No, you don't understand. The cluster was a bit sloppy about its financial mangement, maxed out the credit cards took out some unfortunate adjustable rate loans and eventually its financial situation became untenable. The banks grabbed the only remaining asset -- the gravity.
So here we are, orphaned, adrift and alone. An object lesson for all to observe...
I've been wondering for years why the hell I would want the devices in my household talking to each other? Or tor me? Do "they" think that I have a shortage of aggravation in my life or something?
I can't tell you when the last time was that I wanted my computer to control any aspect of the household -- because it has never happened. I doubt it ever will. That is not to say that the stove, coffee pot, TVs, and a few other things are not programmable. They are. But why do they need to be networked.
Maybe there is an exception. When the power comes back after a failure a couple of our VCRs pick the current time off the horizontal reset interval data on the local PBS station. I wouldn't mind if the stove, coffee pot, and other timed devices got the time from them instead of from me. But I think the chances that "They" will limit themselves to things like that are near zero. What they will doubtless do is confront me with all sorts of options I don't want, don't understand, and don't need, labelled with icons that make no sense whatsoever and instructions that are presented incomprehensibly in several major languages. Not only that, the devices will doubtless talk to me in a dulcet sweet female voice, and misunderstand any verbal instructions I care to give them -- including occasional pickups of casual conversation.
What I really don't need in my life is to deal with one more set of flaky technology. There's a word for people who think this stuff is nifty -- even after Windows, VCRs that no one can program, and cars that turn on a "The Sky Is Falling" light if the gas cap is loose. The phrase that encompasses them is "Slow-learners".
Welcome to the magic world of the Most Secure Windows Ever. Having spent an afternoon doing a completely unneccesary printer install of 21 MB of HP garbage on an XP Box, I'm not in all that charitable a mood. How (and why) people put up with that monstrosity eludes me. And why they would consider for even 3 seconds upgrading to Vista is an even bigger mystery... No matter -- different thread.
Anyway, the bot is getting started up somehow on boot. Finding it would likely be trivial for those of us using antiquated OSes like Windows 9. But there's a fair chance the HiJack_This will spot it even on XP.... Of course, you'll have to filter it out manually from the gazillion items of poorly documented, but quite possibly essential junk that are being started legitimately. But at least Hijack_This is something you can try.
***OMG, are you kidding? If it was NTFS or FAT, people on/. would be going crazy about it. It would be more famous than the BSoD.***
You have it nailed, bro. FAT -- by design -- rarely hoses files although it may tie up blocks of storage until they are released by CHKDSK/SCANDISK. Ext2 on the other hand will lose inodes if you cough while in the same room with the server. Try suggesting around here that FAT with umsdos just might be a better FS for a home Linux user with an older computer than ext2 and you'll be treated like you have three heads -- all ugly --and have just arrived from the Gamma Quadrant.
Fortunately, that's no longer an issue since ext3 is journalled and doesn't lose files. (NTFS is journalled also, but if you think I'm going to keep data I care about in a proprietary Microsoft FS...)
It appears to me that the UK did a far better job of introducing DTV than the US has. It's not that introducing DTV is all that complex. The problem is that when you have the rules made by incompetent 50 year old teenagers who think that free markets solve all problems, there is a high probability of a fiasco. Which is exactly what we seem to have in the US.
No, building a DTV to NTSC converter probably is not rocket science. In fact, satellite TV in the US uses converters that do exactly that. The problem looks to be that the DTV rollout in the US has been such a shambles that hardly anyone wants a converter. So no one builds them -- at least I come up with a blank every time I search for one. But the politicians can't realistically turn off analog TV broadcasting until DTV and cheap DTV converters are pretty much universally deployed.
Yes, the guys who planned and executed this rollout are idealogical cousins of the folks who planned the conversion of Iraq into a beacon of democracy. Why do you ask?
Eventually It'll all get sorted out. But not likely by 2009. I'm guessing 2012. But they may have to put adults in charge to do that -- which doesn't seem likely as no one seems to much care. So, maybe 2015 or so.
