Without nitpicking, fusion as a viable power source "is always" *50* years away, not 20.
This 50-year estimate is actually pretty detailed and is based strongly on timescale & results of research conducted to date, not "pullafigureoutofyourarse" methods of project management.
The reason that the 50-year estimate has been static for the last decade is that the scientific community never anticipated that it would take a decade to obtain the funding. The countdown from 50-odd years restarted last year.
If it doesn't move and it should - sling the WD40 & use diesel fuel + blowtorch instead.
At room temperature, diesel won't penetrate like WD40. However, 95% of the time 1 squirt of diesel + heat (hence blowtorch or hair dryer) will free the stubbornest fit, where even a full can of WD40 won't do the job.
And to keep things lubricated, diesel is definitely best, as any motorcyclist who's hit a patch on the road will attest (ouch).
Interesting how perceptions change. Back in the '90s I used to enjoy going to the old furniture & junk shop just up the road, and buying arcane textbooks from yesteryear. I picked up an anglo-saxon primer, several advanced mathematical texts from the 1940s, etc.
One of the most interesting is a 1950s text on guided missiles.
Now, there's no dangerous information in this book - it's mostly a historical relic detailing rather gruesome experiments teaching pigeons to peck at targets, and the birth of radio control. But fast forward to the new millenium, and can you imagine how it could be portrayed if I ever annoyed the wrong people?
"Citizen Z, an engineer and known radical non-conformist, was arrested following a tip-off from a concerned member of the public. Police have stated that a subsequent search of his premises revealed combustible substances, ingredients for explosives, and text detailing the construction of guided missiles and weapons of mass destruction".
Poring through historical texts makes it very clear how attitudes have changed in the last half-century. People are concerned about the growing, patent-based corporate oligopoly on knowledge, but few realise that the oligopoly stretching ever backwards in time, too.
Concerns about falling academic standards don't fully address the problem. The fact is there's a hell of a lot of knowledge in early 20th century texts (even those 1940s books on advanced vector maths) that isn't available *anywhere* any more, even if academic standards were maintained. I think this is far more dangerous & insidious - what use is a prior art clause in legal patent disputes when there is no remaining public record of the precedent?
Increasingly, public knowledge and skills are being taken from us, and sold back to us in a product form, often encumbered with a shelf-life. This is accomplished via Hysteria about terrorism, media demonisation of those with skills and knowledge ("eggheads"), Law and other government sanctions.
Maybe. It's a question of scale, efficiency and geography.
Standard power station efficiency is limited by the press & temp required to turn the turbines. I was thinking efficient operation below the minimum temperature for a steam turbine could be possible (successive banks of JTECs optimised for gradually decreasing temperature).
Yes, you need a temperature differential, but would you still need the same scale of cooling device? Or could you reduce the number/size of cooling towers? Perhaps even a very large outdoor tropical aquarium would suffice, if the power station was somewhere near the arctic circle...;)
Of course, I forgot that the speculation about human-powered JTECs was the/. poster's - TFA only talks about operation at high temperature. That changes things a bit.
Don't forget modern low-tech :
1/ Clockwork chargers, first invented specifically to eliminate 3rd world reliance on expensive batteries to power their portable radios (the only form of communication/entertainment prior to the advent of mobile phones).
2/ Oil-lens based spectacles, which reduced costs and infrastructure for many people in the 3rd world to improve their quality of life (until then many people had been reliant on luck-of-the-draw donations of old spectacles from the 1st world).
C
> well your bs detector was good to be at high alert. [snip] > so yeah, i wouldn't hold my breath on this 'still working' at 600 degrees when the guy who > invented it hasn't gotten to those temperatures yet.
How negative can you get?
This is not "fusion in a jam jar"; unlike that debacle, this guy's homepage explains the process in terms of well-understood theory. I haven't done any engineering thermodynamics since university, but it sounds believeable. No pretty cycle diagrams to help me, though; experts may say different.:)
Peer review pending, Mr Johnson seems to have discovered a phenomenon that harnesses known laws of physics in a new way, i.e. this is new *science*. Thermodynamic theory says that the the potential efficiency can only increase with temperature, so expanding the operating envelope (e.g. raising/lowering the temperature limits) is probably a "simple" matter of development, new materials, etc; i.e. technology, and time.
The potential to reclaim waste heat has enormous implications; but even where JTECs can't compete on efficiency, other factors such as low-zero maintenance and reduced costs could make this a desirable technology. For example, elimination of steam turbines would make even classic power generation cheaper, while simultaneously increasing the safety of nuclear power specifically. Nuclear fusion immediately becomes more viable, too.
Another beauty of this system is that it's viral - its introduction can be staggered, maximising the efficiency and useful life of existing capital investment. No need to replace your local power station, just stick a JTEC on the waste heat output line...and refit those ugly cooling towers for alternative duty, e.g. a warehouse (or simply sell off the real estate!).
JTECs could revolutionise space exploration, too; the extremely sharp differential between heat/cold outside our atmosphere is an environment that's ideal for any kind of heat pump. Increase the amount of power available to a space mission and you increase its capability proportionally. Moonbase Alpha, anyone?
Make no mistake; the possibilities of this are HUGE, much bigger than implied in TFA.
> In a monopoly dominated market, there is no reason for the monopolist to participate in a standard > that will undermine its monopoly.
Statement needs qualification.
In context, and more importantly, a monopoly routinely fragments the market to maximise its revenue in all possible sectors (Economics 101). For example :
"No, I'm afraid our Product X doesn't do that, for that you need our Product Y, which we'll trade in for your current copy of Product X at a frankly amazing discount of 10%!"
which, if carefully played, can then lead to:
"Oh, you need to do *both* X *and* Y? Why didn't you say so? You need Plugin Z, which costs only $n,000! Yes sir, just between you and me that *does* sound like a lot, let me check the figures...oh, look! I'm afraid that price *was* correct, but the good news is that we offer a special discount of 20% for existing customers! Would you like to give me your credit card details now?"
Does any of this sound familiar?
Monopolists fragment markets all the time, that's just how they operate. It makes *perfect* sense for Microsoft to participate in a standard (such as ODF) that will harm it in the short term, simply so that it can fork that standard (and hence fragment the market) later, preferably with something patented. Basic abuse of its monopoly position via standard monopolistic "single seller" and "absence of close substitutes" mechanisms. It worked with html, so why shouldn't it work with odf?
So why is MS bothering with OOXML at all? Wikipedia puts it beautifully :
"It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time, becoming "complacent giants", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of efficiency can raise a potential competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of the risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants."
Or in other words: right now OOXML is just too good a piece of FUD to let go. Why let go of even short-term profits? (which is the angle you were coming from)
> And the exact same thing has been happening with the American Ubuntu/Dell offering. People have got > all excited and upset about the sale of Linux machines. Everything from Dell not pushing the > advertising to not converting every Dell model to Linux overnight. It took a few days for the web > site to be updated, and another few days for the wrinkles like extended guarantees hiccup to be > ironed out. Give it time.
No. "Giving it time" could be misconstrued as a lack of interest, either unwittingly or wilfully. Continued (polite) harrassment from the public will make it evident to all that there is strong public interest.
Consumer "pester power" has been shown to be possibly the most powerful tool in influencing large corporate decision-making.
> I'm not a Dell customer or supporter, and as I don't need a laptop I am very unlikely to be. I even > hate working on off the shelf PCs that friends bring me to fix. I build my own computers and have > done for the past ten years or so. I am a Linux user, and I like many have been following this with > great interest. Not exactly a Dell customer in the making.
I've been an exclusively Linux home user since 1999. Haven't bought a new preassembled PC....well, ever! Have fixed & maintained many friends' boxes, and don't like the poor quality and heavy bottlenecking I've seen result from specifications designed purely around a feature list.
