On topic now, I don't like the way Russinovich is blowing Vista's horn now. I liked him more when he was more critical and analytical on what could be improved, instead of what has already been done.
He's working at Microsoft now, you do realize that "what could be improved" he's actually doing right now, so he can call it "already been done".
You don't really prefer pointless critique with no improvement, do you.
You say that as though the amount of thinking a person can do is a finite quantity, and that each time you think you decrease this quantity, so therefore the wise thing to do is conserve it as much as possible.
However, it's really more like a muscle -- the more you use it, the more able it becomes.
It's separation of concerns - the basics of team work and higher organisations. It's a very basic premise which most open source software folks miss.
You may be learning hella lot, and be great everything, train that "brain muscle", but when you're trying to succeed in a certain project/business, anything which could be separated as a concern but is not, is noise which makes you less productive.
Never mind how much you train your gigantic brain, punch cards will lead to lower performance than a good gui/cli combo.
When you train, it helps you lift more and more weights, more and more times. But you still won't grow extra arms, legs and attention spans that let you use all the equipment in a gym *at once*.
But I'm going to find it hard to believe that monkeys have an advanced sense of specific morals like you should or shouldn't file share because it helps or hurts the artists.
You.. you're pushing the lack of opinion on P2P sharing in monkeys as some sort of intelligence clue? You don't have to go far in history before massive online sharing existed to see your example is inappropriate.
As for "morality", in my opinion a "moral" is purely a cultural phenomenon built on top of our more basic behavior in emotions.
You can discover those behaviors in many of the "higher" animal species: compassion, pitty, shame, but equating this to moral is quite shallow.
Morals have differed widely throughout the human history, and they differ today between the different cultures as well. Moral systems aren't just about "being a great fella to everyone".
Very frequently your morals may require to hurt or limit the rights of someone. Many current religions dictate morals that directly conflict with the western culture.
In fact even within the western culture, certain environments (like the military) frequently dictate your morals.
Whether you'll feel remorse for killing/torturing someone you "ought" to, is usually a battle between multiple moral systems (ex. military and civil) which are in conflict with each other.
Furthermore, morals may built upon biological behavior, but can easily shape or override them. The worldview and moral understandings of a human may change severely multiple times during the span of his life.
For example going into a certain type or cults may lead to you believing the best you can do for yourself and your fellow cult buddies is commit a mass suicide, something which overrides the most basic instinct of all (survival).
GIMP is great until you need to, say, draw a straight line.
Or a rounded rectangle. There are highly evolved plugins developed for GIMP for this purpose, where you can feed it scientific information and it'll draw an ugly aliased rounded rectangle for you. The Joy!
GIMP shouldn't be used as an example for Photoshop replacement at all. Even something as basic as the grid, doesn't work properly. I'd rather use MS Paint than GIMP. And I don't speak just like that: I have GIMP installed here, as there are some useful plugins for it (like texture resynthesis: they are painfully slow, like most GIMP plugins and crash a lot, but free).
All attempts so far to do actual design work in it failed though. It lacks basics.
What MOST Windows users want is a system that doesn't make them THINK.
You're saying that as if it's a bad thing. Do you insist on an OS that makes you think a lot?
While you're thinking on the OS you could be thinking on the next YouTube or something. Why waste so much talent? Anyway, if Microsoft survives Vista (which it'll most likely do), and has success with Vienna, we'll have exactly that: proliferation of managed, secure code and deprecation of binary code (which will run in sandbox) except for a range of professional applications (media processing, database engines and so on resource intensive tasks).
"Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products." - I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less.
This is not bothering me, but this quote is:
According to the security manager, security is only a small part of what Microsoft does, suggesting it does not have as much security expertise as established security vendors.
I hope they really mean "security expertise" as in "antivirus detection and filtering software" and not as in *really* "security expertise".. because.. damn.. over 90% of the desktop computers out there run their damn OS.