The original deadline was, in fact 2006. Missed that.
The next deadline is Jan 1, 2009. Onlycard-carrying fools (never in short supply) are certain that we will make that.
In point of fact, digital TV receivers remain quite expensive, and market penetration is minimal. That's partially because comparatively few TV stations have their digital transmitters on the air yet. And it turns out that digital TV coverage areas are smaller than an analog station in the same location with the same power. No small problem in fringe areas. And, oh yes, the fabled $15 converter box that will convert digital to NTSC for those of us who have six or eight NTSC TVs in the house doesn't exist. In fact, no converters seem to exist at any price. Moreover, many cable systems have no bandwidth for digital signals (or anything else) There were rumors that "they" would ban sales of new analog TVs in 2005. Didn't happen.
Anyone who really thinks our congressmen are going to cut off NTSC TV to tens of millions of voters before those problems largely work themselves out is fantasizing.
IMHO, This is mostly the result of "letting the market" dictate the future of US TV . What the market says is that hardly anyone wants DTV/HDTV. But that's an unacceptable answer because the feds want to peddle bandwith to generate revenue (an idea so eggregiously stupid that... Oh well, never mind...) DTV can get a bandwidth improvement of up to 6 over NTSC. But HDTV -- which is their poster child -- needs to transmit a lot of data and therefore requires the same bandwidth as HDTV. (Why does anyone think that foks want to spend thousands of dollars to get large screen, stunningly realistic, displays of something like 12 minutes an hour of prescription drug, beer and automobile commercials?)
Oh yeah, and if you put services on unused TV channels, where will you put new TV stations should anyone decide to build one?
***Wasn't that some product from a few years ago? I can't even remember what it did.***
It did anything you wanted. Imaginary products are like that.
I'm still waiting for Cairo. I believe that if they ever build it, it'll satisfy my computing needs for a decade or two. Assuming of course that the license allows me to install it.
Couldn't RTFA -- "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."
But, my limited experience is that this is combining two technologies that are decades away from being ready for prime time -- computer assisted translation and voice recognition -- and expecting the result to work.
I use Bablefish occasionally and the results are generally entertaining, but not very useful --- especially with Japanese which someone points out elsewhere presents many of the same problems as Arabic.
And I have never encountered a voice recognition system that worked worth a damn even after training. In this case, the software will not be trained to recognize one of the speakers who will very likely speak in a dialect, and will probably be under considerable stress. Unlikely to work often or well, I think.
If the software includes an automated phrase book, that may have some utility... at least until some 14 year old wangs the laptop with a brick. The merit of an automated phrasebook is that since it is just a mechanical parrot, you may be limited in what you can say, but at least you know it is pronounced right.
I've never really warmed to Apple for some reason That might have to do with recurrenet nightmares where I once again have to run a field office using Apple IIe's. Anyway, my general impression is that Mac users typically have to (or choose to) manage a lot more windows than do Windows users. If that is so, I wouldn't be suprised that a larger screen would help them. In fact, if what I think I've seen is really an accurate perception I wonder if 30 inches is big enough for Apple users with a complex task.
Anyway, as a mostly Windows/KDE guy, I don't see how a bigger screen can possibly cut more than a few seconds out of the job of moving files between folders in a Windows environment. Windows users usually have only one window displayed. Rarely two. I can't think offhand of a job that needs more. Unless you use a very carefully contrived test environment that deliberately impedes file selection I just can't see a major time savings... for Windows users. I did that very job every Saturday on a fuzzy 14 inch monitor for years to back up my database before I finally made up a.BAT file, It surely did not take me 30 seconds to open two windows, scroll to the file I needed to copy and drag it to the destination. Would a (non-fuzzy) 30 inch monitor have helped?. It might have cut 3 or 4 seconds or so off the job.
Cutting and Pasting cells in Excel? Yes. You can see more cells on a bigger screen. But it seems to me that the time saving is largely because of Excel's truly awful (and non-Microsoft-CUA compliant) handling of cut and paste. I doubt there would be that much saving in a better designed program that actually cut to the clipboard and left the data there. (Almost all programs are better designed if you ask me).