I'm not exactly a typical Dell customer either. But I'm not religious about it: the day I deem their desktop quality vs price equation to be good enough for my purposes I may change my mind and go buy a unit...I'm just not holding my breath in the meantime! Laptops are a different market - more difficult & costly to self-assemble, hence my interest.
At this stage I would rather spend my rectangular paper consumer tokens on a product that at least nominally supports Linux. Once there's a recognised market and more competition I'll happily jump ship to someone else if they offer better support.
> But turn down the paranoia a bit
Not paranoia, just much (too much?) prior experience.
Here in the UK corporate and government FLOSS overtures have almost always proved to be, at best, just a bargaining tool. Invariably Microsoft then does a "special deal" to secure market share: those who were previously trumpeting Linux' virtues then about-turn and regurgitate the typical Microsoft FUD - "too immature", "higher TCO", etc. The result is that the UK is the most ingrained Microsoft shop in Europe.
Not to mention the global FUD war that Microsoft has been waging recently (SCO, Novell IP clauses, etc).
> Dell have been quite sensible about the whole Linux on consumer Dell PCs thing... [SNIP] > If they were just doing this as a publicity stunt, then why take it further than they need to?
Which is it? Are they being "quite sensible", or are they taking it "further than they need to"?
Personally, I believe it's the former. For Dell's typical market, Ubuntu (with its proprietary codecs & drivers, general prettiness, and ease of use) is absolutely and unquestionably the best choice of distro. And I think that initially offering Ubuntu on only limited, albeit reasonably-powered hardware is a good business decision.
[Disclaimer: I'm actually a Fedora user myself]
But I don't see why people expressing frustration at obstruction and/or slow progression is a bad thing, reactionary, or paranoid. It's just an indicator of strong demand, and valuable feedback to Dell and the world at large about their ordering process.
[UK website still not updated to include Linux laptop product].
If, on the other hand, I'm wrong about Dell's intent, and they're just making overtures with a view to dumping all over it later; then at least public criticism right now visibly calls their bluff.
Dell are dipping their toe in the water. If they're on the level they should find it pleasantly warm; if they're not it will hopefully scald them.
Then don't try it for 6 months, do it as part of a month-long detox immediately after festive season.
I decided to start doing this five years ago. Alcohol was quite easy to give up, cigarettes slightly harder. Avoiding coffee, tea & chocolate on the other hand was unbelieveable.
I didn't get caffeine cravings (or if I did they were masked by nicotine fits). But for a solid fortnight my days went like this: get up at 06:30, in work by 7, somehow spend day not falling asleep in front of computer, come home 17:00, fall asleep in front of telly, eat at 18:00, sleep 'til 21:00, go to bed & sleep like the dead 'til morning. (Prior to this I'd been on 4-6 small cups of standard strength coffee/tea per day, and wasn't feeling the benefit).
By the end of the month I felt revitalised, bursting with energy; two extra bonuses were that my moods were much better, and BO had virtually disappeared.
"I hinted at this before, but today, it's official: Dell announced that consumers in the United Kingdom, France and Germany can order an [Inspiron 6400] notebook or an Inspiron 530N desktop with Ubuntu 7.04 pre-installed."
Seems perfectly clear to me that Dell is stating that users in Europe can order preinstalled ubuntu PCs as of *now*. Yet a quick search for "Linux" on their UK site doesn't show any hits for laptops. Navigating directly to Inspiron 6400 shows only options for Vista. So technically GP is right.
People are so sensitive about this issue because there's a widespread history of "we offered linux product X many years ago but discontinued it because there was no demand" statements, based on unfair trials (e.g. Linux systems that cost more than identical Windows counterparts; no advertising of product; or supplier ordering systems that effectively prevented the user from buying the advertised Linux product).
Hopefully Dell website will be updated by end of week.
Agreed - please mod my prior comment & the GP "Confused".
JonJ, thanks for the clarification; in skimming TFA I missed the bit about fourth quarter.
> However, you idiots seem to be under the impression that all the sites should get updated right NOW
Unnecessarily rude. The fact that you automatically assume stupidity in others, rather than a simple failure to register TFA properly speaks far more about your lack of personality than my intellect.
If I'd registered that Lenovo were merely announcing an intent, then I agree it *would* be stupid to expect their website to be updated already. However I, and doubtless GP, had actually registered that Lenovo were announcing a new product, starting *now*, in which case the small print on their web site would be relevant. Wouldn't it, now?
For my part I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your outburst was the result of a caffeine rush, not a more fundamental lack of imagination.
Lenovo have simply selected a distro vendor, on the basis of a system that Just Works with their hardware - they aren't remotely interested in the eternal desktop jihad.
These days Novell/SUSE defaults to GNOME. Three of the reasons for this are:
* SuSE used to default to KDE. When Novell took over SuSE, Accessibility in KDE was poor, whereas it had been prioritised in GNOME. Government regulations on Accessibility requirements essentially promoted GNOME over KDE in the workplace! * whereas the KDE desktop provided (and still provides) more bells & whistles, it was/is chock full of inconsistencies. Bells&whistles come at the expense of ease of use and support, therefore KDE is not suitable for a large-scale business product. * GNOME has worked hard to standardise & simplify their desktop, and so was (& still is) very suitable.
If you or any other enthusiast prefers KDE then go install it. But IMNSHO Lenovo has defaulted to the right choice of business desktop.
Now, whether Lenovo made the right choice of *distro* is much more difficult to ascertain.:)
> The problem with Major having an affair was not so much that he had one, but that he showed such > appalling taste in who to have one with.
No disagreement here.:)
> The point on lack of leadership was the lack of commercial leadership. Political leadership very > rarely requires the skills of state leadership.
I disagree with the current popular emphasis on the "all-knowing" commercial sector.
Commercial leadership, like military leadership, can result in a number of very useful transferable leadership skills - e.g. Linus. However, the initial background in such specific environments often leads to a belief that anything outside of known factors is irrelevant; this can result in a serious lack of flexibility, and the outright dismissal of issues that are in fact key in other sectors (e.g. social).
Conversely, I can't agree that time spent in the commercial and/or military sectors is a requirement for competent political leadership. Good (and bad) leaders can arise in virtually any context, although politics is unusual in the degree to which really bad leaders are seldom removed from office. What political leadership needs is more culpability, rather than an influx from other sectors.
> With 1st past the post the majority can be defeated by a minority. Each vote is not equal but > derives some importance due to where it is cast.
Did I miss something? Surely it's evident that I understand what 1st past the post is from my earlier diatribe on proportional representation? Or are you just taking the opportunity here to explain the UK's current electoral system for the benefit of other readers?
I'm glad we agree that democracy is dependent on an equal weight being attributed to all votes.
> I care not that the queen has never used it or that it might be unenforceable, it is on the books > and gives her a place above parliment in the running of the country.
The UK political and legal systems are jam-packed full of such quirks. Where they're harmful they're killed off. Most just add colour. Many find really unexpectedly beneficial uses.
"Place above parliament" - yes, but not above the will of the people. That was proved on 30th January, 1649.
If the current parliamentary system ever breaks down, other backup political systems exist. Belt and braces; I see no danger in such a redundancy - in fact as an engineer with a great interest in safety, I'm quite reassured by the concept of alternate load paths & systems.
> The lords are I agree far more reasonable than the commons, but I wish to be ruled by my fellow > citizen not a body of people who are un-accountable
Personally I don't wish to be "ruled" at all. I do wish the interests of the people to be properly represented in the decisions of the country's governing body. Right now, ironically, Lords often seems to be accomplishing that a hell of a lot better than Commons.
> The civil service does not act impartially or indeed in the best interests of the public. It meddles > where it should not. In this age of computers most civil servants should be replaced, and indeed in > a commercial company would have been.
