But lets be careful not to think of people such as Mitnick as not 'being' criminals even though punishment may be disproportional relative to other crimes. We should take a look at it, but that doesn't mean that we should apologize for punishing them. After all, Mitnick for example, did many petty things and deserved punishment, though I believe it was not a reasonable amount.
The experiment is known as Schrodinger's (spelling?) Cat Experiment. Simply stated, there is no such thing as a binary condition. The experiment is you put a cat in a box and close the lid. You can't hear the cat or know anything more of its presence than that it is in the box. Simple logic states that the cat can either be alive or dead. But this is not true. The cat is neither alive or dead, it is both. At least that is until you observe it, then it is forced into being alive or being dead. This may sound absurd, and it definately takes some getting used to to think in this form of logic, but it is true. The same thing applies to the idea of 'information' transfer. If you have two particles, one of positive charge, and the other negative and seperate them in a 'system' that has a null effective charge such that they can't affect each other (say for example light-years away) and then one flips charge, the other will do so 'instantaneously' (I use this term loosely) or at least faster than the speed of light. Since another particle would have been needed to 'force' the particle into a different state and since that particle would have been restrained by special relativety not to go faster than the speed of light only two conditions that I know of could exist: either the particles were swapped or the system itself exerted a 'force' on the other particle. The first one implies that space 'warped' to move the particles and the second comes down eventually to entropy balance. Myself I think BOTH are true.
This is true of one object relative to another, but NOT true relative to the geometry. The idea is that if you tweak the geometry correct you can do both 1 and 2 as time is just another dimension to the geometry. But it involves special conditions.
One example, that is popularly commented on, is the idea of a very large cylinder spinning at very high 'speeds'. In fact the 'speed' that it is spinning approaches the speed of light. Now at this point if the object is moving at some velocity relative to another it will be less than the speed of light. But the geometry does not and in many cases exceeds the speed of light.
Now lets add a little more complication. Since the hypothetical particle, the graviton, defines geometry in one sense. Or as people who study cosmology say 'Space tells matter how to move but matter tells space how to curve'. Since the graviton is the conveyor of the hypothetical Higgs field but since it is itself not attached to the Higgs field (presumably) the question arises: Can a graviton travel faster than the speed of light? If so what is its speed? Instantaneous? Unlikely. But then again, I will describe.
'You' may not go back in time, but particles, or hypothetical 'strings' do. They exist partially in positive time and partially in negative. Its tough to describe and I won't even try. Now comes the question do gravitons exist partially in negative time. From these thoughts, theories, and hypotheses, it seems that the idea of a 'warp' engine is very possible. It also seems possible that you might exert some sort of effect into brief moments of the past. All that I can say is that cosmology is never a boring subject.
An embeded web browser IS a bad thing! Especially if you don't want to use it. Why would a 486 Linux fileserver (for example) need to have all that bloat. You could say don't start X, but that is beside the point. The web browser SHOULD be seperate and be able to be turned off if you don't want it.
Lets just do some quick logical thought. You are saying that in certain implementations it is a GOOD thing to have a program sitting in memory that you don't need. Am I confused or are you just INSANE?
It is utter bullshit to say that you should have to get more RAM for a embedded program that you don't need. Why is it that we should upgrade computers every other year to accomidate the software that does little more than add more bulk into memory. The last time I checked on one of my Win98 systems, that was idling, with only two processes running 'Explorer and Systray' it was still eating 60 megs of memory! Win95 would idle at 15 megs. Yes, Einstein, this is the browser that you have at your beck and call. And since IE 4.0 memory leaked like mad, this was another GOOD thing. How do you fix a program that is leaking like mad that is embedded into the OS and that you can't kill. The only answer is reboot. If this were Linux it would mean kill X.
I agree with you on the point that it is a good thing if you want it. But there is no reason that you can't have it having embedded functionality yet still vulnerable to be killed.
Actually with Chrome, Mozilla can take any interface you want. All that you have to do is click on a hyperlink, wait ten seconds and your interface will be updated. Its a very easy way to add new buttons and such. You can add a button and a function in 15 minutes (the function with Mozilla modularity) for all platforms. Its been said that to add a single button to a single platform takes an engineer roughly an entire day. So, I suppose if you really want that 'go' button you can add it.
Personally I think that Star Trek focuses more on the search for knowledge while Star Wars focuses more on the understanding of that knowledge. If you are an analytical type you will want to get the understanding for yourself, but the latter makes better drama.
In Star Trek you could never have Jedi Knights fighting with light sabers. In the Star Trek environment it would seem absurd. But then again, you don't get cool things like the Borg in Star Wars.
But take the Borg, if you were to have it in both series: In Star Trek you focus on the battles with the Borg and how you disable them. In Star Wars you would sneak into their cube, kill their leaders, and destroy the main reactor. Of course since a borg ship really is impenetrable to boarding, there are no real leaders, and there shouldn't be any 'main' reactor it would be silly.
If I were to judge the series I would say Star Trek favor intellegence while Star Wars favors wisdom.
Frankly, I don't know what everyone is complaining about - when it comes to certain things, like audio/multimedia development, the MacOS *still* can't be beat.
The MacOS has nothing special in it that allows multimedia to work better or worse. Other software does that that you buy from someone else other than Apple most of the time. I don't see how you can complement the OS on that. If you are saying that its a better OS for audio development, maybe. I don't have much experience in music. A better OS in 2-d development? Nah, Macs and Windows are fairly balanced (Linux has gimp, but thats still coming along... a little more powerful that Photoshop in some areas like scripting and a little less in others). A better OS in 3-d development. Bah! What do you think the SGI's running IRIX are for?
The Mac is great for doing things *OTHER* than coding. I use the OS that enables me to write music (in my case) intuitively and without even thinking about the fact that I'm using a computer. Try *that* with Windows or your bloated open source wares.
