What I don't get is why someone would condemn companies writing OSS tools for Windows. Now OSS is only good if it works on an open source operating system? What's next, demanding that the hardware was stolen? (otherwise, it gave money to the hardware manufacturers).
Same thing was said about XP. And 2000. And ME, and 98. Windows 95 was the last OS that exited the press and customers. Still, all those OSs sold by the hundreds of millions, and dominated the market at some point (except for ME, wich was the lamest thing to come out of redmond and which faqced competition from the much more capable 2000).
You mean that, for 10% of the cost of Exchange for a single customer, somebody could build an Exchange compatible Outlook competitor?
What a skewed view of nature some fanboys have.
Easy compared to installing an operating system (ANY operating system).
Easy compared to sending the machine for repair.
Easy compared to fixing the machine or replacing the motherboard.
Easy compared to installing Windows 95 (yes, installign XP is WAY easier than installing 95, even including the phone call).
NOT easy compared to starting a discussion claiming that Microsoft has not given you a solution when you didn't even pick up the phone. You just waited for the tooth fairy to come and fix the problem for you.
If it were set up for serial production, one could be built in a week. But nobody is asking for that. With makin gone in two or three years, and testing it for an additional year it would be enough. Since the Hubble is 75% gone now, waiting two years or three for a new view won't make much difference. And the end results will.
And you think that the repair parts (which comprise a good portion of the actual hubble, including most of the electrical system, the stabilization system, most computers and now the camera) are off the shelf and need not testing at all? They need probably as much testing as the whole scope. With the difference that they cannot be tested in an integral way, since the rest of the scope is up there in orbit.
And where did those heavy metals come from? We created them? No, they came from nature.
It is not the same as nuclear waste, where new elements are created during fission. It is just a few micrograms of materials taken from nature, and returning them to nature in an even more diluted form produces no damage (the real damage is actually in building landfills and filling them with human waste, CF bulbs make no difference other than lasting longer).
Yes, it can take time. How much time? Certainly not as long as it took building the original Hubble. Given that the design is already done and most machinery needed to build the scope, and even several actual parts, are already made, probably the time will be ruled by how long it takes to polish a new main mirror. It is not unlikely that it can be ready in less than three years from start, probably two. And what's three years? The universe is not going anywhere. The hubble is, and sending a repair mission IS on a tight schedule, but launching a new scope is not nearly as constrained.
Only if you display them in your Infrared monitor;-)
You know, most Hubble pictures are in false color already. Any picture taken by the JW telescope will be converted to visible light for visual analysis and publication, and they are likely as stunning as pictures taken in the visible spectrum.
And building a second hubble wouldn't cost a fraction of what building the original one did. If no design changes were made, building a second unit would cost just millions (and they could get the mirror right on the second try). Besides, most technology used has been comoditized since (electronic gyroscopes, microprocessors, high cycle batteries, etc.) so building a new hubble would probably cost little more than building the spares needed. Given than a new launch mission might be doable without using the shuttle (the most expensive transport known to man) and even if the shuttle is used, it should be a much less expensive mission (lower orbit as the hubble2 could include propulsion to get to its orbit, and no dangerous spacewalks needed). All that, and you end up with a superior telescope to the one already up there.
Te Hubble is a great piece of equipment that has ended its useful life. It is basically a carcass, a few batteries, computers and chips and optics. The chips are burnt, the computers are obsolete, the batteries are dead and the optics are screwed up since day one.
Yes, it can be fixed. You only need to build the parts and send them in a shuttle. But since you need to send a shuttle to that orbit, in a dangerous mission that has no other objectives tha n fixing the Hubble, why don't we send a whole new telescope? Think about the numbers:
- A mission to replace the Hubble costs about the same as a mission to fix it, but is less risky as complex spacewalks are not necessary.
- Success is more certain, as launching a complete unit has better success chances than attempting to fix something in orbit. There is a probability that a mission to fix the existing telescope would not be successful, and in that case we would end up without the Hubble and without a replacement.
- Building a new scope, similar to the Hubble, would be negligible in cost. All the design is done, the machinery is already built, many pieces already exist and it's not like the chips are expensive (all the expensive parts are already scheduled for replacement in the servicing mission). The optics are the only really expensive part to duplicate. And since the optics on the Hubble are less than perfect, it can't be said that building a new mirror is a waste of time, actually most astronomers concur that if building a new mirror to replace the one in the Hubble was feasible, it should be done.
- End result: a superior telescope. Not only the optics would be greatly improved, but other parts not scheduled for repair could be improved with the experience and knowledge gained since the Hubble's launch.