So, anyway, I have my doubts about this study's applicability to non-Mac users. I'd like to hear the opinion of folks that use both Windows and Macs.
Personally, I'm for closing the patent office, in an orderly fashion... over time... but shutting the whole mess down. Personally, I don't think that Intellectual Property other than trademark is a viable concept in a technologically advanced world.
It would seem that since Transmeta no longer makes CPUs, they are somewhat safe from the big gun defense in industrial patent wars -- being counter-sued for violating 116 Intel patents. But their patents can still be invalidated, and you can just bet that Intel will try.
Still, though, this is all kind of stupid and it is a bit hard to see how anyone other than a few lawyers benefits from this sort of stuff. If a patent is a license granted by government for the public good, why are we still issuing the damn things when they apparently no longer promote the public good?
***Whats the betting we would be there in under 12months?***
No argument that we'd be on our way within a year. Three will get you five that we'd end up someplace else, insist it was Mars, and end up neck deep in some sort of major difficulties.
***We have no rules of engagement that classify hacking as an act of war, so they can get away with it; what are we going to do, bomb them over it? They have the world's largest standing army, are a (increasingly) crucial economic partner, and we're already overburdened militarily with a two-front war where we've bogged down fighting insurgents. They do it because they know they can get away with it, and they're correct in that thinking.***
Moreover, I'll be suprised and mildly appalled if the NSA and CIA don't do the same and worse to any government computers that our enemies, friends, and those in between unwisely connect to the Internet. I mean... that'd be their job would it not?
***US either better bomb this guy back to the Stone Age, or else be prepared to have nukes floating all around the world.***
It's a pleasure to welcome you to Slashdot Dr Kissinger. Without your sage advice we might never have won in Vietnam.... No, I'm not being sarcastic. Your strategy did bring success did it not? I mean why would you and those you advise continue to advocate the use of force rather than diplomacy if it had failed there?
Anyway, I do have one question. If we bomb the bejezus out of North Korea, what will be the fate of the 35000 American hostages we have cleverly placed in South Korea near the North Korean border?... "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" Got it. Thank you sir.
***Then I suggest you give the Norm Internationale - IEC 61058, a read! It's a favourite of mine...***
That sounded interesting so I tried to find it on line. IEC 61058 seems to be a specification for electrical switches. '"Norm Internationale" IEC 61058' draws a total blank at Google. Are you sure that's the correct reference?
What they seem to have done is run a bunch of software through some sort of automatic bug checker that may or may not be a a pile of manure, identified the "best" product which chances to be what the military would call mission critical proprietary software. Then they proclaim that open source isn't as good (Duh) and doesn't meet their high standards.
What they have not done is compare comperable projects -- IE to Firefox, Open Office to MS Office, Windows to OS-X to Linux-KDE. There is, as far as I know, no Open Source software product that is really intended for mission critical applications -- I guess maybe SSH might qualify, but I don't see it in their list.
So, I think what we have here is a comparison of Apples to Turnips using a dubiously calibrated error-o-graph machine that uses an unknown technology to perform undefined tests on software.
Don't get me wrong. I sure as hell wouldn't run a nuclear power plant with Linux-X-Windows-whatever. Nor with Windows -- neither Windows 9 nor NT based Windows. They don't meet my admittedly subjective standards of quality either. But if we waited for near perfect software quality, we'd still be trying to get text mode right. Personally, I 'd vote for that because I think building major structures on weak foundations will likely lead to big trouble a decade or three out, but I think I'd lose that vote about 93 to 1 with maybe 6 abstensions.
OK folks, now don't panic, but it is time to execute your preplanned exit strategy from Microsoft. Walk. Do not Run. Walk to your previously planned exit and calmly depart Windows. There is nothing to worry about here. The ship really is sinking, but it'll take quite a while. Heck, even the rats haven't left yet.