And when you are writing music, you are not effectively coding? How does the OS affect your damn intuition. Why is it that you right brain people always claim intuition and because of that you no longer need to have ANY sort of justification. Is it that clear in your heads that you can't share it with the rest of us? Try this for once, 'rationalization'. If you don't want to think you are using a computer, then use a piece of paper. All the greats of music did it, why not you. Or is your intuition helped by the damn rational and mechanical electrical computer?
Bloated open source wares? Bah! I doubt you've ever even used Linux. I can boot a fully operational system WITH network support with a single floppy. How bloated can that be?
*CAUTION* Now, call me a Mac-Nazi, but I honestly don't get this whole anti-Apple thing. As soon as anyone makes a comment in support of them (it seems), someone has to go and say its "pro-mac propaganda." You big bullies... all of you.
It SHOULD be obvious. You are holding up your technically inferior OS and claiming it is better because YOU do your work on it. Its not anti-Apple. Its anti-crap computer software.
I'm thrilled that id is releasing Quake3 for Mac... We've put up with this second-hand shit for too long. And as far as Carmack is concerned, more power to him. He's just trying to help, I suppose.
What do you find more valuable: an OS in and of itself, or the PRODUCT which arises from it? You have to admit, people are still doing great things with the supposedly inferior Mac.
It is inferior and there is no doubt about that. You may say that you have a stunning 400 Mhz G3 that flattens a Pentium II. It doesn't change the fact that its an apple. I could run my Linux system on an Ultrasparc and then we'd see how your G3 would compete. Or perhaps you might want to compare the G4 to the Alpha EV7 coming out. Apple is really shit, hardware and software, as is Intel and Microsoft shit too. But you can't claim that Linux is bloated shit as you did above. Its also nice that even though intel is shit, there are alternatives for Linux, including Macs.
Please don't call X 'X-windows'. Its not. You can call it X, X11, X Window System, ect. Once you start calling it X-windows you start to think of it as a GUI. It is not and thinking of it that way forgets its power. And thinking of KDE or GNOME as a windowmanager forgets their power also. X is more or less a system to let graphical programs to interact on a UNIX system albiet network or not. If you run a window manager or only a simple xterm does not matter. If it pleases you, you could call your xterm your GUI. KDE or GNOME are just systems and programs to free the window managers from having to provide 'ease of use' settings or the like. They also expand upon the power of X in some ways.
The problem of whether or not macos X will be able to run an X server goes around the point. Windows NT can also run an X terminal. And you can load all of your great window managers or desktop environments inside that. But why would you want to run a X server the equivalent of twice with the second one being the only one that can actually do anything that X is designed for? The GUI for MacOS X should have been seperated into seperate window manager and desktop environment pieces and run under X. If this would have been done the 'equivalent' GUI for MacOS X would have been more powerful by an order of magnitude. But of course this would have allowed any person who has an X server to run an equivalent MacOS X system-like GUI at any computer he wanted as long as he could connect. Windows NT could have done the same thing. But then again who would be making the money writing the seperate slower buggy (X has been thoroughly tested) software to do the same thing in a more restrained environment. Its a poor decision, as I doubt Apple will be the one making the money from that.
I say 6 based upon K&R formatting. whitespace should never count but functions are special and deserve the extra two. things like
if(x) {
should be formatted as
if(x) {
so only one line is present. The reason functions have formats is that they are special. After all you can't nest functions in C so they should look a little different. I like it this way because all that you have to do is remove whitespace (if you are using K&R formatting of course, the one true formatting style) to get your lines.
The mozilla as you call it or the Gecko engine is a complete rewrite. The mozilla classic was discarded months ago. This isn't even alpha so get over it.
I wouldn't say total bullshit. You've heard all of the 'GNUlix' things. Hell, you could layer names. I think if you were to call a simple install of Linux 'Redhat 5.2 GNU/Linux 2.2.2 with GNOME 1.0' (not that Redhat 5.2 had the 2.2.2 kernel or GNOME 1.0) instead of the standard 'Linux' it would confuse the hell out of a person who is just learning about what Linux is. Add in the line 'conforms to POSIX.1' or 'UNIX, similar to SYS V' and you will probably completely lose many people. If you just called it 'Linux', they'd remember the penguin. In fact, this is what MS did. Hypothetically they could call Windows 98 'MS DOS 6.2 with the windows 3.1 upgrade, with the windows 4.0 upgrade, with the windows 4.1 upgrade with internet explorer 4.0'. Hell they could have made up some nasty acronyms too, think of what they would have called Internet Explorer for example. Myself, when I talk about Linux (or GNU/Linux, gnulix or whatever) I just call it 'Linux'. When I talk about windows 98 I just call it windows 98 instead of 'the windows 4.1 upgrade to ms-dos'. But I have a feeling that you flamed the previous poster for exactly the thing you were accusing him/her of.
Took you two posts to get it right? Hmm... methinks you didn't think before you posted. Or perhaps you intended youself to look just like what you were criticizing the above poster for: a moron.
Sounds to me that Microsoft was afraid that Linux (or others, of course) users were going to harass them in their offices or cause damage. I wonder if thats unfounded.... At least they were prepared, thats a plus!
hmm
16 billion bits per square inch? 5 platters?
on
100gig HDs Coming
·
· Score: 1
so its 2 Gb/in^2. Makes it 50 in^2. 10 in^2 per platter. Double sided makes it 5 in^2 per side. and since A=pi r^2, r is roughly 1.26 in. roughly a 3 inch diameter... sounds right to me... perhaps you just forgot how to read and do trivial math for 2 minutes? Or perhaps you are used to the big 1.5 ft diameter drum drives?