N.B. Multivac is a utopian fiction.
There's little denying that the UK could do with some solid IT infrastructure to help government. But have you been monitoring the catalogue of disasters lately resulting from NL's attempts to introduce IT? Complete balls-up - massive overspends, systems deemed useless by their intended beneficients (e.g. a basic centralised NHS medical records & booking system!) - and all because the *policy*makers* (i.e. the politicians, not the civil service) were unable to define the work packages in anything but classic political terms, instead of functional.
IT failures may be acceptable to the commercial sector, but they're absolutely not acceptable in a social context.
> So 20+ years ago the UK public were shown just how inept and corrupt their ruling > institutions really were and what happened? Has anything changed for the better?
No, it's become worse. People really weren't prepared for the spin strategy that is New Labour's (particularly Blair's) trademark.
Ultimately, I agree the population's at fault. Somewhere along the line people became apathetic, and stopped taking an interest in politics other than the minor interests that affected them directly. They divided, were conquered, and yet steadfastly refuse to vote out those who have so spectacularly failed to represent their interests.
The flag-wavers who keep voting the same way they always have are a problem. A much bigger problem is the majority who could use the voice that was so hard-won for them by their forefathers, and who simply refuse to do so.
Without an exercised public vote, a democracy can only become a dictatorial oligarchy.
> Yet the UK public continue to pat themselves on the back for a job well done!
Example, please. I don't see anyone except the compulsive flag-wavers congratulating themselves...and even many of those have been looking uncertain for a while.
> I actually like Major
*Nod* Major was the only PM we've had in 30-odd years who had a strong social conscience (Brown *may* turn out ok, but it's too early to tell, and his early statements haven't been too encouraging).
Even Major's political opponents were forced to concede that he was a "decent and honorable man". Yet he was consistently sabotaged by his own cabinet ("that bunch of bastards"), and by the deterioration of his public image via consistently negative media coverage and easy personal satire. Much of that public frustration at him was frankly the misplaced legacy of the Tory party in general, and Thatcher in particular.
Somehow Major ran the country for years seemingly without any allies, without completely ballsing things up. That's a remarkable feat, and one wonders what he could have accomplished if he'd had more general support, even within his own party.
Of course, if he'd publically 'fessed up to his extramarital affair the first time someone tried to coerce him, and managed to weather the subsequent political storm, he'd have simultaneously stripped the "bastards" of ammunition and blown away the "grey man" image of which the media made so much - a double win that might have helped him accomplish much more than he did.
> Not one of the politicians listed had led so much as a cake bake before they rose to PM.
I just listed a bunch of stuff in the previous post. Since you weren't convinced, here's more:
Thatcher - barrister (tax law); MP from 1959; Parliamentary Secreatary for Pensions & NI 1961-1964; Tory spokesman for Housing & Land; Shadow Treasury 1966-67; Shadow Cabinet 67-70 (first for Fuel, then Transport, then Education); Secretary of State for Education & Science 1970-74; Conservative leader from '75.
Major - on Lambeth council from '68-71, responsible for the construction of much public housing; MP from 1979; Parliamentary Private Secretary from '81; assistant whip from '83; Under-Secretary of State for Social Security '85, becoming a minister in '86; Chief Secretary to Treasury '87-'89; Foreign Secretary '89 for short while before becoming Chancellor of Exchequer after Lawson's sudden resignation.
Blair - MP from 1983; much rhetoric & little action 'til Shadow Cabinet for a few years, then party leadership.
Brown - already covered, in much detail, in the previous post.
Summary: Blair's the only one who can be remotely accused of "not leading even a cake bake" before being PM. Thatcher & Brown are both seasoned politicians with strong leadership backgrounds even prior to their political career - Thatcher held several positions in previous Tory governments & in opposition. Major didn't lead as much before becoming PM but had been very active in polit
> Great series, made great fun of some very dark topics. Pity the UK public were too > stupid to see it as anything more than a comedy.
Err...were we?
I don't think I know a single person who watched the series who thought it was anything less than a very observant, expertly written & acted satire.
"Satire (from Latin satura, not from the Greek figure satyr[1]) is a literary genre, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision..." -- Wikipedia
Incidentally, "Yes, Minister" was Thatcher's favourite TV programme, and she commented several times that the programme wasn't remotely fictional. While at No10 she even named her cat "Humphrey".
> I mean Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown have never run anything more complex than a > corner shop and then magically they can run the country?
Firstly, is your "corner shop" jibe a reference to Thatcher's father's occupation, or Blair's mother's family? Whichever, please could you explain how is this relevant to any of the people mentioned above?
Secondly, I think this is a phenomenon of democracy: prior to their election as MPs, our public figureheads have no background in matters of state. That's kind of the point; the Commons are meant to represent *real*people*. That means that they're somewhat restricted to influencing the civil service to act in what they deem to be the public interest or opinion.
Given that situation, then intelligence, experience, and transferable skills are paramount in a Prime Minister. And so it has been during the british political period you highlight. Even a little digging on wikipedia shows just how ignorant your statement really is.
* Thatcher - a research chemist with an Oxford degree. Undeniably smart. MP for 20 years and well experienced in a number of capacities (in both Shadow and real cabinets) before she became Prime Minister. Experienced and transferable.
* Major - originally from a poor background, which led indirectly to a mediocre education, although he supplemented this later via evening classes & correspondence courses. First became a local councillor aged 25, and served in a number of government capacities for 11 years before becoming Prime Minister. Transferable, experienced, and widely recognised by colleagues and opponents alike as hardworking and idealistic.
* Blair - Oxford graduate, reasonably smart. MP for 14 years, member of shadow cabinet for ~8 years before he became Prime Minister, so pretty experienced.
* Brown - selected for fast tracking at primary school; studying history at university at age 16; first class honours MA from Edinburgh at age 21; PhD later. Frighteningly intelligent. Temporary lecturer on the history of the Labour party (denied permanent post because of his political activism); journalist & TV current affairs editor; MP for 12 years before becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ironically the success of Blair (who was ultimately forced to step down by his own party) was largely a result of the relatively stable economy Brown provided for the decade of his tenure during a severe period for the global economy.
None of the above can be labelled "overnight successes" by any stretch of the imagination.
> Next you'll be telling me voting makes a difference!
Honestly, are you trying to be a troll?
In a country where there are no individual penalties for failing to vote, *not* voting is *guaranteed* to make no difference at all!
Please refer to the last general election where less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually did so, and Labour barely scraped a victory. Within weeks Blair was forcing through even more draconian new legislation, despite widespread calls for a referendum. His excuse for such a dictat? Apparently no such referendum was needed since he had just been given a renewed "mandate of the british people"!
> in reality it sounds more like "have an idea for" or "have developed a concept for" > pending the advancement of material science. I seems they haven't built or tested..I > mean painted a prototype, so the article is getting ahead of itself a bit maybe....In which case this is not news.
I first heard about the japanese experimenting with injet-printed PV cells during my final year alternative energy course in my first degree (mech eng). That was in 1995.
> What would be really elegant is painting roads to collect solar power for cars. There > is a whole lot of road out there!
Not enough to power cars, but enough to impact carbon emissions. Routing power over distance from empty roads in desert areas would offset the effect of traffic jams.
That's a really good idea, although from a practical viewpoint it could introduce problems with braking distances. Another issue is that we would still need a similarly low-cost version of those wireless power transfer designs we're starting to see articles about.
In fact...ditch the powered car idea altogether. Create a version of the paint that can be mixed in with the bitumen in the tarmac (sorry, "asphalt"). You now have a really green alternative to a classic sun farm - no need to introduce lots of PV cells (containing toxic chemicals) or molten salt into unspoiled, delicate ecosystems.
Should work a treat in Texas, less so in the UK.