Eh? What's that? You don't have an exit strategy? My God man, have you been paying no attention at all for the last four years? You've slept through all the warnings? You didn't think through XP Registration and where it was headed? You slept right through WGA? Maybe you should panic. Best get cracking on a plan. The rest of you slow down, take your time BUT GET THE HELL OFF THIS SHIP BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO STILL BE HERE IN FIVE YEARS
Did Gold predict methane on Mars? Most likely. He's predicted it just about everywhere else. Mostly, he's been wrong. One can make a pretty good case that if you shoot enough arrows you're bound to hit something occasionally.
***I feel it is of vital importance to a healthy political system to have a strong independant news source that is funded by public money outside of governmental/corporate control. Do you have one in the USA that i'm not aware of?***
There is a Public Television Network that is mostly paid for be contributions from corporations. It's specialty is tedious programming, but its news reporting is (marginally) better than the commercial networks.
And there is National Public Radio -- a consortium of stations whose major source of income is listener contributions. It's actually pretty good much of the time including a one hour show once a week dealing with the often gallows humor in current events called "Wait, wait... don't tell Me". It's often hilariously funny. NPR is certainly the closest thing to a decent news source available to Americans or Radio/TV... other than the Daily Show of course.
There are also two cable TV networks -- CSPAN and CSPAN2 -- that cover the two houses of Congress. They are mostly pretty dull, but CSPAN2 does half hour and hour lectures from book authors on weekends that are often worth watching. CSPAN is carried by most cable networks to help meet the FCC public interest programming requirements.
I infer that you are British? Would it be unfair to point out that your strong independent news reporting did every bit as lousy a job with the monumental Bush-Blair blunder of invading Iraq as the pathetic US news services did? (Maybe what we all need is for someone to read the two most controversial articles from the Guardian on TV every night). I might add that the Canadian National News -- which meets your criteria -- isn't all that much better than the US bunglers.
***> When was the last time you saw actual analysis and comparisons of a politician's statements on a regular news program.
When Bill Clinton was president.***
Seems to me that they did a pretty good job of covering Hurricane Katrina.... For about a week. Which demonstrates that they CAN do news if they choose to do so. The question is why they chose to cover only one story well in the past 30 years..
My impression is that 10kg is something the USAF came up with from some existing (probably nefarious) scheme, not the maximum or average size of the payload. But, you're right the costs don't seem large enough to cover the cost of the ring which surely must be in the billions. And I'm right. They drop too quickly with additional launches not to.
Compared to half a billion per launch for the misbegotten Space Shuttle and probably not much less for its manned successors (no matter what its advocates claim today), I don't see cost as that much of a problem. And getting stuff to orbit cheap is the key to serious space exploration even if people can't ride it. But the problems look to be huge. I suspect that getting rid of heat from atmospheric friction is going to be harder than it looks. This launcher is going to generate heat during the acceleration period as well as in flight. Unlike incoming objects, it will be going fastest in the thickest part of the atmosphere. There is also the fact that if anything goes even a little bit wrong during acceleration, they're going to launch a substantial mass at 10-20 times the speed of a bullet in a random direction. The maintenance costs are possibly going to be high. Maybe their numbers cover only combat pay for the operators and cost of lawsuits from people whose houses get picked off by errant satellites.
***What's the bet that, like most estimates of this kind, it ignores the cost of building the ring to start with...***
I'll bet a six pack on that. It'd be hard to explain the rapidly dropping cost per kg with number of launches without assuming that they are amortizing a whopping initial cost.
If we make a bet are we engaged in Internet Gambling? Can they ship us to Guantanamo if they catch us?
***I know there's a relationship between bird migration and magnetic fields, too, as a lot of them blindly smack into the brick walls at a local MRI center.***
Birds, for the most part, are not noted fot their intellect. Thence the expression 'birdbrain'.
You're probably right that migrating birds orient on magnetic fields -- but that probably doesn't mean that they fly straight toward magnets. A couple of years ago, someone subjected birds to strong magnetic fields and determined that they actually orient on sunrise to get direction, then fly on the magnetic bearing they need to get to where they want to go. That, presumably, is why all migrating birds do not converge on the magnetic poles when they migrate.