The reason most of us got to be Linux users in the first place was fussiness: we didn't like what commercial OS vendors did with their stuff so we went to open source so we could improve upon it any time we wanted.
Then improve upon it and stop whining that hardware vendors support it. You can't have it both ways.
The very reason enterprise Linux vendors today (like RedHat/Novell) can sell an OS which is essentially free, is because the open source model is way too fussy for wide adoption and support in the industry.
What works for tinkerers and geeks doesn't necessarily work for people primarily interested in carrying out a specific set of tasks with an OS, and putting reliability and predictability a lot higher than flexibility.
Apples and Oranges. A change to the kernel potentially affects EVERYTHING on the system. Anyone doing a kernel upgrade *should* be retesting everything on the system.
Windows doesn't have a monolithic kernel like Linux. Are you going to flame now all OS with hybrid kernels and microkernels?
You wouldn't be right anyway, since there are tons of library dependencies in Linux apps where updating a component could cause a chain reaction affecting all libs that use it, the libs that use the libs, and some app that uses the latter libs, you never suspected.
But those tests are only so lengthy and expensive because just about anything can change. If you know that there's a change in Samba, you only have to test the things that depend on Samba, you don't have to retest everything in the system. The fact that you have to test so many things when you upgrade is just a microsoft thing. There isn't a lot of things that break if your patch consists of actually just fixing a single, or small number of bugs.
What you're talking about is simply the wrong perception of a guy who never dealt with the issue at hand.
Tell me: how can it be less testing to test individually all components that could be affected by a patch, versus testing for all components that could be affected by a list of patches. Especially if several patches affect the same exact components.
A SP isn't a black box. You get a list of the small fixes that are contained inside, so you again know what is being changed.
Also, testing just what could obviously break is a terrible way to test. A read a story about someone, who after upgrading to Linux kernel 2.6 started having random lockups in PHP/Apache.
What changed? After long and extensive testing, it turned out that sessions use/dev/rand/ which is fed entropy from HDD, mouse, keyboard and network activity. In 2.6 network activity was no longer used (security issue), and the server hand no mouse, keyboard, and all files were on a NFS share. So/dev/rand/ was "running out of entropy" and blocking.
How would YOU guess that your 2.4 -> 2.6 kernel upgrade would cause PHP sessions to lock up under heavy load, when you look at the list of changes?? Answer: you wouldn't.
You'd deploy this on the live servers and experience mysterious downtimes all the time. And THIS is why enterprises test throughly all critical apps, even for the smallest patches.
Very good point. Why does MS prefer big honkin' files over a more granular approach anyway?
Microsoft doesn't prefer it: their corporate customers do, as they have to perform lengthy and expensive tests to confirm all of their mission critical apps work with the SP (imagine doing it after every patch).
Also the GP said that in Linux updates just mean the app is "updated" and there aren't any backwards incompatibilities... Hehe, I'd love to be that naive myself. Just consider however, we don't all run amateur home servers for our php blogs.
Nothing is, so what's your point? We're not hardwired into being moral, mostly liability makes us be. Thus, companies were born, limited liability, no personal responsibility. Best of all worlds.
If your motto is "don't be evil" and India's rules require you to be evil, then you shouldn't want to play in India. Otherwise you're an evil hypocrite.
I'm writing an open letter to Google to suggest they change their slogan to "do no evil. wink, wink", so that worried Slashdotters worldwide may rest that the slogan reflects proper corporate behavior.
Seriously? We launch a gajillion dollar probe, chance it in a sling around the largest planet in our solar system to only save 3 years, and we get black and white photos that have more noise than my cell-phone's camera!?
It was expensive as hell, and the returns were minimal. They dared to do it first, and to improve upon their experience, so today the neighbor kid can whine how he has to wait entire 7 seconds for his physically accurate and photo realistic 3D racing car simulator game to load the entire race track, complete with realistically behaving crowd, plants and atmospheric effects.