The only reason not to launch a new telescope similar to Hubble instead of fixing the existing one is politics: obtaining funding approvals to fix an existing piece of equipment is much easier than getting a new telescope approved, even if the cost and risk is lower for the later.
The comment on the article about terminals being better because they don't store local sensitive data demonstrate a total lack of network management knoweledge. Not only you can do the same on a PC (or any other thick client, for that matter) but it IS how it is done at most companies. Same thing for installing software and configuration: it should (and most of the time is) done centrally via policy.
Yes, terminals have great value in many scenarios, and if the users don't need to run graphically intensive applications or very heavy workloads that would tax servers, they might reduce cost. But it is not because PCs are difficult to manage. Implementing a managed PC environment is not more costly than implementing a managed terminal environment.
I don't get it. Did ANYBODY read TFA???? I know, this is slashdot, but I cannot beleive out of a thousand posters nobody cared to read the article.
The guy WAS NOT offered to be paid. Nowhere in the article it says that. The guy WAS NOT (according to himself) asked to say nice things about Microsoft. He was specifically asked to correct things HE thought were wrong. The guy WAS NOT contacted by Microsoft PR, but by a person that knew him and knew he was NOT a MS FANBOY!
The guy, according to the story, was asked by somebody at Microsoft to get involved in a Wikipedia discussion, since he knew that his input would be less biased than the current discussion.
To this IS an article about evil. About evil in reporting.
Lies, dammed lies and forums.
In my view, it would be much more appropriate to strip this meteorologist of his certification, as he obviously doesn't accept the sceintific method: question, postulate, prove.
So I guess porn companies will have to start hiring better looking acressses.
It's like when sound came to movies. Many actors didn't make the transitions as they had bad voices.
Now, actresses with bad skin will be relegated to low res movies.
The console has only 512MB of Ram, so it is quite unlikely that the game would need to load the whole GB up front. More likely a game would need to load 200-300MB to start, and the rest would be loaded as levels, textures and music are needed. That would give under 20 second loads. Still slow though.
Vista is a DESKTOP Operating System. SQL Server (their flagship database) is a SERVER application.
SQL Server Desktop Edition (or whatever it's called) is not their desktop database. It is just a limited testing environment designed to enable developers and IT professionals to do tests on it. It is hardly critical, especially considering Vista's licensing provisions for virtual machines.
I still don't see how this is related to the hardware vendors issue.
PS: how many of these shortcomings also apply to Linux? After a rough count, over 75%.
Hydrogen is just an energy transportation system, not an energy generation system. And it is a very bad one at that. Batteries (even curfrent batteries, with large advancements coming every year) are almost perfect for transporting energy. So hydrogen is useless, I agree with the article on that.
But the water scarcity claim is bogus. Not only there's not a shortage of water in the world, there's not even a shortage of fresh water or clean water (and for generating hydrogen, any relatively clean water is just about the same). It is just that in some areas there's overpopulation and water is not expensive enough to be worth the transport cost. But in areas such as most of South America there's enough fresh water to source the whole planet several times over. And in the Antartica there's enough water for all our possible needs for eons.
So water will never be scarce. It might become more expensive as it needs to be transported, but oil is already in that situation and it is not THAT expensive.
Smart publicity stunt.
Since very few people has access to etching laser equipment and the market is probably small to justify many competitors in the city, they have little to lose. By announcing they are Open Source they get lots of publicity, especially to the same nerds that would etch a penguin on their laptops lids.
They'll do well. Not so for their imitators.
I think it is a language pack that applies to the standard Windows version, not a translated OS version. The end result is similar (a translated OS UI), but it makes your point irrelevant as the Operating System is the same as before. They should pay for it, they probably don't.
But the issue is they consider their language their own intellectual property. While that could be possibly true under some (stupid) law scheme, it is obvious the person that translated the language was one of them, so it is absurd they complain about it to Microsoft.
A planet is a body with a solid or liquid mass that's large enough to become nearly spherical under it's own gravitational pull and that's composed (the solid or liquid core) by at least 50% materials that are solid at a temperature of 300 kelvin and that's not orbiting another planet more than doubling its mass and that's not generating significant heat from fusion reaction of its mass.
If it needs to be orbiting to a star or not, that's left to others to decide. But this will do away with asteroids, stars, coments and moons, while still allowing for solid planets (big and small) and gaseous planets (since they have a solid or liquid metallic core).
And it is logical, because it discards the unwanted bodies for its "undesirable" qualities (comets for not being stable having their mass composed of ice, asteroids for not having significant gravity, moons for orbiting other planets and stars for being lit) and not for some arbitrary parameter.