***What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?***
Nothing much except for few small sets of users. For those who want to understand Unix, it offers a straightforward system. For those who can't burn/boot CDROM, it offers a UMSDOS based subset ZIPslack that can be installed via network or even via floppies (lot of them) from MSDOS on a FAT32 drive.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
It's comprehensible and pretty much mainstream Unix.
==========
I suspect that Slackware is popular with those who couldn't care less about GUIs and just want to build custom servers of one sort or another that work. Before I retired, I had Slackware 9 running on a 486SX33 that backed up the Netware files on a big hard drive every night. It was vastly more reliable than the DLT tape drive in the Netware Server, and infinitely easier to restore files from than (explitives deleted) BACKUP EXEC..
Exactly why anyone would think that the SAT essay test is a valid test of anything other than possibly of spelling and basic grammar skills eludes me. Using a subjectively graded test as a decision maker for college entry is bizarre beyond belief. While it may TEST writing ability, there is no possible way that it can QUANTIFY or RANK writing ability. It ought to be obvious to anyone who has read or written more than three essays that essay tests can not be scored for writing quality in any objective fashion.
We used to know that. What we have here looks to me like a symptom of national Alzheimers in the US. Doing dumb things without once questioning whether they will work. A sort of group "Hey, watch this" thing. One wonders if alien terrorists have put stupid pills in our drinking water.
Anyway, on the Codger really bad idea scale which runs from -10 (Invading Iraq, The Windows Registry, Prohibition) to -1 (allowing prescription drugs to be advertised on TV), SAT essay tests seem to me to be about a -7. They are roughly equivalent to letting a blind man judge the winner of a horse race by listening to a defective recording of the horses' hoofbeats made 20 meters from the finish line. They are unlikely to tell us one meaningful thing about the writing skills of either High School seniors or of bloggers.
And no, I'm not the only person that thinks these tests are a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
So here we are, orphaned, adrift and alone. An object lesson for all to observe ...
I can't tell you when the last time was that I wanted my computer to control any aspect of the household -- because it has never happened. I doubt it ever will. That is not to say that the stove, coffee pot, TVs, and a few other things are not programmable. They are. But why do they need to be networked.
Maybe there is an exception. When the power comes back after a failure a couple of our VCRs pick the current time off the horizontal reset interval data on the local PBS station. I wouldn't mind if the stove, coffee pot, and other timed devices got the time from them instead of from me. But I think the chances that "They" will limit themselves to things like that are near zero. What they will doubtless do is confront me with all sorts of options I don't want, don't understand, and don't need, labelled with icons that make no sense whatsoever and instructions that are presented incomprehensibly in several major languages. Not only that, the devices will doubtless talk to me in a dulcet sweet female voice, and misunderstand any verbal instructions I care to give them -- including occasional pickups of casual conversation.
What I really don't need in my life is to deal with one more set of flaky technology. There's a word for people who think this stuff is nifty -- even after Windows, VCRs that no one can program, and cars that turn on a "The Sky Is Falling" light if the gas cap is loose. The phrase that encompasses them is "Slow-learners".
Anyway, the bot is getting started up somehow on boot. Finding it would likely be trivial for those of us using antiquated OSes like Windows 9. But there's a fair chance the HiJack_This will spot it even on XP. ... Of course, you'll have to filter it out manually from the gazillion items of poorly documented, but quite possibly essential junk that are being started legitimately. But at least Hijack_This is something you can try.
You have it nailed, bro. FAT -- by design -- rarely hoses files although it may tie up blocks of storage until they are released by CHKDSK/SCANDISK. Ext2 on the other hand will lose inodes if you cough while in the same room with the server. Try suggesting around here that FAT with umsdos just might be a better FS for a home Linux user with an older computer than ext2 and you'll be treated like you have three heads -- all ugly --and have just arrived from the Gamma Quadrant.