NASA reached Pluto with a remotely controlled probe deep in space. You ranted in Slashdot. Congratulations to both for your great achievements.
If dark matter makes up most of the mass in the universe, wouldn't the kind of matter we're familiar with be the abnormal kind?
No, because we, as sentient beings on planet Earth define what "normal matter" is. Universe doesn't care at all.
My point being, don't you begin thinking we're some sorta odd artifact in the universe. It's the wrong way to think about it. Not to mention I believe all this "dark matter" and "dark energy" scientists are looking for is a result of improper equations which make us believe it exists (I can be wrong, but my bias is towards: it doesn't exist).
Very large bodies don't behave according to Newton. Very small bodies behave according to the rules of quantum physics, so it's clear that one law doesn't regulate every case.
Don't forget that this "law" is simply an equation based on observable evidence. If it doesn't govern very large bodies, it simply means the equation is incomplete and missing one or more variables that start to matter at large scale.
But see, I want a solution that does involve me. Which obviously means it doesn't include people like you. I should have known better than to talk about the environment with an asshat named "suv4x4".
People like me would measure the usefulness of those sonars versus the damage they may cause and decide for or against based on more information than "hey it could disturb some whales somewhat, so we're dropping everything".
It's always silly to pick on my nickname, btw.
I don't drive a suv just because my nick is "suv4x4". I in fact drive a bicycle made out of biodegradable materials that farts plant seed while I drive it.
And your nick is "drinkypoo". I don't even wanna imagine what you're doing in your free time, although it does seem ecofriendly as a matter of fact.
So if I meet you, I should fucking strangle you. If you can adapt and get out of it, then you can live. Otherwise, you should just choke because you're weaker.
Are people randomly mounting sonars hundreds of times more powerful than needed, and used for absolutely nothing, but "proving a point"? And am I defending this kind of abuse?
In which case, you can come and try to "fucking strangle" me, psychopath.
Right. We're going to restore the species we've driven to extinction. And then we're going to flap our arms and fly to the moon.
I don't see lions or butterflies crying for extinct rare kind of birds somewhere in Tasmania. I suppose we're the only beings able able to appreciate the fact, and then proceed to "fucking strangle" members of our own species, in ill-born attempt to "make things right".
It doesn't make sense, but hey!
If I shoot ten people, then save ten people's lives, is that a wash? Do I get neither a commendation nor incarceration? Or am I still a murderer?
Depends on how good your lawyer is.
Don't forget: law and morals are not equivalent. Furthermore, nature knows neither law, nor morals.
We're nature's greatest enemy. Nature is nature's greatest hope. We have already shown that it is possible and in fact even probable that genetic material can travel between planets without even choosing to.
Nature is nature's hope? Well you see what nature produced after hundreds of millions of years evolution: humans.
We're part of the effin nature. Or do you believe we came from Mars to invade poor nature or something? If tomorrow every single human being dies, and things are left "to run their course" for several hundred million years, do you think another intelligent species won't evolve? Do you think they won't have the same kind of struggles between preserving nature and progressing technology?
People's misdeeds are a path nature HAS to go through. It's better that we walk this path, make our mistakes, and learn from them, for a better future, otherwise nature is cursed to repeat all we did again, from scratch.
Some lost spieces are nothing in the big picture. It may be hard to understand this, but it IS the case. What humans need to do is evolve technology and culture fast, inhabit other planets, and learn genetics and robotics to perfection. We need to be stronger, we need to be more powerful. Who knows what problems await us 1000 years from now? Denying progress, and denying our rights to make mistakes and learn from them is denying our own ability to survive at some point.
If we simply killed every animal inconvenient to us, the ecosystem would collapse.
The ecosystem isn't something that just existed forever unchanged, and them we, idiots, came and collapsed it. Even if we disturbed ecosystem, given enough time, it'll find a new balance. This is proven mathematically and practically.