*looks gloomily out window at the rain which is doing its best to fulfil the weather forecast's prediction of 4 inches in 6-9 hours*
Assuming that this post was written out of ignorance rather than as a simple troll:
> Who has ever heard of a MAD RUSH to get the latest and greatest Linux "distro"
Me.
In 2004, the demand for Fedora Core 2 was so high that the servers at the top of the bittorrent pyramid fell over. Ironically, the only way to download it in the first week was *very*slowly* through Redhat's ftp servers.
Since then interest in the main linux distros has only increased. Ubuntu & Fedora now routinely take a couple of months to hit a million downloads. Not quite Windows numbers yet, but still impressive, and definitely qualifies as a mad rush.
> - wasn't there a new kernel release a month ago -- did anyone give a rats arse --- nope!
The vast majority of users don't compile their own kernel. Kernel updates are compiled, vetted, etc, and finally rolled out via automatic distro updates. There's no "mad rush" to download the latest kernel any more than there's a "mad rush" to download the latest non-security-critical Windows DLL.
But then again, if you'd tested Linux objectively in recent years, you'd know that. Since you clearly haven't, please tell me why you think your opinion counts?
I suggest you go away and test drive a mainstream distro properly for a month or two. If you hit problems (make that "when" - it's an unfamiliar system), approach the Linux community for help honestly and non-confrontationally. At the end of that time if you're still as fiercely anti-linux, you'll be much more specific and astute in your criticisms, and I'm sure people will be readier to take your opinions on board.
Best regards,
Conrad
Re:Nope (was Re:Aliens won't probe anymore)
on
New X-Files Movie
·
· Score: 1
> > at least to my taste (to me Sigourney Weaver's hotter in Alien Resurrection > > than the original). > > > I'm with you on that one, but only because I like a woman that can > dunk....and probably kick my ass.
Yeah, I like those things too, but...are those really the *only* reasons? *shakes head in wonder*
> Yeah, but in the original she wore flimsy 1970s underwear...
She wore some nice lingerie in the later ones, too...or maybe that was just my fevered imagination.
> (Alien Resurrection should be considered a war crime. I don't care if there > was no war on, they should declare one retroactively so they can classify it > as a war crime...)
Yes, I hated the film when I went to see it, and it pissed me off that the "Aliens" concept had become so over-franchised. A shame, because it needn't have been that way; the beginning was actually quite good, and there were some interesting concepts to play around with. Seldom have I seen a film in more dire need of a script doctor.
But, mindless drivel though it is, Weaver's performance as a human/alien hybrid was captivating - she's in a different league to the other players (especially Ryder, who was horrendously miscast). I hate to think about it, but one of these days I'm going to have to sit through the whole pile of steaming dog turd again just to watch her.
Sexy, yes. But what an actress!
[Back to Anderson] > Yeah, just saw her in The Last King of Scotland; she's still got it:)
Haven't seen LKOS yet, but must do so - apparently it's quite good.
C
Nope (was Re:Aliens won't probe anymore)
on
New X-Files Movie
·
· Score: 3, Informative
> Gillian Anderson has got to be pretty old by now. The fun may be > gone.
Nope. She was recently in a UK TV production of Bleak House.
She's certainly less gamine, but still *gorgeous*, at least to my taste (to me Sigourney Weaver's hotter in Alien Resurrection than the original).
> The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads > available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.
"Normal" how, precisely? What prior example is there of a state-owned media corporate opening its archives for general perusal?
> This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista).
This is *not* the same - 4 & Sky are standard commercial channels, unlike the BBC. The only reasonable restriction is to confine use of the service to those who paid for it, i.e. UK citizens.
> I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like > they said NO is it!
There is talk about Mac users getting such a service at a "later" (unspecified) date. No mention has been made yet of other operating systems.
By law, everyone in the UK who uses a TV or TV card has to pay an annual TV licence to fund the BBC. Windows users are about to be given a greater service than other users for that fee. When this scheme begins many people (e.g. me) will be paying, essentially, for a service to which they are not given full access.
> Ingo please comment on this because I have read similar stories elsewhere and would like to hear a > response.
I'd understand if Ingo doesn't want to comment on this; it was a painful clash between two competent and strong characters, which expanded to other parties accusing Ingo of elitism and plagiarism.
For reference, this was archived on kerneltrap.org, and I believe it was covered in an earlier/. article. (Direct link to full KernelTrap article not provided, in the hope of saving the site from a slashdotting).
For what it's worth, here's the "facts" as I see them :
1/ It looks as though Ingo *and*Linus* refused Con's original patch on certain grounds which weren't clearly understood/communicated. Ingo, however, stated that in general he was "quite positive about the staircase scheduler." He proceeded to test it and gave Con feedback.
2/ Con's work was good enough that Ingo about-turned on his earlier, negative stance about fair schedulers and was inspired to go and develop something very similar (but which fitted better with the overall kernel architecture). It's clear that this was predominantly Ingo's own code (hence no plagiarism), and Ingo credits Con in the code comments for coming up with the general approach.
3/ Somewhere in the middle of the ensuing discussion on lkml there are complaints that Con wasn't kept in the loop. However, Ingo cites examples where he *did* communicate to Con; by Con's own admission he was very ill (hospitalised) during a critical period.
4/ Parent suggests that Con has since stopped contributing to the kernel. I don't see any indication of this in the kernel thread - in fact Con's post gives every indication that he'll continue to contribute.
My analysis :
I put the situation down to an applied case of "standing on the shoulders of giants". It's very rare that anyone creates something completely new, and in large projects this can occasionally generate friction.
Con was in a susceptible condition when the CFS code was released, had a grumble on the list, but generally acted pretty maturely. Ingo credited Con's contributions wherever feasible, clarified this in discussion, and stayed polite and friendly throughout. End of story.
What's pretty disgusting is the partisan name-calling that follows in the KernelTrap comments. "Shame on Ingo", "Con is acting like a baby", etc. I hope that this doesn't generate bad feeling between Molnar & Kolivas, because after Con's original complaint on lkml and Ingo's response things seemed to be settled.
No doubt in future Ingo will take an increased amount of care about vetting other people's code, not promoting his own to the exclusion of others, and crediting other people in his own work (note: I don't claim that he has been lacking in this respect in the past). Con, likewise, will doubtless be mollified when his contributions are more readily recognised as being of merit in future. In the meantime Linus has emphasised that competition between developers is a *good* thing to a reasonable extent, as it directly increases motivation.
Now, I suggest that everyone else with a ready opinion hold their breath a while, and let all them get on with coding.
> So for example, if you have two tasks on a CPU, one a 100% CPU hog, the other one an application > that sleeps/runs 50% of the time - both will get 50% of the CPU in CFS. Under the strict 'runner > fairness' approach (which for example SD is following), the 100% CPU hog would get ~66% of CPU time, > the sleeper would get ~33% of CPU time.
Just a thought - have you considered using the golden ratio instead of basic proportions? Is it feasible/viable?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)
Disclaimer: I haven't the first clue about kernel internals, let alone scheduling.
However, my complete lack of knowledge of such things, this problem seems somewhat analogous to location of maxima/minima in real data. In that application, bracketing & bisection via golden ratio provides the fastest convergence (faster than equal bisection).
If CFS proves to be good, then perhaps such an approach (i.e. phi-weighting, in *favour* of sleeping processes?) would provide the optimal solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Without nitpicking, fusion as a viable power source "is always" *50* years away, not 20.
This 50-year estimate is actually pretty detailed and is based strongly on timescale & results of research conducted to date, not "pullafigureoutofyourarse" methods of project management.
The reason that the 50-year estimate has been static for the last decade is that the scientific community never anticipated that it would take a decade to obtain the funding. The countdown from 50-odd years restarted last year.