The details of how round they have to be, the exact cutoff temperature, the mass percentage between twins and what is "significant" heat can be discussed, but all those parameters can be swayed a lot without including any unwanted bodies or excluding any known planet.
Me.
I don't think it should be serviced. The money would be better spent in launching a new telescope.
Think how much it would cost to build a new hubble? You can decompose cost of a new telescope in five parts: the mirrors (most expensive part); electronics and mechanics; R operations infrastructure; putting it in orbit.
The electronics and mechanics are relatively cheap, once you have the designs and tools to build them, building another set would be relatively inexpensive. Building an improved, lighter, faster, more robust and energy efficient parts would be no big deal.
The R&D is a one time expense. It's been done once. Updating the design with current knowledge could be done without much effort.
Operations infrastructure is already there, it wouldn't cost a dime more to support a new telescope than it does to support the Hubble.
The mirrors are screwed up. Yes, they've been corrected, but every optics expert knows that the corrected pair does not have the same optics quality that a clean mirror set would have. Even more so considering advances in optics/coatings and manufacturing processes in the last twenty years.
As for launch, it would cost less and be less dangerous to launch a new telescope than to repair the current one.
Conclusion, instead of spending money on fixing the aging telescope, let's spend the same money and time on building a new, improved one based on the same design and using the same know how and operatiosn infrastructure. When it is in orbit, decomission the old one and let it burn with a big Thank You.
Let's not get attached to a piece of technology.
Nope. What he said was that about 90% of the features do not get used BY ANY ONE SPECIFIC USER. But your 10% is not my 10%. There are people for which word count is useles, and for others is their bread and butter. I don't use more than 20% of word's features, but some features I use are probably pretty obscure for most users. And with IE is probably the same, though to a lesser extent (we all see the same web pages after all).
That only applies to the binaries. But a copy of Windows is more than the binaries. It includes also a legal agreement (the license) and an activation key.
With a pirated copy you only get an identical copy of the binaries, but you get an invalid ID (in the sense that it is nonworking unless MS can't detect it is a fake or copied one) and no valid legal contract.
Thus, the whole package is really not genuine. The language article's point is just plain wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't get is why someone would condemn companies writing OSS tools for Windows. Now OSS is only good if it works on an open source operating system? What's next, demanding that the hardware was stolen? (otherwise, it gave money to the hardware manufacturers).
Same thing was said about XP. And 2000. And ME, and 98. Windows 95 was the last OS that exited the press and customers. Still, all those OSs sold by the hundreds of millions, and dominated the market at some point (except for ME, wich was the lamest thing to come out of redmond and which faqced competition from the much more capable 2000).
You mean that, for 10% of the cost of Exchange for a single customer, somebody could build an Exchange compatible Outlook competitor? What a skewed view of nature some fanboys have.
Easy compared to installing an operating system (ANY operating system). Easy compared to sending the machine for repair. Easy compared to fixing the machine or replacing the motherboard. Easy compared to installing Windows 95 (yes, installign XP is WAY easier than installing 95, even including the phone call). NOT easy compared to starting a discussion claiming that Microsoft has not given you a solution when you didn't even pick up the phone. You just waited for the tooth fairy to come and fix the problem for you.
If it were set up for serial production, one could be built in a week. But nobody is asking for that. With makin gone in two or three years, and testing it for an additional year it would be enough. Since the Hubble is 75% gone now, waiting two years or three for a new view won't make much difference. And the end results will. And you think that the repair parts (which comprise a good portion of the actual hubble, including most of the electrical system, the stabilization system, most computers and now the camera) are off the shelf and need not testing at all? They need probably as much testing as the whole scope. With the difference that they cannot be tested in an integral way, since the rest of the scope is up there in orbit.
And where did those heavy metals come from? We created them? No, they came from nature. It is not the same as nuclear waste, where new elements are created during fission. It is just a few micrograms of materials taken from nature, and returning them to nature in an even more diluted form produces no damage (the real damage is actually in building landfills and filling them with human waste, CF bulbs make no difference other than lasting longer).
Yes, it can take time. How much time? Certainly not as long as it took building the original Hubble. Given that the design is already done and most machinery needed to build the scope, and even several actual parts, are already made, probably the time will be ruled by how long it takes to polish a new main mirror. It is not unlikely that it can be ready in less than three years from start, probably two. And what's three years? The universe is not going anywhere. The hubble is, and sending a repair mission IS on a tight schedule, but launching a new scope is not nearly as constrained.