I thought it was stated that high intensity sonic pulses was VERY perjuditial to marine life, causing wheels to get lost and potentially killing small fishes
That'll send all the eco-friendly folk after me, but: we don't need whales. What are you using a whale for?
Species go extinct and come into existence every day. We're moving this process much faster, but it's still something to think about. It's not that the other animals care about people very much, does a mosquito think about the impact on human health before it injects us with infected blood?
Plus, think about it: dead small fish give food to other animals in the sea, and lost whales get to see new and exciting places they've never seen before. Maybe it's good for them.
Just another way to bombard marine life with Sonar. Can we please get out of this mentality that convinces us that using active sonar all day is a great idea?
There isn't a "mentality that convinces us that using active sonar all day is a great idea".
There's an actual use for running sonar all day long, and people use it.
If sharks, whales and whatever can emit signals to confuse our sonars in return, more power to them. But otherwise, the weaker should adapt. It's how evolution works and we're part of it.
That said, although we bring more damage to the environment, we're also those with most research knowledge and organization created to protect it. Who knows, maybe one day we'll not only repair the damage done by us, but also save nature from a natural disaster, like a huge meteor heading our way.
We're nature's greatest hope.
Plus, I've not heard yet of some shark organization for protecting people from becoming a shark meal. What's the deal with that. We gotta sue some sharks, so they learn.
Slashdot Mirror
On topic now, I don't like the way Russinovich is blowing Vista's horn now. I liked him more when he was more critical and analytical on what could be improved, instead of what has already been done.
He's working at Microsoft now, you do realize that "what could be improved" he's actually doing right now, so he can call it "already been done".
You don't really prefer pointless critique with no improvement, do you.
You say that as though the amount of thinking a person can do is a finite quantity, and that each time you think you decrease this quantity, so therefore the wise thing to do is conserve it as much as possible.
However, it's really more like a muscle -- the more you use it, the more able it becomes.
It's separation of concerns - the basics of team work and higher organisations. It's a very basic premise which most open source software folks miss.
You may be learning hella lot, and be great everything, train that "brain muscle", but when you're trying to succeed in a certain project/business, anything which could be separated as a concern but is not, is noise which makes you less productive.
Never mind how much you train your gigantic brain, punch cards will lead to lower performance than a good gui/cli combo.
When you train, it helps you lift more and more weights, more and more times. But you still won't grow extra arms, legs and attention spans that let you use all the equipment in a gym *at once*.
Your Honor, my client is not guilty by reason of a genetic deficiency that prohibited him from acquiring moral acuity.
The judge could reply he has the same deficiency and call him guilty anyway.
But I'm going to find it hard to believe that monkeys have an advanced sense of specific morals like you should or shouldn't file share because it helps or hurts the artists.
You.. you're pushing the lack of opinion on P2P sharing in monkeys as some sort of intelligence clue? You don't have to go far in history before massive online sharing existed to see your example is inappropriate.
As for "morality", in my opinion a "moral" is purely a cultural phenomenon built on top of our more basic behavior in emotions.
You can discover those behaviors in many of the "higher" animal species: compassion, pitty, shame, but equating this to moral is quite shallow.
Morals have differed widely throughout the human history, and they differ today between the different cultures as well. Moral systems aren't just about "being a great fella to everyone".
Very frequently your morals may require to hurt or limit the rights of someone. Many current religions dictate morals that directly conflict with the western culture.
In fact even within the western culture, certain environments (like the military) frequently dictate your morals.
Whether you'll feel remorse for killing/torturing someone you "ought" to, is usually a battle between multiple moral systems (ex. military and civil) which are in conflict with each other.
Furthermore, morals may built upon biological behavior, but can easily shape or override them. The worldview and moral understandings of a human may change severely multiple times during the span of his life.
For example going into a certain type or cults may lead to you believing the best you can do for yourself and your fellow cult buddies is commit a mass suicide, something which overrides the most basic instinct of all (survival).
