Once we explained to your mom that this was about data throttling and not erotic asphyxiation, she complained bitterly that this would interfere with her ability to post to the Craigslist personals section, and additionally objected to having been the first one singled out by AT&T for this.
I'm reasonably certain the function of the so-called "armor" wasn't protective at all. Its sole function was to look impressive and create an army of troopers that look exactly alike. This is intended to dishearten their opponents, because when one falls, an identical one takes their place and you don't even notice that one's gone.
They started out with an army of clones... and made armor so they'd look identical?:)
(Though I never really thought of the Imperial Stormtroopers as clones... I never really thought about the mention of the "Clone Wars" in Star Wars, always assumed Stormtroopers were just regular guys.)
I would say that the armor was clearly designed not to protect against blunt force trauma, but rather to protect against blaster fire, but obviously they were even useless against the primary weapon used by everyone in the galaxy.
It could be, that by wearing Stormtrooper armor, someone who gets shot is incapacitated, but not likely killed. Kind of like how a bulletproof vest stops the bullet, but still must pass the kinetic energy of the impact on to you...
Quoth young Skywalker: "I can't see a thing in this helmet."
So it is written.
Ah, but you forget Chapter 10, verses two through five:
"Yea, with the blast shield down, I cannot see. How, then, shall I fight?" "Thine eyes may deceive you; do not place your faith in them. Fight with the full measure of thine feelings, for they shalt not lie."
Continuing this line of thought, Merrill said, "Put all your eggs in one basket; Count your chickens before they hatch. Serve some wine before its time, find yourself an itch to scratch."
It's not a very good location, though. Seating's cramped and awkward, the baristas are always kind of unpleasant, there's not much of a view - the place just has no atmosphere.
This joke is just one of the many wonderful innovations brought to us by the Apollo program.
There are not 135 shuttles. two out of five that went into space have killed their crew.
That's a silly way to rate the safety of the vehicle.
First, if there's some non-zero chance of a disaster on a given flight, then over a large enough number of flights, the chance of disaster approaches 1.0. Second, in the case of Challenger, it wasn't the orbiter that failed, but the SRB's. How many SRB's did they build? Third, suppose they had built a sixth shuttle to replace Columbia. Would the shuttle be any safer, by virtue of a sixth one having been built? Would the shuttle have been less safe if they hadn't built Endeavour?
It really makes no sense to rate the safety of STS that way. The only sensible metric is, how many launcher were attempted, and how many failed? I'll grant that even by those standards the average looks bad - but compare that to other space programs:
Apollo Program: two major failures in 20 flights (23 if you count the unmanned ones), one of which killed the crew Soyuz: 66 flights (so far), two failures costing the lives of the cosmonauts on board.
So both Soyuz and Apollo have worse averages than STS. 1 in 20 for Apollo (1 in 10 if you count Apollo 13), 1 in 33 for Soyuz, vs. 1 in 62.5 for STS.
My safety threshold isn't high at all, we're talking about 40% failure rate the way I count, five shuttles used for launches, two kill their crew. Would any model of airplane with those statistics be used to fly, regardless of number of flights?
Most airplanes don't fly into space. None of them fly into orbit. Space travel is more demanding, and has higher risks than air travel.
Black not only absorbs heat more efficiently, it also emits heat more efficiently..
ahh, spoken by someone who doesn't what they are talking about. your memorization of a useful approximation notwithstanding, please educate yourself before you speak so authoritatively. Also understand jargon you employ.
If you've got all the answers, then by all means - share them. See if what you have to say stands up to scrutiny.
One interesting feature I saw on the hurd web site some 10+ years ago was that because it was a microkernel, you could run several different versions of the kernel at the same time, and do kernel updates without rebooting. That got my attention... but 10+ years later it seems to have been forgotten. I did not see those listed as features on the Hurd web site any more.
Yeah, it was on the "features list" only until they got to the point where they might, theoretically, be expected to actually implement that functionality.:)
To put it more seriously: as the system got more solid, the features list had to focus more on actualities, rather than potential. The potential is still there, presumably, so hopefully they'll exploit that.
Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
It's a bit of an awkward situation, that. You see, this is Free Software we're talking about: "Free as in Freedom." But, as we all know, Freedom isn't Free. So that means the HURD system has a significant Non-Free component, whose inclusion causes a conflict with the system's Free license.
Yeah. What's FSF and GNU done for us lately? Besides gcc and all that other GNU stuff that represents about 15% of code in the typical Linux distribution, vs 1.5% for the Linux kernel.
And then there's all that Free Software propaganda, copyleft and everything else that kicked off the whole movement.
Nope, not a fan at all...
What the hell?
