[...]Where it's claimed that BSD is losing a lot of support due to Linux related tools and development processes only cares for Linux and not BSD.[...]
You know, part of the problem is that they have a crappy package management infrastructure, something I really find puzzling. Ports just does not scale, and things like a WM environment (kde, or xfce) are just hard to get working.
For example, if you start from a bare install, and build & install xfce (which will take a while) you will be surprised to find that X isn't a dependency. If you compile X, well, startx has to be compiled separately, which sort of makes sense if you are seriously autistic. Gdm? It builds, no problem. Installs in a broken and unusable state by default. Xfce plugins? Please build each one separately. And it goes on and on and on like this.
The net result is that freebsd is frustrating to install and use. More so than slackware was a decade ago, and this should really tell you how bad the situation is.
E! was magnificent. It was speedy, it was beautiful - it's beauty has yet to be surpassed over a decade later - and made my RedHat system seem like it was from the far distant future. It was sensible, and it simply worked.
I never got it to work sensibly. And, yes, it looked like the distant future, but out of a cheesy eighties movie.
Maybe they want it to have so little computational power that it would not sell in the market.
That's an intetresting point. How much power would a 300Mhz pentium of 1998 consume if built with modern technology? That thing could do quite a bit of computing, but as you say, wouldn't survive in todays PC market. But for embedded applications it would be great, not least for the fact that you can get the comfort of a full computer.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
True, but, back in the day, the expectation was that just about everyone was going to be a content producer running a Web server out of their house. That never happened.
And it's much better that way, tbh.
Well, for some time, a lot of people had a spambot running out of their house. Stil have, to some extent.
Ah, yes, an article from the paleoconservative "think" tank. Of course some minor detail of that part of history can be used, by ignoring everything else that happend, to claim that the whole idea was absurd. If anything, the article you linked to shows that you cannot trust private companies because they will commit fraud whenever they are not tightly regulated (in fact, it was the government that put an end to that particular fraud).
Without massive government intervention there will be no space age. Deal with it.
No railroad businesses involved, no railroads. Funny how that works out. And how valuable was that land given the absence of railroads? There's a reason the feds were giving it away. They couldn't get rid of it in any other way.
It also just made a lot of sense. The government got a lot in return, by having the country prosper in a rather substantial way. And since the land was still in the same country, it cannot really be said to have been "given away".
The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.
Yes, it is censorship, but i disagree with your claim that it has nothing to do with priavacy. In a sense, things like this highlight the fact that censorship sometimes is a good thing.
Back in the olden days, people looked at a map, planned out a route, and tried to follow it. If they lost track of their position, they'd stop the car (heresy in the modern age, I know) get out the map and sort out a new route to their destination.
And that was so exciting and convenient!!1!. Especially when in a hurry. Especially if it wasn't possible to stop the car for a kilometer or two, etc.
It's like nobody reads past that line to the qualifying sentence.
You should go back and sue your reading teachers for doing a piss poor job.
Now, now. You wrote in a way that suggests that one can in general assume that IRC is not logged. That is simply nonsense. The caveat you added is so weak that it almost does not exist.
Your aggresivity is simply disproportionate. You shouldn't really throw a tantrum over people not understanding your second-rate prose. You hastily wrote a comment on slashdot, and it was not of high literary quality. That's ok, just don't go ballistic.
A whole continent of ice would have been a bit much carrying for a kid your age.... Jokes aside, there was little you could have done back then, so you really should not regret it. Actually, it was probably wise not to say anything, as it would have got you into trouble.
Perhaps you can find out who they were and post it here. That'd be interesting.
In Australia a country with out the financial woes of America we all get 4 weeks leave a year. The finical woes of America is because the systems are setup so big corporations can make big money.
Also, keeping people under constant exhaustion and fear makes them docile, which is the way the corporate state likes its citizens. It is painfull to watch american people with bad insurance, no vacations, no job security, with debt piling well over their heads, etc. blathering about how free they are. Many americans are just slaves in denial of their enslavement.
No. When you work for the government, you work against the people; you are a parasite upon the people.
Very rarely it is so. Very often, the gov provides services much cheaper than industry, in a more timely and efficient manner, and with higher quality. Health care is an example (not in the US, but just look over the pond).
I've seen far too many programmers who whine and whine about how much the code base sucks, but they never do anything to make it better. They insist that the only way to go forward is to rewrite the whole thing, a project that is almost inevitably doomed to failure.
I'd add that this is true in more ways than the obvious one.
If you run into a team declaring their work to be crap and insisting on a rewrite based on your principles then you are most likely going to fail, not only technically but also professionally. People will talk shit behind your back, and all sorts of good things won't be happening to you.
There are, of course, exceptions to that rule, but they are rare.
How can a crowd make a good decision: half of the voters are more stupid than the average.
Sorry to sabotage your joke, but that would be the median. If you have ten users, all of about the same moderate level of intelligence, and one really dumb, then 90% are above average.
This being facebook, of course, 90% is below average.
Actually, it is a relatively cheap computation on modern computing hardware. The specification for many modern tactical intercept systems is that the complete decision cycle has an upper bound of 20-50 milliseconds. You can do an amazing amount of computation on sensor data in that amount of time.
I presume it is a different problem. You don't know when and where it will launch, and have only very little time to do the whole thing. It's not the same as having a PID controller following the heat signature of a large plane.