GIMP is great until you need to, say, draw a straight line.
Or a rounded rectangle. There are highly evolved plugins developed for GIMP for this purpose, where you can feed it scientific information and it'll draw an ugly aliased rounded rectangle for you. The Joy!
GIMP shouldn't be used as an example for Photoshop replacement at all. Even something as basic as the grid, doesn't work properly. I'd rather use MS Paint than GIMP. And I don't speak just like that: I have GIMP installed here, as there are some useful plugins for it (like texture resynthesis: they are painfully slow, like most GIMP plugins and crash a lot, but free).
All attempts so far to do actual design work in it failed though. It lacks basics.
What MOST Windows users want is a system that doesn't make them THINK.
You're saying that as if it's a bad thing. Do you insist on an OS that makes you think a lot?
While you're thinking on the OS you could be thinking on the next YouTube or something. Why waste so much talent? Anyway, if Microsoft survives Vista (which it'll most likely do), and has success with Vienna, we'll have exactly that: proliferation of managed, secure code and deprecation of binary code (which will run in sandbox) except for a range of professional applications (media processing, database engines and so on resource intensive tasks).
OneCare will soon be replaced by Microsoft Care 2.0, and it will be slightly less buggy and twice as expensive.
Microsoft... TwoCare?
"Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products." - I can't believe the guy just admitted that. To a major publication like ZDNet, no less.
.. because.. damn.. over 90% of the desktop computers out there run their damn OS.
This is not bothering me, but this quote is:
According to the security manager, security is only a small part of what Microsoft does, suggesting it does not have as much security expertise as established security vendors.
I hope they really mean "security expertise" as in "antivirus detection and filtering software" and not as in *really* "security expertise"
The reason most of us got to be Linux users in the first place was fussiness: we didn't like what commercial OS vendors did with their stuff so we went to open source so we could improve upon it any time we wanted.
Then improve upon it and stop whining that hardware vendors support it. You can't have it both ways.
The very reason enterprise Linux vendors today (like RedHat/Novell) can sell an OS which is essentially free, is because the open source model is way too fussy for wide adoption and support in the industry.
What works for tinkerers and geeks doesn't necessarily work for people primarily interested in carrying out a specific set of tasks with an OS, and putting reliability and predictability a lot higher than flexibility.
I knew it for a long time:
Food has no connection to calorie intake.
Physical and mental activity have no relation whatsoever to expended calories.
It's all about genetics! I mean, how else do you explain all the fat people in the concentration camps?
Apples and Oranges. A change to the kernel potentially affects EVERYTHING on the system. Anyone doing a kernel upgrade *should* be retesting everything on the system.
Windows doesn't have a monolithic kernel like Linux. Are you going to flame now all OS with hybrid kernels and microkernels?
You wouldn't be right anyway, since there are tons of library dependencies in Linux apps where updating a component could cause a chain reaction affecting all libs that use it, the libs that use the libs, and some app that uses the latter libs, you never suspected.
But those tests are only so lengthy and expensive because just about anything can change. If you know that there's a change in Samba, you only have to test the things that depend on Samba, you don't have to retest everything in the system. The fact that you have to test so many things when you upgrade is just a microsoft thing. There isn't a lot of things that break if your patch consists of actually just fixing a single, or small number of bugs.
/dev/rand/ which is fed entropy from HDD, mouse, keyboard and network activity. In 2.6 network activity was no longer used (security issue), and the server hand no mouse, keyboard, and all files were on a NFS share. So /dev/rand/ was "running out of entropy" and blocking.
What you're talking about is simply the wrong perception of a guy who never dealt with the issue at hand.
Tell me: how can it be less testing to test individually all components that could be affected by a patch, versus testing for all components that could be affected by a list of patches. Especially if several patches affect the same exact components.
A SP isn't a black box. You get a list of the small fixes that are contained inside, so you again know what is being changed.
