take that to be honest. Postgres has got faster without sacrificing useful and sometimes essential features while MySQL has had to scramble to catch up. It's an ass backwards way of going about things and it's one of the reasons why there are so many problems with it. Facebook, Google and God knows who else has goodness knows how many forks of MySQL now. That's the complaint being levelled by the article.