Fortunately, that's no longer an issue since ext3 is journalled and doesn't lose files. (NTFS is journalled also, but if you think I'm going to keep data I care about in a proprietary Microsoft FS ...)
No, building a DTV to NTSC converter probably is not rocket science. In fact, satellite TV in the US uses converters that do exactly that. The problem looks to be that the DTV rollout in the US has been such a shambles that hardly anyone wants a converter. So no one builds them -- at least I come up with a blank every time I search for one. But the politicians can't realistically turn off analog TV broadcasting until DTV and cheap DTV converters are pretty much universally deployed.
Yes, the guys who planned and executed this rollout are idealogical cousins of the folks who planned the conversion of Iraq into a beacon of democracy. Why do you ask?
Eventually It'll all get sorted out. But not likely by 2009. I'm guessing 2012. But they may have to put adults in charge to do that -- which doesn't seem likely as no one seems to much care. So, maybe 2015 or so.
The next deadline is Jan 1, 2009. Onlycard-carrying fools (never in short supply) are certain that we will make that.
In point of fact, digital TV receivers remain quite expensive, and market penetration is minimal. That's partially because comparatively few TV stations have their digital transmitters on the air yet. And it turns out that digital TV coverage areas are smaller than an analog station in the same location with the same power. No small problem in fringe areas. And, oh yes, the fabled $15 converter box that will convert digital to NTSC for those of us who have six or eight NTSC TVs in the house doesn't exist. In fact, no converters seem to exist at any price. Moreover, many cable systems have no bandwidth for digital signals (or anything else) There were rumors that "they" would ban sales of new analog TVs in 2005. Didn't happen.
Anyone who really thinks our congressmen are going to cut off NTSC TV to tens of millions of voters before those problems largely work themselves out is fantasizing.
IMHO, This is mostly the result of "letting the market" dictate the future of US TV . What the market says is that hardly anyone wants DTV/HDTV. But that's an unacceptable answer because the feds want to peddle bandwith to generate revenue (an idea so eggregiously stupid that ... Oh well, never mind ...) DTV can get a bandwidth improvement of up to 6 over NTSC. But HDTV -- which is their poster child -- needs to transmit a lot of data and therefore requires the same bandwidth as HDTV. (Why does anyone think that foks want to spend thousands of dollars to get large screen, stunningly realistic, displays of something like 12 minutes an hour of prescription drug, beer and automobile commercials?)
Oh yeah, and if you put services on unused TV channels, where will you put new TV stations should anyone decide to build one?
It did anything you wanted. Imaginary products are like that.
I'm still waiting for Cairo. I believe that if they ever build it, it'll satisfy my computing needs for a decade or two. Assuming of course that the license allows me to install it.
CIOs have minds? Who knew?
But, my limited experience is that this is combining two technologies that are decades away from being ready for prime time -- computer assisted translation and voice recognition -- and expecting the result to work.
I use Bablefish occasionally and the results are generally entertaining, but not very useful --- especially with Japanese which someone points out elsewhere presents many of the same problems as Arabic.
And I have never encountered a voice recognition system that worked worth a damn even after training. In this case, the software will not be trained to recognize one of the speakers who will very likely speak in a dialect, and will probably be under considerable stress. Unlikely to work often or well, I think.
If the software includes an automated phrase book, that may have some utility ... at least until some 14 year old wangs the laptop with a brick. The merit of an automated phrasebook is that since it is just a mechanical parrot, you may be limited in what you can say, but at least you know it is pronounced right.
Anyway, as a mostly Windows/KDE guy, I don't see how a bigger screen can possibly cut more than a few seconds out of the job of moving files between folders in a Windows environment. Windows users usually have only one window displayed. Rarely two. I can't think offhand of a job that needs more. Unless you use a very carefully contrived test environment that deliberately impedes file selection I just can't see a major time savings ... for Windows users. I did that very job every Saturday on a fuzzy 14 inch monitor for years to back up my database before I finally made up a .BAT file, It surely did not take me 30 seconds to open two windows, scroll to the file I needed to copy and drag it to the destination. Would a (non-fuzzy) 30 inch monitor have helped?. It might have cut 3 or 4 seconds or so off the job.