>I am not talking about and IDE eather, I am talking about haveing a properly designed OO framework Something clean and simple (and actually very inovative and elegant). If u feel like programing it from vi or emacs (the damn beast) more power 2 u (and infact it may sometimes be a good idea especially if u aren't programing somthing that uses the GUI). But having that standard framework does help make things simpler and faster.
I don't completely follow you here. Why don't you put the classes and structs in.h files. Wouldn't any graphical form just mimic this in a way that overall slows you down[0]?
>God forbid we ever move to something so moronic as a registry like Win. Having said that, a cleaning up of/etc would make things alot nicer (for exampple add/etc/opt for programs/etc/sys for sutff related to kernel/etc/sbin for important binaries. It makes the system easier to understand.
ahh... I understand now. Its a good idea to work to, but if we did it right off, then we'd cause numerous inconsistencies with UNIX variants and other Linux variants.
=============================================== [0] The image that comes to my mind is sort of a pseudo-IDE with a seperate window that has boxes with the titles of your classes. Click to open and see what they contain or whatnot. But it seems to me that this is approaching Visual Basic's ideas. Perhaps I am just not visualizing it correctly.
>1. NeXTStep interface was by far the most atractive GUI (prof? just take a look at Windows, BeOS, or KDE they look alot like NeXTStep).
I don't think NeXTStep is the most attractive[0] but I will say that it is very functional[1]. Its alot easier getting work done in that environ than other products[2].
> 2. The significant improvement in productivity I ment was not for the normal nonteck users
On this I have to completely disagree with you. I think that the greatest improvement would be with nontechnical users. I could take anyone off the street and put him on a NeXTStep interface and he would be able to get some work done[3]. I can't do the same to him putting him directly into bash[4].
>the significant improvement is for the programars and the power users
Again I disagree. From my experience, programming in a GUI-format with and IDE[5] will only hurt the program. Sure, it might be nice to have it up if you are trying to make something that will run in X, so that you don't have to switch between emacs or vi in text mode. But once the IDE comes up, the program loses all form of redemption that it might have had. Instead of C it becomes Visual Basic or instead of C++ it becomes Java[6]. This is not a good way to program.
> For heven's sake all of those files in/etc are very confusing -and STUPID in my HO- and u r only using vi.
Umm... I think that the way/etc is set up is very good. To me, it is nice and logical[7]. I can honestly say, that having some config files in/etc is much better than playing with a registry and is alot less confusing.
Just so you don't misunderstand me, I think NeXTStep is a terrific GUI[8]. But I find that any window manager is more distracting that helpful, so I always start up X bare and load programs that I need[9]. If I need to do alot of work in a GUI[10] I will usually just load up AfterStep or KDE. I'd do GNUStep, but isn't that still alpha?
===============================================
[0] For being just attractive, I'd say Enlightenment, but I'd like to see anyone get work done in that type of environment. [1] In fact, I put up a pseudo-NeXTStep environment when I had to do some computer modelling on 02's. [2] I have not yet been able to do anything real in Windows NT[2.1]. [2.1] Its the damn minesweeper and pinball games. If they didn't have those, I'd actually get something done. Not to say that playing snake race in KDE is much different. I could probably go for 10 hrs on that! [3] Not to say that NeXTStep is simple or dumbed down, its just more intuitive. Semi-point an click. [4] Bourne Again SHell. Mac users would have me crucified if I forced someone to use that! I love it though! [5] Integrated Development Environment. If you've seen the Microsoft Developer's Environ thingy, you'll understand how vile it is. Visual J++, mixed with Visual C++, Foxpro, ect.... noone actually does anything in it, they just play with menu's. [6] I don't mean to directly put down Java, but on the order of doing anything productive, C++ beats it hands down. But Java is still a good thing, perhaps in 5 years might approach C++[6.1]. [6.1] If perhaps they take out the sleep(20) instruction that creeped in there that runs after every instruction! (blatant sarcasm) [7] Its non-intuitive, but it works very, very well. If I had to redesign it, I would do the exact same thing. [8] I know that its not technically all of the GUI, in fact it only holds the UI while X handles part of the G and so forth.... It just sounds awkward calling it the User Interface to an arbitrary X server. [9] X:0&nxterm -display:0 -bg blue4 -fg white... or something of that order [10] Like web surfing.... or entering forms[10.1] in web pages. [10.1] Lynx is sort of ugly in this fashion... doesn't handle CRLF's very well.
To say that a GUI makes you more productive is flat out wrong! To be honest, the only things that I see GUIs for is either image processing or setting something up to print[0]. In fact, the net effect of a GUI will probably end up just being that you work slower, develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and have high eye strain.
But lets not say that GUIs aren't needed (just not in the way that you suggest). If a person has no intention of learning how to run an OS but is still required to do so, an intuitive interface[1] is required. We need this to pull over the people traditionally in the Windows camp in both the Desktop and Server area. MacOS X will do this idea beautifully.... a child could probably set up a network[2].
But to say that only one interface is correct is a Bad Thing[3]. The fact that we have KDE and GNOME only gives us more choices to do things, experiment with what sucks and throw it out in a way that doesn't make the entire Linux community look stupid, unlike other companies[4].
One thing that particularly worries me is that KDE or GNOME could just become another Windows or MacOS. What I mean here is that users never actually know that they are running Linux[5]. Once they are trapped in the Window System I wonder if there is any way to get out. I think a fair comparison would be to compare the programming equivalent: "Once a programmer learns BASIC, they are scarred beyond any means of recovery. He will never become a good programmer."[6]. Something to watch out for, and steer clear of ahead of time.