Cheers,
C
If it doesn't move and it should - sling the WD40 & use diesel fuel + blowtorch instead.
At room temperature, diesel won't penetrate like WD40. However, 95% of the time 1 squirt of diesel + heat (hence blowtorch or hair dryer) will free the stubbornest fit, where even a full can of WD40 won't do the job.
And to keep things lubricated, diesel is definitely best, as any motorcyclist who's hit a patch on the road will attest (ouch).
Cheers,
C
Interesting how perceptions change. Back in the '90s I used to enjoy going to the old furniture & junk shop just up the road, and buying arcane textbooks from yesteryear. I picked up an anglo-saxon primer, several advanced mathematical texts from the 1940s, etc.
One of the most interesting is a 1950s text on guided missiles.
Now, there's no dangerous information in this book - it's mostly a historical relic detailing rather gruesome experiments teaching pigeons to peck at targets, and the birth of radio control. But fast forward to the new millenium, and can you imagine how it could be portrayed if I ever annoyed the wrong people?
"Citizen Z, an engineer and known radical non-conformist, was arrested following a tip-off from a concerned member of the public. Police have stated that a subsequent search of his premises revealed combustible substances, ingredients for explosives, and text detailing the construction of guided missiles and weapons of mass destruction".
Poring through historical texts makes it very clear how attitudes have changed in the last half-century. People are concerned about the growing, patent-based corporate oligopoly on knowledge, but few realise that the oligopoly stretching ever backwards in time, too.
Concerns about falling academic standards don't fully address the problem. The fact is there's a hell of a lot of knowledge in early 20th century texts (even those 1940s books on advanced vector maths) that isn't available *anywhere* any more, even if academic standards were maintained. I think this is far more dangerous & insidious - what use is a prior art clause in legal patent disputes when there is no remaining public record of the precedent?
Increasingly, public knowledge and skills are being taken from us, and sold back to us in a product form, often encumbered with a shelf-life. This is accomplished via Hysteria about terrorism, media demonisation of those with skills and knowledge ("eggheads"), Law and other government sanctions.
Best regards,
C
Maybe. It's a question of scale, efficiency and geography.
;)
/. poster's - TFA only talks about operation at high temperature. That changes things a bit.
Standard power station efficiency is limited by the press & temp required to turn the turbines. I was thinking efficient operation below the minimum temperature for a steam turbine could be possible (successive banks of JTECs optimised for gradually decreasing temperature).
Yes, you need a temperature differential, but would you still need the same scale of cooling device? Or could you reduce the number/size of cooling towers? Perhaps even a very large outdoor tropical aquarium would suffice, if the power station was somewhere near the arctic circle...
Of course, I forgot that the speculation about human-powered JTECs was the
C
Don't forget modern low-tech : 1/ Clockwork chargers, first invented specifically to eliminate 3rd world reliance on expensive batteries to power their portable radios (the only form of communication/entertainment prior to the advent of mobile phones). 2/ Oil-lens based spectacles, which reduced costs and infrastructure for many people in the 3rd world to improve their quality of life (until then many people had been reliant on luck-of-the-draw donations of old spectacles from the 1st world). C
> well your bs detector was good to be at high alert.
:)
[snip]
> so yeah, i wouldn't hold my breath on this 'still working' at 600 degrees when the guy who
> invented it hasn't gotten to those temperatures yet.
How negative can you get?
This is not "fusion in a jam jar"; unlike that debacle, this guy's homepage explains the process in terms of well-understood theory. I haven't done any engineering thermodynamics since university, but it sounds believeable. No pretty cycle diagrams to help me, though; experts may say different.
Peer review pending, Mr Johnson seems to have discovered a phenomenon that harnesses known laws of physics in a new way, i.e. this is new *science*. Thermodynamic theory says that the the potential efficiency can only increase with temperature, so expanding the operating envelope (e.g. raising/lowering the temperature limits) is probably a "simple" matter of development, new materials, etc; i.e. technology, and time.
The potential to reclaim waste heat has enormous implications; but even where JTECs can't compete on efficiency, other factors such as low-zero maintenance and reduced costs could make this a desirable technology. For example, elimination of steam turbines would make even classic power generation cheaper, while simultaneously increasing the safety of nuclear power specifically. Nuclear fusion immediately becomes more viable, too.
Another beauty of this system is that it's viral - its introduction can be staggered, maximising the efficiency and useful life of existing capital investment. No need to replace your local power station, just stick a JTEC on the waste heat output line...and refit those ugly cooling towers for alternative duty, e.g. a warehouse (or simply sell off the real estate!).
JTECs could revolutionise space exploration, too; the extremely sharp differential between heat/cold outside our atmosphere is an environment that's ideal for any kind of heat pump. Increase the amount of power available to a space mission and you increase its capability proportionally. Moonbase Alpha, anyone?
Make no mistake; the possibilities of this are HUGE, much bigger than implied in TFA.
C
Good post. But...
> In a monopoly dominated market, there is no reason for the monopolist to participate in a standard
> that will undermine its monopoly.
Statement needs qualification.
In context, and more importantly, a monopoly routinely fragments the market to maximise its revenue in all possible sectors (Economics 101). For example :
"No, I'm afraid our Product X doesn't do that, for that you need our Product Y, which we'll trade in for your current copy of Product X at a frankly amazing discount of 10%!"
which, if carefully played, can then lead to:
"Oh, you need to do *both* X *and* Y? Why didn't you say so? You need Plugin Z, which costs only $n,000! Yes sir, just between you and me that *does* sound like a lot, let me check the figures...oh, look! I'm afraid that price *was* correct, but the good news is that we offer a special discount of 20% for existing customers! Would you like to give me your credit card details now?"
Does any of this sound familiar?
Monopolists fragment markets all the time, that's just how they operate. It makes *perfect* sense for Microsoft to participate in a standard (such as ODF) that will harm it in the short term, simply so that it can fork that standard (and hence fragment the market) later, preferably with something patented. Basic abuse of its monopoly position via standard monopolistic "single seller" and "absence of close substitutes" mechanisms. It worked with html, so why shouldn't it work with odf?
So why is MS bothering with OOXML at all? Wikipedia puts it beautifully :
"It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time, becoming "complacent giants", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of efficiency can raise a potential competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of the risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants."
Or in other words: right now OOXML is just too good a piece of FUD to let go. Why let go of even short-term profits? (which is the angle you were coming from)
Conrad
> And the exact same thing has been happening with the American Ubuntu/Dell offering. People have got
> all excited and upset about the sale of Linux machines. Everything from Dell not pushing the
> advertising to not converting every Dell model to Linux overnight. It took a few days for the web
> site to be updated, and another few days for the wrinkles like extended guarantees hiccup to be
> ironed out. Give it time.
No. "Giving it time" could be misconstrued as a lack of interest, either unwittingly or wilfully. Continued (polite) harrassment from the public will make it evident to all that there is strong public interest.
Consumer "pester power" has been shown to be possibly the most powerful tool in influencing large corporate decision-making.
> I'm not a Dell customer or supporter, and as I don't need a laptop I am very unlikely to be. I even
> hate working on off the shelf PCs that friends bring me to fix. I build my own computers and have
> done for the past ten years or so. I am a Linux user, and I like many have been following this with
> great interest. Not exactly a Dell customer in the making.
I've been an exclusively Linux home user since 1999. Haven't bought a new preassembled PC....well, ever! Have fixed & maintained many friends' boxes, and don't like the poor quality and heavy bottlenecking I've seen result from specifications designed purely around a feature list.
I'm not exactly a typical Dell customer either. But I'm not religious about it: the day I deem their desktop quality vs price equation to be good enough for my purposes I may change my mind and go buy a unit...I'm just not holding my breath in the meantime! Laptops are a different market - more difficult & costly to self-assemble, hence my interest.