You're responding to a poster who said he is a fan of GNU, and was just complaining about the choice of name.
When I'm naming things I don't like to get too tied up in thoughts of "how could this name be twisted derisively?" and related issues: but it is something to consider. Choosing a name that's too easy a target is just asking for trouble.:)
But honestly, is there is a point to this apart from a toy OS. Linux and BSD and even Haiku (which is a microkernel) is way ahead in the race.
Well, while I do believe Hurd continues to be a bit of a joke, there is a point to it: today's dodgy "toy OS" is tomorrow's dependable system.
Particularly, Hurd is designed around principles which (in theory, at least) should make it easier to maintain and extend, and more reliable ultimately. It seems they're not there just yet, but maybe in another 5 years they will be. Between here and there, people interested in making that change happen can get involved... So there may come a point where the system's practical usefulness exceeds that of Linux, due to the flexibility and stability that comes with that kind of modular isolation.
That said, I feel like Hurd's approach is too academic, with not enough practical engineering to it. Over the years Linux has evolved to modularize out bits of functionality where it made sense to do so, while keeping an eye on performance and stability for the rest. An evolutionary design like that has its own problems (inconsistencies and so on) but the part that I think is really useful is the balance: flexibility where flexibility is needed, performance where performance is needed. Making an all-encompassing design decision (i.e. microkernel architecture plus services) without considering whether it's really the right decision for every scenario is just irresponsible from an engineering standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Once we explained to your mom that this was about data throttling and not erotic asphyxiation, she complained bitterly that this would interfere with her ability to post to the Craigslist personals section, and additionally objected to having been the first one singled out by AT&T for this.
Shuttup, I'm just going to fly up there on a commercial spacecraft and use squatters rights
Hm, banking on the Larkin decision, eh? But that only applies to natural planetary bodies...
I'm reasonably certain the function of the so-called "armor" wasn't protective at all. Its sole function was to look impressive and create an army of troopers that look exactly alike. This is intended to dishearten their opponents, because when one falls, an identical one takes their place and you don't even notice that one's gone.
They started out with an army of clones... and made armor so they'd look identical? :)
(Though I never really thought of the Imperial Stormtroopers as clones... I never really thought about the mention of the "Clone Wars" in Star Wars, always assumed Stormtroopers were just regular guys.)
I would say that the armor was clearly designed not to protect against blunt force trauma, but rather to protect against blaster fire, but obviously they were even useless against the primary weapon used by everyone in the galaxy.
It could be, that by wearing Stormtrooper armor, someone who gets shot is incapacitated, but not likely killed. Kind of like how a bulletproof vest stops the bullet, but still must pass the kinetic energy of the impact on to you...
Quoth young Skywalker: "I can't see a thing in this helmet."
So it is written.
Ah, but you forget Chapter 10, verses two through five:
"Yea, with the blast shield down, I cannot see. How, then, shall I fight?"
"Thine eyes may deceive you; do not place your faith in them. Fight with the full measure of thine feelings, for they shalt not lie."
Utilitarian? Seriously? That's ridiculous... What's their utility? Getting people to pay attention to you at conventions?
Continuing this line of thought, Merrill said, "Put all your eggs in one basket; Count your chickens before they hatch. Serve some wine before its time, find yourself an itch to scratch."
Where there is a hotspot there is a starbucks.
The rates are exceptionally well.
It's not a very good location, though. Seating's cramped and awkward, the baristas are always kind of unpleasant, there's not much of a view - the place just has no atmosphere.
This joke is just one of the many wonderful innovations brought to us by the Apollo program.
The registry. Experience has taught me that everything in Windows is somewhere in the registry.
Where's the registry?
on the shuttle Atlantis".
Please don't put half your message in the subject line. Subject line for subject. Message body for message.
It IS your money in that billion dollar vehicle (if you're a US Citizen)...
That doesn't actually make it your money.
It's not in Low Earth Orbit?
It's actually higher than that. Middle Earth Orbit.
I just hope they get it on video for the Smithsonian. I cried last night at the last defecation.
Why, what had you been eating? Oh, theirs
Nice dig, but he'd have to be up in the shuttle with them if he were to eat their defecation.
Before landing, I mean.
Don't forget to change the statues and monuments too. ;)
OK, we're gonna have to get the Statue of Liberty half-buried in the sand... Are the Ghostbusters available?
There are not 135 shuttles. two out of five that went into space have killed their crew.
That's a silly way to rate the safety of the vehicle.
First, if there's some non-zero chance of a disaster on a given flight, then over a large enough number of flights, the chance of disaster approaches 1.0.
Second, in the case of Challenger, it wasn't the orbiter that failed, but the SRB's. How many SRB's did they build?