============================================= [0] I used to just type it up in vi with html flags and print it through Mozilla[0.1]. Now I can just type it through vi and put it through Wordperfect without having to play with flags... much easier.... is this a bad thing? [0.1] Its what the programmers call it, why shouldn't I? And who actually likes the damn boat wheely thing compared to the lizard? [1] Windows does this fairly well... point and click and no-fdisk. I've never had the problem of accidentally nuking my computer in Windows though it probably is possible[1.1]. [1.1] It just doesn't tell you that thats what its been doing since you installed:) [2] Whether or not it fits the magic word ('productive') is speculation. SIGNIFICANTLY more productive (your words): no, I don't think so. [3] Windows everywhere. Does this only bother me? [4] Anyone remember Microsoft Bob? [5] I've already heard the complaints roll in. "In Linux I go to the control panel, but my printer isn't listed. So Linux doesn't support my printer?" [6] I forget who quoted this... its probably not exactly right either...
Jesus christ you are an idiot! Linux kernel size for normal setups is 508KB. it can be larger with mods and whatnot but no much more. And if you install all the GNU/Linux utils then it will be bigger for good reason... its a fucking UNIX! Now 508 KB is not more than a 100 Meg install. The entire tree on my system is 50 MB.
Alan Cox a chokepoint? AC is NOT and idiot. Perhaps you would have allowed nice small efficient fixes.... yep its easy to read in an array of numbers in one line.... but then again there's the buffer overflow! In your mind it must be better to fix one bug and introduce another that is an order of magnitude worse! Read the source and don't be a fucking dolt!
now that you've got your head out of your ass I'll continue.
It wasn't a paper on history of computing/programming. It wasn't even a history on hacking. It was a BRIEF history on hacking.
Pascal does not fit into the definition of 'hacker'. He was basically a mathematician who wanted to be an engineer. But don't forget Lady Lovelace. She was the first programmer.... but still she was not a hacker... more of a scientist mathematician type.
Therefore, his BRIEF history of HACKING still holds.
instead why penguins never hunt polar bears. While the polar bears love the arctic, the penguins have an iron fist over the antarctic. While it has been proposed many times that an invasion might occur where the penguins anhailate the bears for control it has never happened. This question has been asked over the centuries and noone has been able to conclusively give reason. Myself I think that the penguins are running mines with slaves that they have captured through the ages. After all the surface of Antarctica may be -60 C but 1000 m below it will be 50 C (given that they are mining the earth rather than a big sheet of ice). In fact I believe that the penguins are stacking up arms. When the time is right the penguins will issue forth and enslave everyone on Earth. This will be just punishement, they feel, because we have been fishing near Antarctica and taking away fish that they would normally get. This, of course, causes the penguins to become very discontent! Unlike Ol' Tux these penguins mean war.... I suggest that we nuke the poles before its too late! Sure, the water level will rise 300 m and half the world will need quick lessons on having to tread water, at least we won't be enslaved to work in mines for 20 hrs a day by birds! Its time to do something and if we don't it'll be our extinction. Nuke em!
I have seen many designs for this idea and the one I find the most compelling is the following:
100 gram computer with attached ultralite solar sails (roughly 10 km surface area) with mirrors opposing (light has been found to extert pressure upon materials with different pressure exterted upon different materials, hence it would be able to start and stop). Assemble a pseudo-lens with a radius being the orbital distance Jupiter is from the Sun. Calculations show that this object will travel at 90% the speed of light if powered sufficiently. Once the object lands (perhaps somewhat like Pathfinder landed) the computer has programmed nano-bots following a Von Neumann engine algorithm. Have this program set up to create a livable place for a group of humans. Also have this program start to create and launch similar craft expanding the landings exponentially. Finally have the program clone humans and assimilate them into their new environment.
This seems very plausible within 500 years and would cost about $200 billion to build. In 600,000 years the entire galaxy would be colonized and the universe would be colonized at roughly 90% its speed of expansion (the speed of light). The only thing that might not be plausible is educating a cloned human...
Here's a working definition that I will use: "An object with a definite geological history (even if it has terminated in the meantime)in a static gravitation orbit of a larger object in which the center of mass is closer to the larger object than to the planet itself".
In this definition moons will not work out unless they have sub-moons. The sun will not be a planet unless you compare it to the rest of the galaxy (perhaps add a kludge stating "can have no continuous thermonuclear reactions over a large volume"). So a planet is a relative definition here.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars have a definite period of geological history so they are all planets.
At first it would appear that Jupiter is not a planet because it doesn't have exterior rocks, but ask any geophysicist if solids are all that there are to geology. The answer then is that Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune are then planets.
It is now clear than Pluto is not a planet because it does not have any definite geological history. Sure it has geology but it has no history past the point in which it coalesced into a dirty snowball. It does satisfy the other half of my definition but a history must be found for the first part.
Its not my theory. If you don't believe me do a short study on the Lagrange 1 point, its not an obscure topic by any means. In fact a few satellites are there right now. And if you weren't aware neither Mercury nor Venus is tangent to this position very often. It just goes to show the power of the Sun's gravitational field being that our bubble of power extends 1 million miles and the Sun's takes the other 92 million. This of course will still be true for Venus and Mercury. Take a simple comparison of Venus and the Moon for example: the Moon is 1/4 of a million miles away. The moon barely affects the Earth at all (you may say the tides are major but if you compare the mass of the oceans to the entire mass of the earth the affect of tides is barely anything at all). Now how is a planet that is 100 million miles away from L1 going to affect the satellite (recall that as the distance between two object doubles, the gravitational field quarters). Btw, those planets compromise less than 1/1,000,000th of the mass of the Sun. If those planets' movement causes a satellite to move even 1 mile per year I would be suprised.
In conclusion: No, neither Venus nor Mercury will have any considerable affect upon a space station at L1.