At this stage I would rather spend my rectangular paper consumer tokens on a product that at least nominally supports Linux. Once there's a recognised market and more competition I'll happily jump ship to someone else if they offer better support.
> But turn down the paranoia a bit
Not paranoia, just much (too much?) prior experience.
Here in the UK corporate and government FLOSS overtures have almost always proved to be, at best, just a bargaining tool. Invariably Microsoft then does a "special deal" to secure market share: those who were previously trumpeting Linux' virtues then about-turn and regurgitate the typical Microsoft FUD - "too immature", "higher TCO", etc. The result is that the UK is the most ingrained Microsoft shop in Europe.
Not to mention the global FUD war that Microsoft has been waging recently (SCO, Novell IP clauses, etc).
> Dell have been quite sensible about the whole Linux on consumer Dell PCs thing... [SNIP]
> If they were just doing this as a publicity stunt, then why take it further than they need to?
Which is it? Are they being "quite sensible", or are they taking it "further than they need to"?
Personally, I believe it's the former. For Dell's typical market, Ubuntu (with its proprietary codecs & drivers, general prettiness, and ease of use) is absolutely and unquestionably the best choice of distro. And I think that initially offering Ubuntu on only limited, albeit reasonably-powered hardware is a good business decision.
[Disclaimer: I'm actually a Fedora user myself]
But I don't see why people expressing frustration at obstruction and/or slow progression is a bad thing, reactionary, or paranoid. It's just an indicator of strong demand, and valuable feedback to Dell and the world at large about their ordering process.
[UK website still not updated to include Linux laptop product].
If, on the other hand, I'm wrong about Dell's intent, and they're just making overtures with a view to dumping all over it later; then at least public criticism right now visibly calls their bluff.
Dell are dipping their toe in the water. If they're on the level they should find it pleasantly warm; if they're not it will hopefully scald them.
C
Then don't try it for 6 months, do it as part of a month-long detox immediately after festive season.
I decided to start doing this five years ago. Alcohol was quite easy to give up, cigarettes slightly harder. Avoiding coffee, tea & chocolate on the other hand was unbelieveable.
I didn't get caffeine cravings (or if I did they were masked by nicotine fits). But for a solid fortnight my days went like this: get up at 06:30, in work by 7, somehow spend day not falling asleep in front of computer, come home 17:00, fall asleep in front of telly, eat at 18:00, sleep 'til 21:00, go to bed & sleep like the dead 'til morning. (Prior to this I'd been on 4-6 small cups of standard strength coffee/tea per day, and wasn't feeling the benefit).
By the end of the month I felt revitalised, bursting with energy; two extra bonuses were that my moods were much better, and BO had virtually disappeared.
Caffeine really screws you up. Just say no.
C
From TFBlog (Direct2Dell):
"I hinted at this before, but today, it's official: Dell announced that consumers in the United Kingdom, France and Germany can order an [Inspiron 6400] notebook or an Inspiron 530N desktop with Ubuntu 7.04 pre-installed."
Seems perfectly clear to me that Dell is stating that users in Europe can order preinstalled ubuntu PCs as of *now*. Yet a quick search for "Linux" on their UK site doesn't show any hits for laptops. Navigating directly to Inspiron 6400 shows only options for Vista. So technically GP is right.
People are so sensitive about this issue because there's a widespread history of "we offered linux product X many years ago but discontinued it because there was no demand" statements, based on unfair trials (e.g. Linux systems that cost more than identical Windows counterparts; no advertising of product; or supplier ordering systems that effectively prevented the user from buying the advertised Linux product).
Hopefully Dell website will be updated by end of week.
C
Agreed - please mod my prior comment & the GP "Confused".
JonJ, thanks for the clarification; in skimming TFA I missed the bit about fourth quarter.
> However, you idiots seem to be under the impression that all the sites should get updated right NOW
Unnecessarily rude. The fact that you automatically assume stupidity in others, rather than a simple failure to register TFA properly speaks far more about your lack of personality than my intellect.
If I'd registered that Lenovo were merely announcing an intent, then I agree it *would* be stupid to expect their website to be updated already. However I, and doubtless GP, had actually registered that Lenovo were announcing a new product, starting *now*, in which case the small print on their web site would be relevant. Wouldn't it, now?
For my part I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your outburst was the result of a caffeine rush, not a more fundamental lack of imagination.
C
Please mod parent up Informative.
C
Lenovo have simply selected a distro vendor, on the basis of a system that Just Works with their hardware - they aren't remotely interested in the eternal desktop jihad.
:)
These days Novell/SUSE defaults to GNOME. Three of the reasons for this are:
* SuSE used to default to KDE. When Novell took over SuSE, Accessibility in KDE was poor, whereas it had been prioritised in GNOME. Government regulations on Accessibility requirements essentially promoted GNOME over KDE in the workplace!
* whereas the KDE desktop provided (and still provides) more bells & whistles, it was/is chock full of inconsistencies. Bells&whistles come at the expense of ease of use and support, therefore KDE is not suitable for a large-scale business product.
* GNOME has worked hard to standardise & simplify their desktop, and so was (& still is) very suitable.
If you or any other enthusiast prefers KDE then go install it. But IMNSHO Lenovo has defaulted to the right choice of business desktop.
Now, whether Lenovo made the right choice of *distro* is much more difficult to ascertain.
C
> The problem with Major having an affair was not so much that he had one, but that he showed such
:)
> appalling taste in who to have one with.
No disagreement here.
> The point on lack of leadership was the lack of commercial leadership. Political leadership very
> rarely requires the skills of state leadership.
I disagree with the current popular emphasis on the "all-knowing" commercial sector.
Commercial leadership, like military leadership, can result in a number of very useful transferable leadership skills - e.g. Linus. However, the initial background in such specific environments often leads to a belief that anything outside of known factors is irrelevant; this can result in a serious lack of flexibility, and the outright dismissal of issues that are in fact key in other sectors (e.g. social).
Conversely, I can't agree that time spent in the commercial and/or military sectors is a requirement for competent political leadership. Good (and bad) leaders can arise in virtually any context, although politics is unusual in the degree to which really bad leaders are seldom removed from office. What political leadership needs is more culpability, rather than an influx from other sectors.
> With 1st past the post the majority can be defeated by a minority. Each vote is not equal but
> derives some importance due to where it is cast.
Did I miss something? Surely it's evident that I understand what 1st past the post is from my earlier diatribe on proportional representation? Or are you just taking the opportunity here to explain the UK's current electoral system for the benefit of other readers?
I'm glad we agree that democracy is dependent on an equal weight being attributed to all votes.
> I care not that the queen has never used it or that it might be unenforceable, it is on the books
> and gives her a place above parliment in the running of the country.
The UK political and legal systems are jam-packed full of such quirks. Where they're harmful they're killed off. Most just add colour. Many find really unexpectedly beneficial uses.
"Place above parliament" - yes, but not above the will of the people. That was proved on 30th January, 1649.
If the current parliamentary system ever breaks down, other backup political systems exist. Belt and braces; I see no danger in such a redundancy - in fact as an engineer with a great interest in safety, I'm quite reassured by the concept of alternate load paths & systems.
> The lords are I agree far more reasonable than the commons, but I wish to be ruled by my fellow
> citizen not a body of people who are un-accountable
Personally I don't wish to be "ruled" at all. I do wish the interests of the people to be properly represented in the decisions of the country's governing body. Right now, ironically, Lords often seems to be accomplishing that a hell of a lot better than Commons.
> The civil service does not act impartially or indeed in the best interests of the public. It meddles
> where it should not. In this age of computers most civil servants should be replaced, and indeed in
> a commercial company would have been.
N.B. Multivac is a utopian fiction.