Also, testing just what could obviously break is a terrible way to test. A read a story about someone, who after upgrading to Linux kernel 2.6 started having random lockups in PHP/Apache.
What changed? After long and extensive testing, it turned out that sessions use
How would YOU guess that your 2.4 -> 2.6 kernel upgrade would cause PHP sessions to lock up under heavy load, when you look at the list of changes?? Answer: you wouldn't.
You'd deploy this on the live servers and experience mysterious downtimes all the time. And THIS is why enterprises test throughly all critical apps, even for the smallest patches.
Very good point. Why does MS prefer big honkin' files over a more granular approach anyway?
Microsoft doesn't prefer it: their corporate customers do, as they have to perform lengthy and expensive tests to confirm all of their mission critical apps work with the SP (imagine doing it after every patch).
Also the GP said that in Linux updates just mean the app is "updated" and there aren't any backwards incompatibilities... Hehe, I'd love to be that naive myself. Just consider however, we don't all run amateur home servers for our php blogs.
I thought India was at least a pretend democracy?
I was wondering what will happen to you, for ex., if you were spreading "hatred" towards USA, in the same way this happened with India.
Don't be surprised if you wake up automatically promoted to a terrorist by the state, one nice morning.
"Business" is no excuse for immorality.
Nothing is, so what's your point? We're not hardwired into being moral, mostly liability makes us be. Thus, companies were born, limited liability, no personal responsibility. Best of all worlds.
If your motto is "don't be evil" and India's rules require you to be evil, then you shouldn't want to play in India. Otherwise you're an evil hypocrite.
I'm writing an open letter to Google to suggest they change their slogan to "do no evil. wink, wink", so that worried Slashdotters worldwide may rest that the slogan reflects proper corporate behavior.
Seriously? We launch a gajillion dollar probe, chance it in a sling around the largest planet in our solar system to only save 3 years, and we get black and white photos that have more noise than my cell-phone's camera!?
This is how the first computers looked like. And this is how their "hard drives" looked like.
It was expensive as hell, and the returns were minimal. They dared to do it first, and to improve upon their experience, so today the neighbor kid can whine how he has to wait entire 7 seconds for his physically accurate and photo realistic 3D racing car simulator game to load the entire race track, complete with realistically behaving crowd, plants and atmospheric effects.
NASA reached Pluto with a remotely controlled probe deep in space. You ranted in Slashdot. Congratulations to both for your great achievements.
If dark matter makes up most of the mass in the universe, wouldn't the kind of matter we're familiar with be the abnormal kind?
No, because we, as sentient beings on planet Earth define what "normal matter" is. Universe doesn't care at all.
My point being, don't you begin thinking we're some sorta odd artifact in the universe. It's the wrong way to think about it. Not to mention I believe all this "dark matter" and "dark energy" scientists are looking for is a result of improper equations which make us believe it exists (I can be wrong, but my bias is towards: it doesn't exist).
Very large bodies don't behave according to Newton. Very small bodies behave according to the rules of quantum physics, so it's clear that one law doesn't regulate every case.
Don't forget that this "law" is simply an equation based on observable evidence. If it doesn't govern very large bodies, it simply means the equation is incomplete and missing one or more variables that start to matter at large scale.
But see, I want a solution that does involve me. Which obviously means it doesn't include people like you.
I should have known better than to talk about the environment with an asshat named "suv4x4".
People like me would measure the usefulness of those sonars versus the damage they may cause and decide for or against based on more information than "hey it could disturb some whales somewhat, so we're dropping everything".
It's always silly to pick on my nickname, btw.
I don't drive a suv just because my nick is "suv4x4". I in fact drive a bicycle made out of biodegradable materials that farts plant seed while I drive it.
And your nick is "drinkypoo". I don't even wanna imagine what you're doing in your free time, although it does seem ecofriendly as a matter of fact.
On a serious note, is not good for them to get lost, they are not on leisure travel they are going where the food is or where the mating will be.