Slashdot Mirror
But lets be careful not to think of people such as Mitnick as not 'being' criminals even though punishment may be disproportional relative to other crimes. We should take a look at it, but that doesn't mean that we should apologize for punishing them. After all, Mitnick for example, did many petty things and deserved punishment, though I believe it was not a reasonable amount.
The experiment is known as Schrodinger's (spelling?) Cat Experiment. Simply stated, there is no such thing as a binary condition. The experiment is you put a cat in a box and close the lid. You can't hear the cat or know anything more of its presence than that it is in the box. Simple logic states that the cat can either be alive or dead. But this is not true. The cat is neither alive or dead, it is both. At least that is until you observe it, then it is forced into being alive or being dead. This may sound absurd, and it definately takes some getting used to to think in this form of logic, but it is true. The same thing applies to the idea of 'information' transfer. If you have two particles, one of positive charge, and the other negative and seperate them in a 'system' that has a null effective charge such that they can't affect each other (say for example light-years away) and then one flips charge, the other will do so 'instantaneously' (I use this term loosely) or at least faster than the speed of light. Since another particle would have been needed to 'force' the particle into a different state and since that particle would have been restrained by special relativety not to go faster than the speed of light only two conditions that I know of could exist: either the particles were swapped or the system itself exerted a 'force' on the other particle. The first one implies that space 'warped' to move the particles and the second comes down eventually to entropy balance. Myself I think BOTH are true.
This is true of one object relative to another, but NOT true relative to the geometry. The idea is that if you tweak the geometry correct you can do both 1 and 2 as time is just another dimension to the geometry. But it involves special conditions.
One example, that is popularly commented on, is the idea of a very large cylinder spinning at very high 'speeds'. In fact the 'speed' that it is spinning approaches the speed of light. Now at this point if the object is moving at some velocity relative to another it will be less than the speed of light. But the geometry does not and in many cases exceeds the speed of light.
Now lets add a little more complication. Since the hypothetical particle, the graviton, defines geometry in one sense. Or as people who study cosmology say 'Space tells matter how to move but matter tells space how to curve'. Since the graviton is the conveyor of the hypothetical Higgs field but since it is itself not attached to the Higgs field (presumably) the question arises: Can a graviton travel faster than the speed of light? If so what is its speed? Instantaneous? Unlikely. But then again, I will describe.
'You' may not go back in time, but particles, or hypothetical 'strings' do. They exist partially in positive time and partially in negative. Its tough to describe and I won't even try. Now comes the question do gravitons exist partially in negative time. From these thoughts, theories, and hypotheses, it seems that the idea of a 'warp' engine is very possible. It also seems possible that you might exert some sort of effect into brief moments of the past. All that I can say is that cosmology is never a boring subject.
An embeded web browser IS a bad thing! Especially if you don't want to use it. Why would a 486 Linux fileserver (for example) need to have all that bloat. You could say don't start X, but that is beside the point. The web browser SHOULD be seperate and be able to be turned off if you don't want it.
Lets just do some quick logical thought. You are saying that in certain implementations it is a GOOD thing to have a program sitting in memory that you don't need. Am I confused or are you just INSANE?
It is utter bullshit to say that you should have to get more RAM for a embedded program that you don't need. Why is it that we should upgrade computers every other year to accomidate the software that does little more than add more bulk into memory. The last time I checked on one of my Win98 systems, that was idling, with only two processes running 'Explorer and Systray' it was still eating 60 megs of memory! Win95 would idle at 15 megs. Yes, Einstein, this is the browser that you have at your beck and call. And since IE 4.0 memory leaked like mad, this was another GOOD thing. How do you fix a program that is leaking like mad that is embedded into the OS and that you can't kill. The only answer is reboot. If this were Linux it would mean kill X.
I agree with you on the point that it is a good thing if you want it. But there is no reason that you can't have it having embedded functionality yet still vulnerable to be killed.
Actually with Chrome, Mozilla can take any interface you want. All that you have to do is click on a hyperlink, wait ten seconds and your interface will be updated. Its a very easy way to add new buttons and such. You can add a button and a function in 15 minutes (the function with Mozilla modularity) for all platforms. Its been said that to add a single button to a single platform takes an engineer roughly an entire day. So, I suppose if you really want that 'go' button you can add it.
Personally I think that Star Trek focuses more on the search for knowledge while Star Wars focuses more on the understanding of that knowledge. If you are an analytical type you will want to get the understanding for yourself, but the latter makes better drama.
In Star Trek you could never have Jedi Knights fighting with light sabers. In the Star Trek environment it would seem absurd. But then again, you don't get cool things like the Borg in Star Wars.
But take the Borg, if you were to have it in both series: In Star Trek you focus on the battles with the Borg and how you disable them. In Star Wars you would sneak into their cube, kill their leaders, and destroy the main reactor. Of course since a borg ship really is impenetrable to boarding, there are no real leaders, and there shouldn't be any 'main' reactor it would be silly.
If I were to judge the series I would say Star Trek favor intellegence while Star Wars favors wisdom.
Frankly, I don't know what everyone is complaining about - when it comes to certain things, like audio/multimedia development, the MacOS *still* can't be beat.
The MacOS has nothing special in it that allows multimedia to work better or worse. Other software does that that you buy from someone else other than Apple most of the time. I don't see how you can complement the OS on that. If you are saying that its a better OS for audio development, maybe. I don't have much experience in music. A better OS in 2-d development? Nah, Macs and Windows are fairly balanced (Linux has gimp, but thats still coming along... a little more powerful that Photoshop in some areas like scripting and a little less in others). A better OS in 3-d development. Bah! What do you think the SGI's running IRIX are for?
The Mac is great for doing things *OTHER* than coding. I use the OS that enables me to write music (in my case) intuitively and without even thinking about the fact that I'm using a computer. Try *that* with Windows or your bloated open source wares.