Only if you display them in your Infrared monitor ;-)
You know, most Hubble pictures are in false color already. Any picture taken by the JW telescope will be converted to visible light for visual analysis and publication, and they are likely as stunning as pictures taken in the visible spectrum.
And building a second hubble wouldn't cost a fraction of what building the original one did. If no design changes were made, building a second unit would cost just millions (and they could get the mirror right on the second try). Besides, most technology used has been comoditized since (electronic gyroscopes, microprocessors, high cycle batteries, etc.) so building a new hubble would probably cost little more than building the spares needed. Given than a new launch mission might be doable without using the shuttle (the most expensive transport known to man) and even if the shuttle is used, it should be a much less expensive mission (lower orbit as the hubble2 could include propulsion to get to its orbit, and no dangerous spacewalks needed). All that, and you end up with a superior telescope to the one already up there.
Te Hubble is a great piece of equipment that has ended its useful life. It is basically a carcass, a few batteries, computers and chips and optics. The chips are burnt, the computers are obsolete, the batteries are dead and the optics are screwed up since day one. Yes, it can be fixed. You only need to build the parts and send them in a shuttle. But since you need to send a shuttle to that orbit, in a dangerous mission that has no other objectives tha n fixing the Hubble, why don't we send a whole new telescope? Think about the numbers: - A mission to replace the Hubble costs about the same as a mission to fix it, but is less risky as complex spacewalks are not necessary. - Success is more certain, as launching a complete unit has better success chances than attempting to fix something in orbit. There is a probability that a mission to fix the existing telescope would not be successful, and in that case we would end up without the Hubble and without a replacement. - Building a new scope, similar to the Hubble, would be negligible in cost. All the design is done, the machinery is already built, many pieces already exist and it's not like the chips are expensive (all the expensive parts are already scheduled for replacement in the servicing mission). The optics are the only really expensive part to duplicate. And since the optics on the Hubble are less than perfect, it can't be said that building a new mirror is a waste of time, actually most astronomers concur that if building a new mirror to replace the one in the Hubble was feasible, it should be done. - End result: a superior telescope. Not only the optics would be greatly improved, but other parts not scheduled for repair could be improved with the experience and knowledge gained since the Hubble's launch. The only reason not to launch a new telescope similar to Hubble instead of fixing the existing one is politics: obtaining funding approvals to fix an existing piece of equipment is much easier than getting a new telescope approved, even if the cost and risk is lower for the later.
The comment on the article about terminals being better because they don't store local sensitive data demonstrate a total lack of network management knoweledge. Not only you can do the same on a PC (or any other thick client, for that matter) but it IS how it is done at most companies. Same thing for installing software and configuration: it should (and most of the time is) done centrally via policy. Yes, terminals have great value in many scenarios, and if the users don't need to run graphically intensive applications or very heavy workloads that would tax servers, they might reduce cost. But it is not because PCs are difficult to manage. Implementing a managed PC environment is not more costly than implementing a managed terminal environment.
I don't get it. Did ANYBODY read TFA???? I know, this is slashdot, but I cannot beleive out of a thousand posters nobody cared to read the article. The guy WAS NOT offered to be paid. Nowhere in the article it says that. The guy WAS NOT (according to himself) asked to say nice things about Microsoft. He was specifically asked to correct things HE thought were wrong. The guy WAS NOT contacted by Microsoft PR, but by a person that knew him and knew he was NOT a MS FANBOY! The guy, according to the story, was asked by somebody at Microsoft to get involved in a Wikipedia discussion, since he knew that his input would be less biased than the current discussion. To this IS an article about evil. About evil in reporting. Lies, dammed lies and forums.
If an SMTP sender is non RFC compliant, I would suggest dropping the message. It is about time we start discouraging the usage of crappy senders.
In my view, it would be much more appropriate to strip this meteorologist of his certification, as he obviously doesn't accept the sceintific method: question, postulate, prove.
It is VERY different. Microsoft is baaad. Apple is gooood.
So I guess porn companies will have to start hiring better looking acressses. It's like when sound came to movies. Many actors didn't make the transitions as they had bad voices. Now, actresses with bad skin will be relegated to low res movies.
The console has only 512MB of Ram, so it is quite unlikely that the game would need to load the whole GB up front. More likely a game would need to load 200-300MB to start, and the rest would be loaded as levels, textures and music are needed. That would give under 20 second loads. Still slow though.