And thus, a new race of hungry geek whales was born.
So if I meet you, I should fucking strangle you. If you can adapt and get out of it, then you can live. Otherwise, you should just choke because you're weaker.
Are people randomly mounting sonars hundreds of times more powerful than needed, and used for absolutely nothing, but "proving a point"? And am I defending this kind of abuse?
In which case, you can come and try to "fucking strangle" me, psychopath.
Right. We're going to restore the species we've driven to extinction. And then we're going to flap our arms and fly to the moon.
I don't see lions or butterflies crying for extinct rare kind of birds somewhere in Tasmania. I suppose we're the only beings able able to appreciate the fact, and then proceed to "fucking strangle" members of our own species, in ill-born attempt to "make things right".
It doesn't make sense, but hey!
If I shoot ten people, then save ten people's lives, is that a wash? Do I get neither a commendation nor incarceration? Or am I still a murderer?
Depends on how good your lawyer is.
Don't forget: law and morals are not equivalent. Furthermore, nature knows neither law, nor morals.
We're nature's greatest enemy. Nature is nature's greatest hope. We have already shown that it is possible and in fact even probable that genetic material can travel between planets without even choosing to.
Nature is nature's hope? Well you see what nature produced after hundreds of millions of years evolution: humans.
We're part of the effin nature. Or do you believe we came from Mars to invade poor nature or something? If tomorrow every single human being dies, and things are left "to run their course" for several hundred million years, do you think another intelligent species won't evolve? Do you think they won't have the same kind of struggles between preserving nature and progressing technology?
People's misdeeds are a path nature HAS to go through. It's better that we walk this path, make our mistakes, and learn from them, for a better future, otherwise nature is cursed to repeat all we did again, from scratch.
Some lost spieces are nothing in the big picture. It may be hard to understand this, but it IS the case. What humans need to do is evolve technology and culture fast, inhabit other planets, and learn genetics and robotics to perfection. We need to be stronger, we need to be more powerful. Who knows what problems await us 1000 years from now? Denying progress, and denying our rights to make mistakes and learn from them is denying our own ability to survive at some point.
If we simply killed every animal inconvenient to us, the ecosystem would collapse.
The ecosystem isn't something that just existed forever unchanged, and them we, idiots, came and collapsed it. Even if we disturbed ecosystem, given enough time, it'll find a new balance. This is proven mathematically and practically.
I thought it was stated that high intensity sonic pulses was VERY perjuditial to marine life, causing wheels to get lost and potentially killing small fishes
That'll send all the eco-friendly folk after me, but: we don't need whales. What are you using a whale for?
Species go extinct and come into existence every day. We're moving this process much faster, but it's still something to think about. It's not that the other animals care about people very much, does a mosquito think about the impact on human health before it injects us with infected blood?
Plus, think about it: dead small fish give food to other animals in the sea, and lost whales get to see new and exciting places they've never seen before. Maybe it's good for them.
Just another way to bombard marine life with Sonar. Can we please get out of this mentality that convinces us that using active sonar all day is a great idea?
There isn't a "mentality that convinces us that using active sonar all day is a great idea".
There's an actual use for running sonar all day long, and people use it.
If sharks, whales and whatever can emit signals to confuse our sonars in return, more power to them. But otherwise, the weaker should adapt. It's how evolution works and we're part of it.
That said, although we bring more damage to the environment, we're also those with most research knowledge and organization created to protect it. Who knows, maybe one day we'll not only repair the damage done by us, but also save nature from a natural disaster, like a huge meteor heading our way.
We're nature's greatest hope.
Plus, I've not heard yet of some shark organization for protecting people from becoming a shark meal. What's the deal with that. We gotta sue some sharks, so they learn.
Seems to me that this is the kind of unique idea that deserves a patent.
Unlike most software patents.
Are you "skilled in the art" of submarine signaling and GPS? Maybe those silly software patents look just as unique to submarine experts.