And when you are writing music, you are not effectively coding? How does the OS affect your damn intuition. Why is it that you right brain people always claim intuition and because of that you no longer need to have ANY sort of justification. Is it that clear in your heads that you can't share it with the rest of us? Try this for once, 'rationalization'. If you don't want to think you are using a computer, then use a piece of paper. All the greats of music did it, why not you. Or is your intuition helped by the damn rational and mechanical electrical computer?
Bloated open source wares? Bah! I doubt you've ever even used Linux. I can boot a fully operational system WITH network support with a single floppy. How bloated can that be?
*CAUTION*
Now, call me a Mac-Nazi, but I honestly don't get this whole anti-Apple thing. As soon as anyone makes a comment in support of them (it seems), someone has to go and say its "pro-mac propaganda." You big bullies... all of you.
It SHOULD be obvious. You are holding up your technically inferior OS and claiming it is better because YOU do your work on it. Its not anti-Apple. Its anti-crap computer software.
I'm thrilled that id is releasing Quake3 for Mac... We've put up with this second-hand shit for too long. And as far as Carmack is concerned, more power to him. He's just trying to help, I suppose.
What do you find more valuable: an OS in and of itself, or the PRODUCT which arises from it? You have to admit, people are still doing great things with the supposedly inferior Mac.
It is inferior and there is no doubt about that. You may say that you have a stunning 400 Mhz G3 that flattens a Pentium II. It doesn't change the fact that its an apple. I could run my Linux system on an Ultrasparc and then we'd see how your G3 would compete. Or perhaps you might want to compare the G4 to the Alpha EV7 coming out. Apple is really shit, hardware and software, as is Intel and Microsoft shit too. But you can't claim that Linux is bloated shit as you did above. Its also nice that even though intel is shit, there are alternatives for Linux, including Macs.
Please don't call X 'X-windows'. Its not. You can call it X, X11, X Window System, ect. Once you start calling it X-windows you start to think of it as a GUI. It is not and thinking of it that way forgets its power. And thinking of KDE or GNOME as a windowmanager forgets their power also. X is more or less a system to let graphical programs to interact on a UNIX system albiet network or not. If you run a window manager or only a simple xterm does not matter. If it pleases you, you could call your xterm your GUI. KDE or GNOME are just systems and programs to free the window managers from having to provide 'ease of use' settings or the like. They also expand upon the power of X in some ways.
The problem of whether or not macos X will be able to run an X server goes around the point. Windows NT can also run an X terminal. And you can load all of your great window managers or desktop environments inside that. But why would you want to run a X server the equivalent of twice with the second one being the only one that can actually do anything that X is designed for? The GUI for MacOS X should have been seperated into seperate window manager and desktop environment pieces and run under X. If this would have been done the 'equivalent' GUI for MacOS X would have been more powerful by an order of magnitude. But of course this would have allowed any person who has an X server to run an equivalent MacOS X system-like GUI at any computer he wanted as long as he could connect. Windows NT could have done the same thing. But then again who would be making the money writing the seperate slower buggy (X has been thoroughly tested) software to do the same thing in a more restrained environment. Its a poor decision, as I doubt Apple will be the one making the money from that.
I say 6 based upon K&R formatting. whitespace should never count but functions are special and deserve the extra two. things like
if(x)
{
should be formatted as
if(x) {
so only one line is present. The reason functions have formats is that they are special. After all you can't nest functions in C so they should look a little different. I like it this way because all that you have to do is remove whitespace (if you are using K&R formatting of course, the one true formatting style) to get your lines.
The mozilla as you call it or the Gecko engine is a complete rewrite. The mozilla classic was discarded months ago. This isn't even alpha so get over it.
I wouldn't say total bullshit. You've heard all of the 'GNUlix' things. Hell, you could layer names. I think if you were to call a simple install of Linux 'Redhat 5.2 GNU/Linux 2.2.2 with GNOME 1.0' (not that Redhat 5.2 had the 2.2.2 kernel or GNOME 1.0) instead of the standard 'Linux' it would confuse the hell out of a person who is just learning about what Linux is. Add in the line 'conforms to POSIX.1' or 'UNIX, similar to SYS V' and you will probably completely lose many people. If you just called it 'Linux', they'd remember the penguin. In fact, this is what MS did. Hypothetically they could call Windows 98 'MS DOS 6.2 with the windows 3.1 upgrade, with the windows 4.0 upgrade, with the windows 4.1 upgrade with internet explorer 4.0'. Hell they could have made up some nasty acronyms too, think of what they would have called Internet Explorer for example. Myself, when I talk about Linux (or GNU/Linux, gnulix or whatever) I just call it 'Linux'. When I talk about windows 98 I just call it windows 98 instead of 'the windows 4.1 upgrade to ms-dos'. But I have a feeling that you flamed the previous poster for exactly the thing you were accusing him/her of.
>maybe you should think before you speak. Moron.
Took you two posts to get it right? Hmm... methinks you didn't think before you posted. Or perhaps you intended youself to look just like what you were criticizing the above poster for: a moron.
Sounds to me that Microsoft was afraid that Linux (or others, of course) users were going to harass them in their offices or cause damage. I wonder if thats unfounded.... At least they were prepared, thats a plus!
hmm
so its 2 Gb/in^2. Makes it 50 in^2. 10 in^2 per platter. Double sided makes it 5 in^2 per side. and since A=pi r^2, r is roughly 1.26 in. roughly a 3 inch diameter... sounds right to me... perhaps you just forgot how to read and do trivial math for 2 minutes? Or perhaps you are used to the big 1.5 ft diameter drum drives?