There's little denying that the UK could do with some solid IT infrastructure to help government. But have you been monitoring the catalogue of disasters lately resulting from NL's attempts to introduce IT? Complete balls-up - massive overspends, systems deemed useless by their intended beneficients (e.g. a basic centralised NHS medical records & booking system!) - and all because the *policy*makers* (i.e. the politicians, not the civil service) were unable to define the work packages in anything but classic political terms, instead of functional.
IT failures may be acceptable to the commercial sector, but they're absolutely not acceptable in a social context.
Call me when a supermarket checkout till can
> So 20+ years ago the UK public were shown just how inept and corrupt their ruling
:
> institutions really were and what happened? Has anything changed for the better?
No, it's become worse. People really weren't prepared for the spin strategy that is New Labour's (particularly Blair's) trademark.
Ultimately, I agree the population's at fault. Somewhere along the line people became apathetic, and stopped taking an interest in politics other than the minor interests that affected them directly. They divided, were conquered, and yet steadfastly refuse to vote out those who have so spectacularly failed to represent their interests.
The flag-wavers who keep voting the same way they always have are a problem. A much bigger problem is the majority who could use the voice that was so hard-won for them by their forefathers, and who simply refuse to do so.
Without an exercised public vote, a democracy can only become a dictatorial oligarchy.
> Yet the UK public continue to pat themselves on the back for a job well done!
Example, please. I don't see anyone except the compulsive flag-wavers congratulating themselves...and even many of those have been looking uncertain for a while.
> I actually like Major
*Nod* Major was the only PM we've had in 30-odd years who had a strong social conscience (Brown *may* turn out ok, but it's too early to tell, and his early statements haven't been too encouraging).
Even Major's political opponents were forced to concede that he was a "decent and honorable man". Yet he was consistently sabotaged by his own cabinet ("that bunch of bastards"), and by the deterioration of his public image via consistently negative media coverage and easy personal satire. Much of that public frustration at him was frankly the misplaced legacy of the Tory party in general, and Thatcher in particular.
Somehow Major ran the country for years seemingly without any allies, without completely ballsing things up. That's a remarkable feat, and one wonders what he could have accomplished if he'd had more general support, even within his own party.
Of course, if he'd publically 'fessed up to his extramarital affair the first time someone tried to coerce him, and managed to weather the subsequent political storm, he'd have simultaneously stripped the "bastards" of ammunition and blown away the "grey man" image of which the media made so much - a double win that might have helped him accomplish much more than he did.
> Not one of the politicians listed had led so much as a cake bake before they rose to PM.
I just listed a bunch of stuff in the previous post. Since you weren't convinced, here's more
Thatcher - barrister (tax law); MP from 1959; Parliamentary Secreatary for Pensions & NI 1961-1964; Tory spokesman for Housing & Land; Shadow Treasury 1966-67; Shadow Cabinet 67-70 (first for Fuel, then Transport, then Education); Secretary of State for Education & Science 1970-74; Conservative leader from '75.
Major - on Lambeth council from '68-71, responsible for the construction of much public housing; MP from 1979; Parliamentary Private Secretary from '81; assistant whip from '83; Under-Secretary of State for Social Security '85, becoming a minister in '86; Chief Secretary to Treasury '87-'89; Foreign Secretary '89 for short while before becoming Chancellor of Exchequer after Lawson's sudden resignation.
Blair - MP from 1983; much rhetoric & little action 'til Shadow Cabinet for a few years, then party leadership.
Brown - already covered, in much detail, in the previous post.
Summary: Blair's the only one who can be remotely accused of "not leading even a cake bake" before being PM. Thatcher & Brown are both seasoned politicians with strong leadership backgrounds even prior to their political career - Thatcher held several positions in previous Tory governments & in opposition. Major didn't lead as much before becoming PM but had been very active in polit
> Great series, made great fun of some very dark topics. Pity the UK public were too
> stupid to see it as anything more than a comedy.
Err...were we?
I don't think I know a single person who watched the series who thought it was anything less than a very observant, expertly written & acted satire.
"Satire (from Latin satura, not from the Greek figure satyr[1]) is a literary genre, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision..." -- Wikipedia
Incidentally, "Yes, Minister" was Thatcher's favourite TV programme, and she commented several times that the programme wasn't remotely fictional. While at No10 she even named her cat "Humphrey".
> I mean Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown have never run anything more complex than a
> corner shop and then magically they can run the country?
Firstly, is your "corner shop" jibe a reference to Thatcher's father's occupation, or Blair's mother's family? Whichever, please could you explain how is this relevant to any of the people mentioned above?
Secondly, I think this is a phenomenon of democracy: prior to their election as MPs, our public figureheads have no background in matters of state. That's kind of the point; the Commons are meant to represent *real*people*. That means that they're somewhat restricted to influencing the civil service to act in what they deem to be the public interest or opinion.
Given that situation, then intelligence, experience, and transferable skills are paramount in a Prime Minister. And so it has been during the british political period you highlight. Even a little digging on wikipedia shows just how ignorant your statement really is.
* Thatcher - a research chemist with an Oxford degree. Undeniably smart. MP for 20 years and well experienced in a number of capacities (in both Shadow and real cabinets) before she became Prime Minister. Experienced and transferable.
* Major - originally from a poor background, which led indirectly to a mediocre education, although he supplemented this later via evening classes & correspondence courses. First became a local councillor aged 25, and served in a number of government capacities for 11 years before becoming Prime Minister. Transferable, experienced, and widely recognised by colleagues and opponents alike as hardworking and idealistic.
* Blair - Oxford graduate, reasonably smart. MP for 14 years, member of shadow cabinet for ~8 years before he became Prime Minister, so pretty experienced.
* Brown - selected for fast tracking at primary school; studying history at university at age 16; first class honours MA from Edinburgh at age 21; PhD later. Frighteningly intelligent. Temporary lecturer on the history of the Labour party (denied permanent post because of his political activism); journalist & TV current affairs editor; MP for 12 years before becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ironically the success of Blair (who was ultimately forced to step down by his own party) was largely a result of the relatively stable economy Brown provided for the decade of his tenure during a severe period for the global economy.
None of the above can be labelled "overnight successes" by any stretch of the imagination.
> Next you'll be telling me voting makes a difference!
Honestly, are you trying to be a troll?
In a country where there are no individual penalties for failing to vote, *not* voting is *guaranteed* to make no difference at all!
Please refer to the last general election where less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually did so, and Labour barely scraped a victory. Within weeks Blair was forcing through even more draconian new legislation, despite widespread calls for a referendum. His excuse for such a dictat? Apparently no such referendum was needed since he had just been given a renewed "mandate of the british people"!
There are severa
> in reality it sounds more like "have an idea for" or "have developed a concept for" ...In which case this is not news.
> pending the advancement of material science. I seems they haven't built or tested..I
> mean painted a prototype, so the article is getting ahead of itself a bit maybe.
I first heard about the japanese experimenting with injet-printed PV cells during my final year alternative energy course in my first degree (mech eng). That was in 1995.
C
> What would be really elegant is painting roads to collect solar power for cars. There
> is a whole lot of road out there!
Not enough to power cars, but enough to impact carbon emissions. Routing power over distance from empty roads in desert areas would offset the effect of traffic jams.
That's a really good idea, although from a practical viewpoint it could introduce problems with braking distances. Another issue is that we would still need a similarly low-cost version of those wireless power transfer designs we're starting to see articles about.
In fact...ditch the powered car idea altogether. Create a version of the paint that can be mixed in with the bitumen in the tarmac (sorry, "asphalt"). You now have a really green alternative to a classic sun farm - no need to introduce lots of PV cells (containing toxic chemicals) or molten salt into unspoiled, delicate ecosystems.
Should work a treat in Texas, less so in the UK.