Vista is a DESKTOP Operating System. SQL Server (their flagship database) is a SERVER application. SQL Server Desktop Edition (or whatever it's called) is not their desktop database. It is just a limited testing environment designed to enable developers and IT professionals to do tests on it. It is hardly critical, especially considering Vista's licensing provisions for virtual machines. I still don't see how this is related to the hardware vendors issue. PS: how many of these shortcomings also apply to Linux? After a rough count, over 75%.
Hydrogen is just an energy transportation system, not an energy generation system. And it is a very bad one at that. Batteries (even curfrent batteries, with large advancements coming every year) are almost perfect for transporting energy. So hydrogen is useless, I agree with the article on that. But the water scarcity claim is bogus. Not only there's not a shortage of water in the world, there's not even a shortage of fresh water or clean water (and for generating hydrogen, any relatively clean water is just about the same). It is just that in some areas there's overpopulation and water is not expensive enough to be worth the transport cost. But in areas such as most of South America there's enough fresh water to source the whole planet several times over. And in the Antartica there's enough water for all our possible needs for eons. So water will never be scarce. It might become more expensive as it needs to be transported, but oil is already in that situation and it is not THAT expensive.
Smart publicity stunt. Since very few people has access to etching laser equipment and the market is probably small to justify many competitors in the city, they have little to lose. By announcing they are Open Source they get lots of publicity, especially to the same nerds that would etch a penguin on their laptops lids. They'll do well. Not so for their imitators.
I think it is a language pack that applies to the standard Windows version, not a translated OS version. The end result is similar (a translated OS UI), but it makes your point irrelevant as the Operating System is the same as before. They should pay for it, they probably don't. But the issue is they consider their language their own intellectual property. While that could be possibly true under some (stupid) law scheme, it is obvious the person that translated the language was one of them, so it is absurd they complain about it to Microsoft.
A planet is a body with a solid or liquid mass that's large enough to become nearly spherical under it's own gravitational pull and that's composed (the solid or liquid core) by at least 50% materials that are solid at a temperature of 300 kelvin and that's not orbiting another planet more than doubling its mass and that's not generating significant heat from fusion reaction of its mass. If it needs to be orbiting to a star or not, that's left to others to decide. But this will do away with asteroids, stars, coments and moons, while still allowing for solid planets (big and small) and gaseous planets (since they have a solid or liquid metallic core). And it is logical, because it discards the unwanted bodies for its "undesirable" qualities (comets for not being stable having their mass composed of ice, asteroids for not having significant gravity, moons for orbiting other planets and stars for being lit) and not for some arbitrary parameter. The details of how round they have to be, the exact cutoff temperature, the mass percentage between twins and what is "significant" heat can be discussed, but all those parameters can be swayed a lot without including any unwanted bodies or excluding any known planet.
Me. I don't think it should be serviced. The money would be better spent in launching a new telescope. Think how much it would cost to build a new hubble? You can decompose cost of a new telescope in five parts: the mirrors (most expensive part); electronics and mechanics; R operations infrastructure; putting it in orbit. The electronics and mechanics are relatively cheap, once you have the designs and tools to build them, building another set would be relatively inexpensive. Building an improved, lighter, faster, more robust and energy efficient parts would be no big deal. The R&D is a one time expense. It's been done once. Updating the design with current knowledge could be done without much effort. Operations infrastructure is already there, it wouldn't cost a dime more to support a new telescope than it does to support the Hubble. The mirrors are screwed up. Yes, they've been corrected, but every optics expert knows that the corrected pair does not have the same optics quality that a clean mirror set would have. Even more so considering advances in optics/coatings and manufacturing processes in the last twenty years. As for launch, it would cost less and be less dangerous to launch a new telescope than to repair the current one. Conclusion, instead of spending money on fixing the aging telescope, let's spend the same money and time on building a new, improved one based on the same design and using the same know how and operatiosn infrastructure. When it is in orbit, decomission the old one and let it burn with a big Thank You. Let's not get attached to a piece of technology.
Nope. What he said was that about 90% of the features do not get used BY ANY ONE SPECIFIC USER. But your 10% is not my 10%. There are people for which word count is useles, and for others is their bread and butter. I don't use more than 20% of word's features, but some features I use are probably pretty obscure for most users. And with IE is probably the same, though to a lesser extent (we all see the same web pages after all).
That only applies to the binaries. But a copy of Windows is more than the binaries. It includes also a legal agreement (the license) and an activation key. With a pirated copy you only get an identical copy of the binaries, but you get an invalid ID (in the sense that it is nonworking unless MS can't detect it is a fake or copied one) and no valid legal contract. Thus, the whole package is really not genuine. The language article's point is just plain wrong.