Posts by Anne Ominous 5 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Sep 2010
Christ. I don't remember who the author was, but I remember reading a story about adjusting the density of a human-transport balloon using mechanical compressors, when I was a child. And I don't mind saying that not only was that long ago, but the story had been written long before that. Verne maybe? I don't recall off-hand.
If they can pull it off with modern technology, great. But the suggestion that this is a "new' idea is just plain ludicrous.
Helium may be "abundant" in and around the earth, but CAPTIVE helium, in its pure molecular form, is difficult to isolate. Don't confuse the two.
The US used to have a vast reserve, created by government, that the government has since decided to sell off. The dumping of that reserve has ruined the market for helium in the US, which means that we aren't producing it anymore in sufficient quantities.
We could, but we aren't. Are you suggesting that we buy helium from Qatar or Australia? Before that is necessary, we could start producing it again ourselves. But right now, our reserves are low. Granted, government created the reserve in the first place, but government is currently spending that reserve in a way that destroys the market.
MAYBE that's not intentional. But these days, I don't like to assume.
It is not likely that you will encounter a sudden interface between two different areas of density, unless you hit a thermocline. And even then, if the density of your gasbag is itself evenly distributed, there is no reason that density, by itself, should nose you either up or down.
I do not dispute that the Akron was lost due to a tilted condition. But the idea that mere atmospheric density conditions caused it is not very likely, unless it was near-hurricane conditions, with sudden drops of pressure over a very few feet.
You can't expect any gasbag to survive near-hurricane conditions anyway. So the issue is moot.
Certainly, Sun's business was not doing well at the time, but that was largely due to the gradual decline in demand for the Sparc architecture. One could say that Sun was at fault there, but all they were really guilty of was putting their faith in Sparc, years ago.
But how do Oracle's actions reflect on Sun? Sun isn't responsible for Oracle's stupidity, so that hardly qualifies it for the "slow-witted" moniker.
Oracle, on the other hand, has repeatedly been cutting off its nose to spite its face. Their market percentage was already shrinking, and what do they do? Acquire Sun, then proceed to toss all the good stuff that Sun was doing -- and that people liked -- out the window.
So we have pretty darned strong evidence that Oracle has been very slow-witted. Sun, not so much.
I understand what some are saying about the name, but I still don't think it's really appropriate.
I was somewhat dismayed that the article called Sun "slow-witted", without seeing fit to mention the idiot moves Oracle has made in recent years. One of Sun's biggest problems was that the hardware demand simply moved away from its platform (in a way vaguely reminiscent of VHS vs. Betamax). Oracle, on the other hand, has simply been arrogant and domineering, and has been pissing everybody off.
Under the circumstances, if I were the Document Foundation breaking away from Oracle, I think I'd name it F*ckOffice.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