Cutting and Pasting cells in Excel? Yes. You can see more cells on a bigger screen. But it seems to me that the time saving is largely because of Excel's truly awful (and non-Microsoft-CUA compliant) handling of cut and paste. I doubt there would be that much saving in a better designed program that actually cut to the clipboard and left the data there. (Almost all programs are better designed if you ask me).
So, anyway, I have my doubts about this study's applicability to non-Mac users. I'd like to hear the opinion of folks that use both Windows and Macs.
It would seem that since Transmeta no longer makes CPUs, they are somewhat safe from the big gun defense in industrial patent wars -- being counter-sued for violating 116 Intel patents. But their patents can still be invalidated, and you can just bet that Intel will try.
Still, though, this is all kind of stupid and it is a bit hard to see how anyone other than a few lawyers benefits from this sort of stuff. If a patent is a license granted by government for the public good, why are we still issuing the damn things when they apparently no longer promote the public good?
No argument that we'd be on our way within a year. Three will get you five that we'd end up someplace else, insist it was Mars, and end up neck deep in some sort of major difficulties.
Moreover, I'll be suprised and mildly appalled if the NSA and CIA don't do the same and worse to any government computers that our enemies, friends, and those in between unwisely connect to the Internet. I mean ... that'd be their job would it not?
It's a pleasure to welcome you to Slashdot Dr Kissinger. Without your sage advice we might never have won in Vietnam. ... No, I'm not being sarcastic. Your strategy did bring success did it not? I mean why would you and those you advise continue to advocate the use of force rather than diplomacy if it had failed there?
Anyway, I do have one question. If we bomb the bejezus out of North Korea, what will be the fate of the 35000 American hostages we have cleverly placed in South Korea near the North Korean border? ... "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" Got it. Thank you sir.
That sounded interesting so I tried to find it on line. IEC 61058 seems to be a specification for electrical switches. '"Norm Internationale" IEC 61058' draws a total blank at Google. Are you sure that's the correct reference?
What they have not done is compare comperable projects -- IE to Firefox, Open Office to MS Office, Windows to OS-X to Linux-KDE. There is, as far as I know, no Open Source software product that is really intended for mission critical applications -- I guess maybe SSH might qualify, but I don't see it in their list.
So, I think what we have here is a comparison of Apples to Turnips using a dubiously calibrated error-o-graph machine that uses an unknown technology to perform undefined tests on software.
Don't get me wrong. I sure as hell wouldn't run a nuclear power plant with Linux-X-Windows-whatever. Nor with Windows -- neither Windows 9 nor NT based Windows. They don't meet my admittedly subjective standards of quality either. But if we waited for near perfect software quality, we'd still be trying to get text mode right. Personally, I 'd vote for that because I think building major structures on weak foundations will likely lead to big trouble a decade or three out, but I think I'd lose that vote about 93 to 1 with maybe 6 abstensions.
Eh? What's that? You don't have an exit strategy? My God man, have you been paying no attention at all for the last four years? You've slept through all the warnings? You didn't think through XP Registration and where it was headed? You slept right through WGA? Maybe you should panic. Best get cracking on a plan. The rest of you slow down, take your time BUT GET THE HELL OFF THIS SHIP BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO STILL BE HERE IN FIVE YEARS
Did Gold predict methane on Mars? Most likely. He's predicted it just about everywhere else. Mostly, he's been wrong. One can make a pretty good case that if you shoot enough arrows you're bound to hit something occasionally.
There is a Public Television Network that is mostly paid for be contributions from corporations. It's specialty is tedious programming, but its news reporting is (marginally) better than the commercial networks.
And there is National Public Radio -- a consortium of stations whose major source of income is listener contributions. It's actually pretty good much of the time including a one hour show once a week dealing with the often gallows humor in current events called "Wait, wait ... don't tell Me". It's often hilariously funny. NPR is certainly the closest thing to a decent news source available to Americans or Radio/TV ... other than the Daily Show of course.