*looks gloomily out window at the rain which is doing its best to fulfil the weather forecast's prediction of 4 inches in 6-9 hours*
Conrad
Assuming that this post was written out of ignorance rather than as a simple troll:
> Who has ever heard of a MAD RUSH to get the latest and greatest Linux "distro"
Me.
In 2004, the demand for Fedora Core 2 was so high that the servers at the top of the bittorrent pyramid fell over. Ironically, the only way to download it in the first week was *very*slowly* through Redhat's ftp servers.
Since then interest in the main linux distros has only increased. Ubuntu & Fedora now routinely take a couple of months to hit a million downloads. Not quite Windows numbers yet, but still impressive, and definitely qualifies as a mad rush.
> - wasn't there a new kernel release a month ago -- did anyone give a rats arse --- nope!
The vast majority of users don't compile their own kernel. Kernel updates are compiled, vetted, etc, and finally rolled out via automatic distro updates. There's no "mad rush" to download the latest kernel any more than there's a "mad rush" to download the latest non-security-critical Windows DLL.
But then again, if you'd tested Linux objectively in recent years, you'd know that. Since you clearly haven't, please tell me why you think your opinion counts?
I suggest you go away and test drive a mainstream distro properly for a month or two. If you hit problems (make that "when" - it's an unfamiliar system), approach the Linux community for help honestly and non-confrontationally. At the end of that time if you're still as fiercely anti-linux, you'll be much more specific and astute in your criticisms, and I'm sure people will be readier to take your opinions on board.
Best regards,
Conrad
> > at least to my taste (to me Sigourney Weaver's hotter in Alien Resurrection > > than the original). ...and probably kick my ass.
:)
> >
> I'm with you on that one, but only because I like a woman that can
> dunk.
Yeah, I like those things too, but...are those really the *only* reasons? *shakes head in wonder*
> Yeah, but in the original she wore flimsy 1970s underwear...
She wore some nice lingerie in the later ones, too...or maybe that was just my fevered imagination.
> (Alien Resurrection should be considered a war crime. I don't care if there
> was no war on, they should declare one retroactively so they can classify it
> as a war crime...)
Yes, I hated the film when I went to see it, and it pissed me off that the "Aliens" concept had become so over-franchised. A shame, because it needn't have been that way; the beginning was actually quite good, and there were some interesting concepts to play around with. Seldom have I seen a film in more dire need of a script doctor.
But, mindless drivel though it is, Weaver's performance as a human/alien hybrid was captivating - she's in a different league to the other players (especially Ryder, who was horrendously miscast). I hate to think about it, but one of these days I'm going to have to sit through the whole pile of steaming dog turd again just to watch her.
Sexy, yes. But what an actress!
[Back to Anderson]
> Yeah, just saw her in The Last King of Scotland; she's still got it
Haven't seen LKOS yet, but must do so - apparently it's quite good.
C
> Gillian Anderson has got to be pretty old by now. The fun may be
> gone.
Nope. She was recently in a UK TV production of Bleak House.
She's certainly less gamine, but still *gorgeous*, at least to my taste (to me Sigourney Weaver's hotter in Alien Resurrection than the original).
Conrad
> The BBC said they are going to look at other platforms later. They are just making downloads
> available to the vast majority of the people who paid for it first, this is normal.
"Normal" how, precisely? What prior example is there of a state-owned media corporate opening its archives for general perusal?
> This is like 4oD and SKY Anytime which currently only work with Windows XP (not even Vista).
This is *not* the same - 4 & Sky are standard commercial channels, unlike the BBC. The only reasonable restriction is to confine use of the service to those who paid for it, i.e. UK citizens.
> I'm sure they will be updatiung their software for at least Vista and Mac soon enough. It not like
> they said NO is it!
There is talk about Mac users getting such a service at a "later" (unspecified) date. No mention has been made yet of other operating systems.
By law, everyone in the UK who uses a TV or TV card has to pay an annual TV licence to fund the BBC. Windows users are about to be given a greater service than other users for that fee. When this scheme begins many people (e.g. me) will be paying, essentially, for a service to which they are not given full access.
That is not fair. That is what the fuss is about.
C
> No, Kolivas has definitely withdrawn from kernel development. From his -ck
> mailing list post:
>
> "So, I've had enough. I'm out of here forever."
I stand corrected. What a shame that it spiralled this far.
Conrad
> Ingo please comment on this because I have read similar stories elsewhere and would like to hear a
/. article. (Direct link to full KernelTrap article not provided, in the hope of saving the site from a slashdotting).
> response.
I'd understand if Ingo doesn't want to comment on this; it was a painful clash between two competent and strong characters, which expanded to other parties accusing Ingo of elitism and plagiarism.
For reference, this was archived on kerneltrap.org, and I believe it was covered in an earlier
For what it's worth, here's the "facts" as I see them :
1/ It looks as though Ingo *and*Linus* refused Con's original patch on certain grounds which weren't clearly understood/communicated. Ingo, however, stated that in general he was "quite positive about the staircase scheduler." He proceeded to test it and gave Con feedback.
2/ Con's work was good enough that Ingo about-turned on his earlier, negative stance about fair schedulers and was inspired to go and develop something very similar (but which fitted better with the overall kernel architecture). It's clear that this was predominantly Ingo's own code (hence no plagiarism), and Ingo credits Con in the code comments for coming up with the general approach.
3/ Somewhere in the middle of the ensuing discussion on lkml there are complaints that Con wasn't kept in the loop. However, Ingo cites examples where he *did* communicate to Con; by Con's own admission he was very ill (hospitalised) during a critical period.
4/ Parent suggests that Con has since stopped contributing to the kernel. I don't see any indication of this in the kernel thread - in fact Con's post gives every indication that he'll continue to contribute.
My analysis :
I put the situation down to an applied case of "standing on the shoulders of giants". It's very rare that anyone creates something completely new, and in large projects this can occasionally generate friction.
Con was in a susceptible condition when the CFS code was released, had a grumble on the list, but generally acted pretty maturely. Ingo credited Con's contributions wherever feasible, clarified this in discussion, and stayed polite and friendly throughout. End of story.
What's pretty disgusting is the partisan name-calling that follows in the KernelTrap comments. "Shame on Ingo", "Con is acting like a baby", etc. I hope that this doesn't generate bad feeling between Molnar & Kolivas, because after Con's original complaint on lkml and Ingo's response things seemed to be settled.
No doubt in future Ingo will take an increased amount of care about vetting other people's code, not promoting his own to the exclusion of others, and crediting other people in his own work (note: I don't claim that he has been lacking in this respect in the past). Con, likewise, will doubtless be mollified when his contributions are more readily recognised as being of merit in future. In the meantime Linus has emphasised that competition between developers is a *good* thing to a reasonable extent, as it directly increases motivation.
Now, I suggest that everyone else with a ready opinion hold their breath a while, and let all them get on with coding.
Conrad
> So for example, if you have two tasks on a CPU, one a 100% CPU hog, the other one an application
> that sleeps/runs 50% of the time - both will get 50% of the CPU in CFS. Under the strict 'runner
> fairness' approach (which for example SD is following), the 100% CPU hog would get ~66% of CPU time,
> the sleeper would get ~33% of CPU time.
Just a thought - have you considered using the golden ratio instead of basic proportions? Is it feasible/viable?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)
Disclaimer: I haven't the first clue about kernel internals, let alone scheduling.
However, my complete lack of knowledge of such things, this problem seems somewhat analogous to location of maxima/minima in real data. In that application, bracketing & bisection via golden ratio provides the fastest convergence (faster than equal bisection).
If CFS proves to be good, then perhaps such an approach (i.e. phi-weighting, in *favour* of sleeping processes?) would provide the optimal solution.
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Conrad