On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
They say this is an open system, which has the advantage of putting the
user in control. Why would it not also put the hacker in control?
Look at Wikipedia. It is of high quality despite public control. Someone
might
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote on 7-9-09:
What's Chrome got? Lovely UI.
What's it missing? Cookie control!!
You get better tracking cookie control with IE than you do
with Chrome! Unless Google has changed this, the concept
of arbitrarily limiting cookie lifetimes to the life of
the session
Aside from the fact that you have to be an idiot to install major system
components of unknown provenance
Yeah. I do tech support. The amount of such things
and, you dont find hacked versions of open office becuase, since its
free, everyone downloads it from the main company. but i have
Alexander Hollins wrote:
and, you dont find hacked versions of open office becuase, since its
free, everyone downloads it from the main company.
I assume that people will download the Google operating system from
Google only. I also assume that Google will have iron-clad control
over the
well, if its open source, then by definition, anyone can edit it and
recompile their own version.
and, they DO intend to charge for it. Its not going to be free. No
matter how cheap they make it, that means people will pirate it.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Jed
Alexander Hollins wrote:
well, if its open source, then by definition, anyone can edit it and
recompile their own version.
The term open source has different meanings. Thirty years ago it
meant that the source code is published, not that anyone could modify
it. Obviously that was impossible
well, if the code is published, then you can modify, even if you have
to retype from print and work from there, yes? Its just more work and
you have to know what youre doing.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alexander Hollins wrote:
well, if its open
Edmund Storms wrote:
And thus we see the basic flaw in wind generation. Unless a backup
source of power is in place and can be connected to an active grid,
wind power is not practical.
You can use an intermediate stage as energy storage. Why not produce
Hidrogen with wind (and solar) power,
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
And thus we see the basic flaw in wind generation. Unless a backup
source of power is in place and can be connected to an active grid,
wind power is not practical.
You can use an intermediate stage as energy storage. Why not produce
These are all good ideas that have been explored. However, turning an
idea into a practical solution to a problem involving megawatts of
power and billions of dollars takes a lot of time and capital, which
is not available. The issue is not the lack of ideas but the ability
to put them
Jones Beene wrote:
Steve Krivit put up a provocative and insightful video on YouTube that
has gone almost unnoticed:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0feature=channel_page_
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0feature=channel_page
It centers on the Frascatti results, and the
Jones Beene wrote:
It gives us that window of opportunity, one or two years, to provide
the technical “miracle” breakthrough in alternative energy which is
what we really need to maintain the way of life we treasure so much,
and which has been threatened by this stupid dependence on foreign
Not sure if this has article has already been brought to the
Collective's attention or not:
From Daily Tech:
New Nanopillar Solar Cells Promise One-Third of Current Costs
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Nanopillar+Solar+Cells+Promise+OneThird+of+Current+Costs/article15600.htm
Orionworks sez:
Not sure if this has article has already been brought to the
Collective's attention or not:
From Daily Tech:
New Nanopillar Solar Cells Promise One-Third of Current Costs
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Nanopillar+Solar+Cells+Promise+OneThird+of+Current+Costs/article15600.htm
What level of reduced prosperity do you aspire to, and how much higher than
that are you living now? Will you be downgrading to the use of a library
computer?
What standard of living do you wish to apply to the rest of us?
Should working hard to get ahead be a crime?
Jeff
-Original
Alexander Hollins wrote:
well, if the code is published, then you can modify, even if you have
to retype from print and work from there, yes? Its just more work and
you have to know what youre doing.
Sure. For that matter you can use a reverse compiler and find out how
Microsoft Windows
I sometimes wonder if, after the decline of organized religions influence, the
same human emotions remain - especially guilt. So, people adopt religious
behavior in regard to the environment or carbon trading or whatever.
There are reasons for poverty in the world and corruption and bad
well, when you consider that there was a virus out there that
redirected your microsoft update to their servers, allowing them to
make you download updates that look like microsoft's.
And theres the current websites that redirect you to what looks like
microsofts site unless you look mildly
Chris Zell wrote:
Why should we condemn consumers for wanting a good home, a safe
useful car or the ability to support their families? The idea that
we are somehow 'stealing' too much of the world's resources so as to
impoverish the rest is nonsense. If we all stop eating meat, it
won't add
Alexander Hollins wrote:
well, when you consider that there was a virus out there that
redirected your microsoft update to their servers, allowing them to
make you download updates that look like microsoft's.
And theres the current websites that redirect you to what looks like
microsofts site
Jeff Fink wrote:
What level of reduced prosperity do you aspire to, and how much higher than
that are you living now? Will you be downgrading to the use of a library
computer?
Absolutely not. The problem is not how well we live or can afford to
live, but instead at which social and
Jed Rothwell wrote:
The number of bugs in a software package decreases at first
and then increases, inexorably, to the point where the software becomes
unusable.
Can you name an example where this has happened?
I can't think of one.
This sounds like the old theory of evolutionary
Edmund Storms wrote:
These are all good ideas that have been explored. However, turning an
idea into a practical solution to a problem involving megawatts of
power and billions of dollars takes a lot of time and capital, which
is not available. The issue is not the lack of ideas but the
Jeff Fink wrote:
What standard of living do you wish to apply to the rest of us?
I favor vastly improved standards of living by applying new
technology and common sense. See Arthur Clarke, Profiles of the
Future for details. Especially chapter 12. As I mentioned, I want
everyone to have
Jed, I agree with all what you said below.