There are also two cable TV networks -- CSPAN and CSPAN2 -- that cover the two houses of Congress. They are mostly pretty dull, but CSPAN2 does half hour and hour lectures from book authors on weekends that are often worth watching. CSPAN is carried by most cable networks to help meet the FCC public interest programming requirements.
I infer that you are British? Would it be unfair to point out that your strong independent news reporting did every bit as lousy a job with the monumental Bush-Blair blunder of invading Iraq as the pathetic US news services did? (Maybe what we all need is for someone to read the two most controversial articles from the Guardian on TV every night). I might add that the Canadian National News -- which meets your criteria -- isn't all that much better than the US bunglers.
When Bill Clinton was president.***
Seems to me that they did a pretty good job of covering Hurricane Katrina. ... For about a week. Which demonstrates that they CAN do news if they choose to do so. The question is why they chose to cover only one story well in the past 30 years..
Compared to half a billion per launch for the misbegotten Space Shuttle and probably not much less for its manned successors (no matter what its advocates claim today), I don't see cost as that much of a problem. And getting stuff to orbit cheap is the key to serious space exploration even if people can't ride it. But the problems look to be huge. I suspect that getting rid of heat from atmospheric friction is going to be harder than it looks. This launcher is going to generate heat during the acceleration period as well as in flight. Unlike incoming objects, it will be going fastest in the thickest part of the atmosphere. There is also the fact that if anything goes even a little bit wrong during acceleration, they're going to launch a substantial mass at 10-20 times the speed of a bullet in a random direction. The maintenance costs are possibly going to be high. Maybe their numbers cover only combat pay for the operators and cost of lawsuits from people whose houses get picked off by errant satellites.
I'll bet a six pack on that. It'd be hard to explain the rapidly dropping cost per kg with number of launches without assuming that they are amortizing a whopping initial cost.
If we make a bet are we engaged in Internet Gambling? Can they ship us to Guantanamo if they catch us?
Birds, for the most part, are not noted fot their intellect. Thence the expression 'birdbrain'.
You're probably right that migrating birds orient on magnetic fields -- but that probably doesn't mean that they fly straight toward magnets. A couple of years ago, someone subjected birds to strong magnetic fields and determined that they actually orient on sunrise to get direction, then fly on the magnetic bearing they need to get to where they want to go. That, presumably, is why all migrating birds do not converge on the magnetic poles when they migrate.
Nothing much except for few small sets of users. For those who want to understand Unix, it offers a straightforward system. For those who can't burn/boot CDROM, it offers a UMSDOS based subset ZIPslack that can be installed via network or even via floppies (lot of them) from MSDOS on a FAT32 drive.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
It's comprehensible and pretty much mainstream Unix.
==========
I suspect that Slackware is popular with those who couldn't care less about GUIs and just want to build custom servers of one sort or another that work. Before I retired, I had Slackware 9 running on a 486SX33 that backed up the Netware files on a big hard drive every night. It was vastly more reliable than the DLT tape drive in the Netware Server, and infinitely easier to restore files from than (explitives deleted) BACKUP EXEC..
We used to know that. What we have here looks to me like a symptom of national Alzheimers in the US. Doing dumb things without once questioning whether they will work. A sort of group "Hey, watch this" thing. One wonders if alien terrorists have put stupid pills in our drinking water.
Anyway, on the Codger really bad idea scale which runs from -10 (Invading Iraq, The Windows Registry, Prohibition) to -1 (allowing prescription drugs to be advertised on TV), SAT essay tests seem to me to be about a -7. They are roughly equivalent to letting a blind man judge the winner of a horse race by listening to a defective recording of the horses' hoofbeats made 20 meters from the finish line. They are unlikely to tell us one meaningful thing about the writing skills of either High School seniors or of bloggers.
And no, I'm not the only person that thinks these tests are a joke.