>I am not talking about and IDE eather, I am talking about haveing a properly designed OO framework Something clean and simple (and actually very inovative and elegant). If u feel like programing it from vi or emacs (the damn beast) more power 2 u (and infact it may sometimes be a good idea especially if u aren't programing somthing that uses the GUI). But having that standard framework does help make things simpler and faster.
.h files. Wouldn't any graphical form just mimic this in a way that overall slows you down[0]?
/etc would make things alot nicer (for exampple add /etc/opt for programs /etc/sys for sutff related to kernel /etc/sbin for important binaries. It makes the system easier to understand.
I don't completely follow you here. Why don't you put the classes and structs in
>God forbid we ever move to something so moronic as a registry like Win. Having said that, a cleaning up of
ahh... I understand now. Its a good idea to work to, but if we did it right off, then we'd cause numerous inconsistencies with UNIX variants and other Linux variants.
===============================================
[0] The image that comes to my mind is sort of a pseudo-IDE with a seperate window that has boxes with the titles of your classes. Click to open and see what they contain or whatnot. But it seems to me that this is approaching Visual Basic's ideas. Perhaps I am just not visualizing it correctly.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think so. So much for the biggest UNIX variant, eh (obviously not the best)?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think so. So much for the best UNIX variant, eh?
>1. NeXTStep interface was by far the most atractive GUI (prof? just take a look at Windows, BeOS, or KDE they look alot like NeXTStep).
/etc are very confusing -and STUPID in my HO- and u r only using vi.
/etc is set up is very good. To me, it is nice and logical[7]. I can honestly say, that having some config files in /etc is much better than playing with a registry and is alot less confusing.
:0&nxterm -display :0 -bg blue4 -fg white... or something of that order
I don't think NeXTStep is the most attractive[0] but I will say that it is very functional[1]. Its alot easier getting work done in that environ than other products[2].
> 2. The significant improvement in productivity I ment was not for the normal nonteck users
On this I have to completely disagree with you. I think that the greatest improvement would be with nontechnical users. I could take anyone off the street and put him on a NeXTStep interface and he would be able to get some work done[3]. I can't do the same to him putting him directly into bash[4].
>the significant improvement is for the programars and the power users
Again I disagree. From my experience, programming in a GUI-format with and IDE[5] will only hurt the program. Sure, it might be nice to have it up if you are trying to make something that will run in X, so that you don't have to switch between emacs or vi in text mode. But once the IDE comes up, the program loses all form of redemption that it might have had. Instead of C it becomes Visual Basic or instead of C++ it becomes Java[6]. This is not a good way to program.
> For heven's sake all of those files in
Umm... I think that the way
Just so you don't misunderstand me, I think NeXTStep is a terrific GUI[8]. But I find that any window manager is more distracting that helpful, so I always start up X bare and load programs that I need[9]. If I need to do alot of work in a GUI[10] I will usually just load up AfterStep or KDE. I'd do GNUStep, but isn't that still alpha?
===============================================
[0] For being just attractive, I'd say Enlightenment, but I'd like to see anyone get work done in that type of environment.
[1] In fact, I put up a pseudo-NeXTStep environment when I had to do some computer modelling on 02's.
[2] I have not yet been able to do anything real in Windows NT[2.1].
[2.1] Its the damn minesweeper and pinball games. If they didn't have those, I'd actually get something done. Not to say that playing snake race in KDE is much different. I could probably go for 10 hrs on that!
[3] Not to say that NeXTStep is simple or dumbed down, its just more intuitive. Semi-point an click.
[4] Bourne Again SHell. Mac users would have me crucified if I forced someone to use that! I love it though!
[5] Integrated Development Environment. If you've seen the Microsoft Developer's Environ thingy, you'll understand how vile it is. Visual J++, mixed with Visual C++, Foxpro, ect.... noone actually does anything in it, they just play with menu's.
[6] I don't mean to directly put down Java, but on the order of doing anything productive, C++ beats it hands down. But Java is still a good thing, perhaps in 5 years might approach C++[6.1].
[6.1] If perhaps they take out the sleep(20) instruction that creeped in there that runs after every instruction! (blatant sarcasm)
[7] Its non-intuitive, but it works very, very well. If I had to redesign it, I would do the exact same thing.
[8] I know that its not technically all of the GUI, in fact it only holds the UI while X handles part of the G and so forth.... It just sounds awkward calling it the User Interface to an arbitrary X server.
[9] X
[10] Like web surfing.... or entering forms[10.1] in web pages.
[10.1] Lynx is sort of ugly in this fashion... doesn't handle CRLF's very well.
To say that a GUI makes you more productive is flat out wrong! To be honest, the only things that I see GUIs for is either image processing or setting something up to print[0]. In fact, the net effect of a GUI will probably end up just being that you work slower, develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and have high eye strain.
:)
But lets not say that GUIs aren't needed (just not in the way that you suggest). If a person has no intention of learning how to run an OS but is still required to do so, an intuitive interface[1] is required. We need this to pull over the people traditionally in the Windows camp in both the Desktop and Server area. MacOS X will do this idea beautifully.... a child could probably set up a network[2].
But to say that only one interface is correct is a Bad Thing[3]. The fact that we have KDE and GNOME only gives us more choices to do things, experiment with what sucks and throw it out in a way that doesn't make the entire Linux community look stupid, unlike other companies[4].
One thing that particularly worries me is that KDE or GNOME could just become another Windows or MacOS. What I mean here is that users never actually know that they are running Linux[5]. Once they are trapped in the Window System I wonder if there is any way to get out. I think a fair comparison would be to compare the programming equivalent: "Once a programmer learns BASIC, they are scarred beyond any means of recovery. He will never become a good programmer."[6]. Something to watch out for, and steer clear of ahead of time.
