I fail to see this as necessary, since they can simply hang the suit outside ISS for a couple of days and see what happens to it.
At the end of the article, it's alarming to read that "Bauer expects SuitSat's batteries to last 2 to 4 days. "Although longer is possible," he allows. After that, SuitSat will begin a slow silent spiral into Earth's atmosphere. Weeks or months later, no one knows exactly when, it will become a brilliant fireball over some part of Earth--a fitting end for a trailblazer."
It looks like they don't have a clue what is going to happen to this SuitSat.
It's like a mayor urging residents to keep the city clean while he is spittng out a bio-degradeable gum.
Google's income comes from advertising, and these spywares are showing ads, hence competiting for eyeballs, I would say Google has a large interest in squashing these competitors.
The article is light on how the project actually works, do users have to install some sort of detecting tools which alerts them of badware upon download and/or prior to installation?
Is this going to be like the spamm blacklists which can be subjective?
So if someone created a search engine which automatically, randomly and non-volitionally searches and caches MP3 files from websites which do not have "no archive" metatag, it's not breaking the law?
When those searched websites disappeared, this search engine may still serve those cached MP3 files for archival purposes?
I think another school is arguing China will be better off with a crippled Google than no Google at all.
Historically, citizens are pretty ignorant, and they accept what they see and are told of. Look at "War Is The New Peace" that's currently affecting most people's emotion, and how Wikipedia becomes the "standard" for reference and academic research, and people quoting Wiki like it's the bible!
However, if there is NO information available, that is, a complete censorship, citizens will attempt to find out the truth, and that is where they will find the truth.
By feeding users with flawed information, Google is only numbing their desire to seek truth, and I'm inclined to think that once Google fully enters the Chinese market, the amount of money will overpower any good left in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet these lonely stars spend most of their time hanging around myspace.com.
I wonder if MS is still considered anti-competition if it offers its anti-virus software as a free/share/postcard-ware on the internet?
Making != Creating, so you may be a music producer if you burn those music.
Just when the space is in need of cleaning, we're creating more?
I fail to see this as necessary, since they can simply hang the suit outside ISS for a couple of days and see what happens to it.
At the end of the article, it's alarming to read that "Bauer expects SuitSat's batteries to last 2 to 4 days. "Although longer is possible," he allows. After that, SuitSat will begin a slow silent spiral into Earth's atmosphere. Weeks or months later, no one knows exactly when, it will become a brilliant fireball over some part of Earth--a fitting end for a trailblazer."
It looks like they don't have a clue what is going to happen to this SuitSat.
It's like a mayor urging residents to keep the city clean while he is spittng out a bio-degradeable gum.
Google's income comes from advertising, and these spywares are showing ads, hence competiting for eyeballs, I would say Google has a large interest in squashing these competitors.
I can't tell if it is, but I remember a saying that it takes 3 days to do bad, and 3 years to redeem.
No matter how dumb it is, it makes media taking about it over and over again.
The article is light on how the project actually works, do users have to install some sort of detecting tools which alerts them of badware upon download and/or prior to installation?
Is this going to be like the spamm blacklists which can be subjective?
So if someone created a search engine which automatically, randomly and non-volitionally searches and caches MP3 files from websites which do not have "no archive" metatag, it's not breaking the law?
When those searched websites disappeared, this search engine may still serve those cached MP3 files for archival purposes?
I think another school is arguing China will be better off with a crippled Google than no Google at all.
Historically, citizens are pretty ignorant, and they accept what they see and are told of. Look at "War Is The New Peace" that's currently affecting most people's emotion, and how Wikipedia becomes the "standard" for reference and academic research, and people quoting Wiki like it's the bible!
However, if there is NO information available, that is, a complete censorship, citizens will attempt to find out the truth, and that is where they will find the truth.
By feeding users with flawed information, Google is only numbing their desire to seek truth, and I'm inclined to think that once Google fully enters the Chinese market, the amount of money will overpower any good left in it.
Google always maintains it will do no evil, and yet its action is gradually becoming debatable.
Bill Gates never says he will do no evil, and yet his charity works are clocking to few billion dollars.
He would have forgotten how he felt after coming to realization that the person in the mirror is him.