The problem is mostly economic, as the economic system is today a
superstructure of the politic system. You cannot sustain an economy and
a social system on irrational and innecessary consumption, and its
associated exponential growth as a goal. Both are
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
The cars are decades ahead of ours; washing
machines and other gadgets are superbly engineered and last for decades; and
the everyday food you buy from the 7-11 on the way home tastes better than
American gourmet
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The number of bugs in a software package decreases at first
and then increases, inexorably, to the point where the software becomes
unusable.
Can you name an example where this has happened?
It has happened to every software package I ever wrote which remained
Its the reason why any software package older than 5 years is up to
version 4 or 5 or 12 by now. each new number is a built from scratch
variant, to avoid just those problems.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The number of
Alexander Hollins wrote:
Its the reason why any software package older than 5 years is up to
version 4 or 5 or 12 by now. each new number is a built from scratch
variant, to avoid just those problems.
Was this intended as a joke? It's certainly not true.
Just asking.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
The number of bugs in a software package decreases at first
and then increases, inexorably, to the point where the software becomes
unusable.
Can you name an example where this has happened?
It has happened to every software package I
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
You could claim, of course, that
Windows NT was a rewrite of the old Windows OS and so it isn't as old
as it looks . . .
That is exactly what Brooks (and I) have in mind. You have to go back
to square one and write the whole thing over again. That does not
mean
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Emacs, Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, OpenOffice, MS
Word -- would you claim that any of these have
simply been left to sit on a shelf, and that's
why they haven't become so buggy they can't be used?
I meant just the opposite. They have been
maintained, which is why MS
Jed Rothwell wrote:
I gather the operating system for Apple computers has been rewritten
from scratch more often than Windows
Only if Windows has been rewritten from scratch -1 times.
I've been in the Apple code. It's still based on BSD. (I was going to
cut out a few pieces as exhibits
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Emacs, Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, OpenOffice, MS Word -- would you claim
that any of these have simply been left to sit on a shelf, and that's
why they haven't become so buggy they can't be used?
I meant just the opposite. They have been
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
They have been maintained, which is why MS
Word (for example) is so buggy it can barely be used for some
operations, such as multiple-chapter books with include files and
endnotes for each chapter.
Horse pucky.
It could *NEVER* be used for those things -- they're
Plural of virus can't be virii, virii could only be the plural of
virius (as in radius, radii) if such a noun existed. Viri would seem
more plausible but is also incorrect. Plural of virus is simply
viruses, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us#Virus
Michel
Word Perfect, Word Perfect, wherefor art thou?
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Economics is called the dismal science for a good reason.
If we gave up meat or any other resource, the price of said commodity would
indeed drop - temporarily. Once the farmers understood that their market had
disappeared, they would liquidate their herds. After that, meat ( or whatever
OrionWorks wrote:
Word Perfect, Word Perfect, wherefor art thou?
I was forced to give it up, reluctantly, because:
It did not work with Japanese.
People sent me papers in MS Word format.
That's an interesting illustration of the complexity and widespread
use that gave Microsoft market
Subscribers got the link last week...For the rest of you...
EDITORIALS AND OPINION
1.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#FROMEDFrom the
Editor: Nuclear but Not Fusion
2. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#TOEDTo
the Editor
NEWS AND
Chris Zell wrote:
If we gave up meat or any other resource, the price of said
commodity would indeed drop - temporarily. Once the farmers
understood that their market had disappeared, they would liquidate
their herds. After that, meat ( or whatever the dismissed commodity
was ) would go up
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Emacs, Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, OpenOffice, MS Word -- would you
claim that any of these have simply been left to sit on a shelf,
and that's why they haven't become so buggy they can't be used?
I meant just the
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
You could claim, of course, that
Windows NT was a rewrite of the old Windows OS and so it isn't as
old
as it looks . . .
That is exactly what Brooks (and I) have in mind. You have to go
back to square one and
One comment on The Letter to the Editor from John Sutherland - Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada.
It raises a point that should be clarified. He may be unaware that we can
tolerate mention of Randell Mills or Blacklight Power here.
Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR,
Edmund Storms wrote:
I have heard that Apple is more ruthless about backward compatibility.
Microsoft cannot afford to be, because if the new Windows does not work with
old hardware, people will eventually throw away their hardware and buy a
Mac!
I don't know what you mean about ruthless.
The New York Times has an editorial about the Google OS. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/opinion/09thur4.html?_r=1ref=opinion
That shows how important computers have become, and how enmeshed they are in
our lives. Not many years ago the Times editorial page would not have known
what an
This could be of interest to some:
The bump on the chart of slide 6 of this PPT document is residual D2
http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/link%20spettrometria.ppt
The instrument used here is state of the art, and in a system with perhaps a
7 figure price tag, but it is easily possible
On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
I have heard that Apple is more ruthless about backward
compatibility. Microsoft cannot afford to be, because if the new
Windows does not work with old hardware, people will eventually
throw away their hardware and buy
However, the fact is that as cars get older, Sha'ken becomes more and more
expensive. Eventually, if the car stops running well or reaches a certain age
(even though it's still a good car), you may have to pay a fee just to get rid
of it. This is the reason why there are so few older cars in
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
I have heard that Apple is more ruthless about backward
compatibility. Microsoft cannot afford to be, because if the new
Windows does not work with old hardware, people will eventually
throw away their hardware
50 matches
Mail list logo