=============================================
[0] I used to just type it up in vi with html flags and print it through Mozilla[0.1]. Now I can just type it through vi and put it through Wordperfect without having to play with flags... much easier.... is this a bad thing?
[0.1] Its what the programmers call it, why shouldn't I? And who actually likes the damn boat wheely thing compared to the lizard?
[1] Windows does this fairly well... point and click and no-fdisk. I've never had the problem of accidentally nuking my computer in Windows though it probably is possible[1.1].
[1.1] It just doesn't tell you that thats what its been doing since you installed
[2] Whether or not it fits the magic word ('productive') is speculation. SIGNIFICANTLY more productive (your words): no, I don't think so.
[3] Windows everywhere. Does this only bother me?
[4] Anyone remember Microsoft Bob?
[5] I've already heard the complaints roll in. "In Linux I go to the control panel, but my printer isn't listed. So Linux doesn't support my printer?"
[6] I forget who quoted this... its probably not exactly right either...
Jesus christ you are an idiot! Linux kernel size for normal setups is 508KB. it can be larger with mods and whatnot but no much more. And if you install all the GNU/Linux utils then it will be bigger for good reason... its a fucking UNIX! Now 508 KB is not more than a 100 Meg install. The entire tree on my system is 50 MB.
Alan Cox a chokepoint? AC is NOT and idiot. Perhaps you would have allowed nice small efficient fixes.... yep its easy to read in an array of numbers in one line.... but then again there's the buffer overflow! In your mind it must be better to fix one bug and introduce another that is an order of magnitude worse! Read the source and don't be a fucking dolt!
now that you've got your head out of your ass I'll continue.
It wasn't a paper on history of computing/programming. It wasn't even a history on hacking. It was a BRIEF history on hacking.
Pascal does not fit into the definition of 'hacker'. He was basically a mathematician who wanted to be an engineer. But don't forget Lady Lovelace. She was the first programmer.... but still she was not a hacker... more of a scientist mathematician type.
Therefore, his BRIEF history of HACKING still holds.
instead why penguins never hunt polar bears. While the polar bears love the arctic, the penguins have an iron fist over the antarctic. While it has been proposed many times that an invasion might occur where the penguins anhailate the bears for control it has never happened. This question has been asked over the centuries and noone has been able to conclusively give reason. Myself I think that the penguins are running mines with slaves that they have captured through the ages. After all the surface of Antarctica may be -60 C but 1000 m below it will be 50 C (given that they are mining the earth rather than a big sheet of ice). In fact I believe that the penguins are stacking up arms. When the time is right the penguins will issue forth and enslave everyone on Earth. This will be just punishement, they feel, because we have been fishing near Antarctica and taking away fish that they would normally get. This, of course, causes the penguins to become very discontent! Unlike Ol' Tux these penguins mean war.... I suggest that we nuke the poles before its too late! Sure, the water level will rise 300 m and half the world will need quick lessons on having to tread water, at least we won't be enslaved to work in mines for 20 hrs a day by birds! Its time to do something and if we don't it'll be our extinction. Nuke em!
I have seen many designs for this idea and the one I find the most compelling is the following:
100 gram computer with attached ultralite solar sails (roughly 10 km surface area) with mirrors opposing (light has been found to extert pressure upon materials with different pressure exterted upon different materials, hence it would be able to start and stop). Assemble a pseudo-lens with a radius being the orbital distance Jupiter is from the Sun. Calculations show that this object will travel at 90% the speed of light if powered sufficiently. Once the object lands (perhaps somewhat like Pathfinder landed) the computer has programmed nano-bots following a Von Neumann engine algorithm. Have this program set up to create a livable place for a group of humans. Also have this program start to create and launch similar craft expanding the landings exponentially. Finally have the program clone humans and assimilate them into their new environment.
This seems very plausible within 500 years and would cost about $200 billion to build. In 600,000 years the entire galaxy would be colonized and the universe would be colonized at roughly 90% its speed of expansion (the speed of light). The only thing that might not be plausible is educating a cloned human...
Here's a working definition that I will use: "An object with a definite geological history (even if it has terminated in the meantime)in a static gravitation orbit of a larger object in which the center of mass is closer to the larger object than to the planet itself".
In this definition moons will not work out unless they have sub-moons. The sun will not be a planet unless you compare it to the rest of the galaxy (perhaps add a kludge stating "can have no continuous thermonuclear reactions over a large volume"). So a planet is a relative definition here.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars have a definite period of geological history so they are all planets.
At first it would appear that Jupiter is not a planet because it doesn't have exterior rocks, but ask any geophysicist if solids are all that there are to geology. The answer then is that Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune are then planets.
It is now clear than Pluto is not a planet because it does not have any definite geological history. Sure it has geology but it has no history past the point in which it coalesced into a dirty snowball. It does satisfy the other half of my definition but a history must be found for the first part.
Its not my theory. If you don't believe me do a short study on the Lagrange 1 point, its not an obscure topic by any means. In fact a few satellites are there right now. And if you weren't aware neither Mercury nor Venus is tangent to this position very often. It just goes to show the power of the Sun's gravitational field being that our bubble of power extends 1 million miles and the Sun's takes the other 92 million. This of course will still be true for Venus and Mercury. Take a simple comparison of Venus and the Moon for example: the Moon is 1/4 of a million miles away. The moon barely affects the Earth at all (you may say the tides are major but if you compare the mass of the oceans to the entire mass of the earth the affect of tides is barely anything at all). Now how is a planet that is 100 million miles away from L1 going to affect the satellite (recall that as the distance between two object doubles, the gravitational field quarters). Btw, those planets compromise less than 1/1,000,000th of the mass of the Sun. If those planets' movement causes a satellite to move even 1 mile per year I would be suprised.
In conclusion: No, neither Venus nor Mercury will have any considerable affect upon a space station at L1.