Third, suppose they had built a sixth shuttle to replace Columbia. Would the shuttle be any safer, by virtue of a sixth one having been built? Would the shuttle have been less safe if they hadn't built Endeavour?
It really makes no sense to rate the safety of STS that way. The only sensible metric is, how many launcher were attempted, and how many failed? I'll grant that even by those standards the average looks bad - but compare that to other space programs:
Apollo Program: two major failures in 20 flights (23 if you count the unmanned ones), one of which killed the crew
Soyuz: 66 flights (so far), two failures costing the lives of the cosmonauts on board.
So both Soyuz and Apollo have worse averages than STS. 1 in 20 for Apollo (1 in 10 if you count Apollo 13), 1 in 33 for Soyuz, vs. 1 in 62.5 for STS.
My safety threshold isn't high at all, we're talking about 40% failure rate the way I count, five shuttles used for launches, two kill their crew. Would any model of airplane with those statistics be used to fly, regardless of number of flights?
Most airplanes don't fly into space. None of them fly into orbit. Space travel is more demanding, and has higher risks than air travel.
You can't argue with Tape.
You can, actually, it's just not very good at arguing back.
That's right! Don't you know that Bill Clinten is always WRONG about everything, always and forever?
Hm, so if we can get him to say, "I am wrong" then we should be able to take out the Alices and maybe even Norman himself...
Black not only absorbs heat more efficiently, it also emits heat more efficiently..
ahh, spoken by someone who doesn't what they are talking about. your memorization of a useful approximation notwithstanding, please educate yourself before you speak so authoritatively. Also understand jargon you employ.
If you've got all the answers, then by all means - share them. See if what you have to say stands up to scrutiny.
My roof is already covered in a white powdery substance all winter. It goes away in the spring.
Hm, the cartels are using your roof as storage space? Best be careful of that, the DEA isn't likely to be sympathetic if you plead ignorance.
I strongly feel that anybody who posts a "lmgtfy" link could rightly be called a condescending asshat... Is that really what you want to be?
One interesting feature I saw on the hurd web site some 10+ years ago was that because it was a microkernel, you could run several different versions of the kernel at the same time, and do kernel updates without rebooting. That got my attention... but 10+ years later it seems to have been forgotten. I did not see those listed as features on the Hurd web site any more.
Yeah, it was on the "features list" only until they got to the point where they might, theoretically, be expected to actually implement that functionality. :)
To put it more seriously: as the system got more solid, the features list had to focus more on actualities, rather than potential. The potential is still there, presumably, so hopefully they'll exploit that.
Yes, it's slower, but did they measure how much freedom it achieved?
It's a bit of an awkward situation, that. You see, this is Free Software we're talking about: "Free as in Freedom." But, as we all know, Freedom isn't Free. So that means the HURD system has a significant Non-Free component, whose inclusion causes a conflict with the system's Free license.
Yeah. What's FSF and GNU done for us lately? Besides gcc and all that other GNU stuff that represents about 15% of code in the typical Linux distribution, vs 1.5% for the Linux kernel.
And then there's all that Free Software propaganda, copyleft and everything else that kicked off the whole movement.
Nope, not a fan at all...
What the hell?
You're responding to a poster who said he is a fan of GNU, and was just complaining about the choice of name.
When I'm naming things I don't like to get too tied up in thoughts of "how could this name be twisted derisively?" and related issues: but it is something to consider. Choosing a name that's too easy a target is just asking for trouble. :)
It can run Debian though...
But honestly, is there is a point to this apart from a toy OS. Linux and BSD and even Haiku (which is a microkernel) is way ahead in the race.
Well, while I do believe Hurd continues to be a bit of a joke, there is a point to it: today's dodgy "toy OS" is tomorrow's dependable system.
Particularly, Hurd is designed around principles which (in theory, at least) should make it easier to maintain and extend, and more reliable ultimately. It seems they're not there just yet, but maybe in another 5 years they will be. Between here and there, people interested in making that change happen can get involved... So there may come a point where the system's practical usefulness exceeds that of Linux, due to the flexibility and stability that comes with that kind of modular isolation.
That said, I feel like Hurd's approach is too academic, with not enough practical engineering to it. Over the years Linux has evolved to modularize out bits of functionality where it made sense to do so, while keeping an eye on performance and stability for the rest. An evolutionary design like that has its own problems (inconsistencies and so on) but the part that I think is really useful is the balance: flexibility where flexibility is needed, performance where performance is needed. Making an all-encompassing design decision (i.e. microkernel architecture plus services) without considering whether it's really the right decision for every scenario is just irresponsible from an engineering standpoint.