In any case, we can only speculate. Previous systems did not work, so there is reason to assume that the whole thing is very challenging and needs number crunching.
Does it really take so much computing power to calculate trajectory of a falling object?
It's not a falling object, it has a rocket engine.
You have to estimate acceleration, correct for mistakes, compute a plausible trajectory for it, compute a plausible trajectory for the interceptor, and since it involves objects moving at high speeds, it all has to be very accurate. You probably have a lot of crappy data sources to aggregate (radar, optical, etc) and things like wind and coriolis effects to take care of.
The optimal control problems involving launching and controlling the interceptor are already hard to write down on paper, and solving them numerically is far from trivial. And it all has to be done in real time.
In sum, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a 500-core, state-of-the-art supercomputer crunching the numbers.
"Let the market fix healthcare" wouldn't count, for example.
Bingo. There's a good idea right there. I didn't even need to come up with it. You did.
Brushing aside the obvious doubts on your reading comprehension skills: Do you really believe that? Nobody who takes evidence seriously does. What else do you believe? That Ayn Rand was a great writer and philosopher? That Ludwig "Praxeology" van Mises was a lucid thinker?
So if by "radical and fresh ideas" you mean "radical, stale, and stupid right wing cliche" - then yes, I agree, that's what conservatives have specialized in. That won't save wild type Arabica.
especially when some of the more radical and fresh ideas come from the nominally conservative side.
Radical and fresh bullshit - I agree. Or do you have an example of a good idea comming from the conservatives? "Let the market fix healthcare" wouldn't count, for example.
Not necessarily. His point, that whenever evidence contradicts ideology on nuclear matters, supporters of nuclear energy tend to brush away the evidence (and get modded up as a result) is definitively true.
It's key to note that Germany has exported the most electricity this year despite beginning to phase out nuclear. This bit of reporting sounds a bit slanted to me and designed to preclude the eventual outcome;
I know that if evidence doesn't fit the model, pro nuke people throw away the evidence (the same way as other right wing, libertarian, religious people do) so this all may be lost on you. The fact is that germany continued to export electricity some time ago despite the fact that 8 of their 17 nuclear reactors were down. A lot of that was sold to France, where the nuclear industry has traditionally had free reign, and yet consistenly (and "misteriously") fails to deliver.
(There is one error in the article. That fact did not silence critics of the nuclear phaseout. Nothing short of a gunshot will silence the hard-headed pro nuke fools. Not that I advocate that, mind you, just stating an empirical fact).
Oh, and at some point there was only one nuclear reactor running in Japan. That didn't push them to the stone age nor anything of the sort.
Which era in American history are you being nostalgic about, exactly?
Hard to say, but perhaps it's postwar America, where tax rates where significantly higher, especially for the rich, and there was a lot less inequality. Of course it had other problems, but...
Slashdot Mirror
You know, part of the problem is that they have a crappy package management infrastructure, something I really find puzzling. Ports just does not scale, and things like a WM environment (kde, or xfce) are just hard to get working.
For example, if you start from a bare install, and build & install xfce (which will take a while) you will be surprised to find that X isn't a dependency. If you compile X, well, startx has to be compiled separately, which sort of makes sense if you are seriously autistic. Gdm? It builds, no problem. Installs in a broken and unusable state by default. Xfce plugins? Please build each one separately. And it goes on and on and on like this.
The net result is that freebsd is frustrating to install and use. More so than slackware was a decade ago, and this should really tell you how bad the situation is.
That is interesting. Can you elaborate?
I never got it to work sensibly. And, yes, it looked like the distant future, but out of a cheesy eighties movie.
Like this: http://www.erat.org/files/bluesteel/screenshot.jpg
Perhaps what sank it was that it promoted ricer aesthetics.
That's an intetresting point. How much power would a 300Mhz pentium of 1998 consume if built with modern technology? That thing could do quite a bit of computing, but as you say, wouldn't survive in todays PC market. But for embedded applications it would be great, not least for the fact that you can get the comfort of a full computer.
And it's much better that way, tbh.
Well, for some time, a lot of people had a spambot running out of their house. Stil have, to some extent.
Ah, yes, an article from the paleoconservative "think" tank. Of course some minor detail of that part of history can be used, by ignoring everything else that happend, to claim that the whole idea was absurd. If anything, the article you linked to shows that you cannot trust private companies because they will commit fraud whenever they are not tightly regulated (in fact, it was the government that put an end to that particular fraud).
Without massive government intervention there will be no space age. Deal with it.
It also just made a lot of sense. The government got a lot in return, by having the country prosper in a rather substantial way. And since the land was still in the same country, it cannot really be said to have been "given away".
Yes, it is censorship, but i disagree with your claim that it has nothing to do with priavacy. In a sense, things like this highlight the fact that censorship sometimes is a good thing.
They look worse than what they look now? Do you have links to pictures? I'd love to see that.
And that was so exciting and convenient!!1!. Especially when in a hurry. Especially if it wasn't possible to stop the car for a kilometer or two, etc.
You can keep your olden days, thank you.
Now, now. You wrote in a way that suggests that one can in general assume that IRC is not logged. That is simply nonsense. The caveat you added is so weak that it almost does not exist.
Your aggresivity is simply disproportionate. You shouldn't really throw a tantrum over people not understanding your second-rate prose. You hastily wrote a comment on slashdot, and it was not of high literary quality. That's ok, just don't go ballistic.
Many irc channels have a logbot. I know one that has uninterrupted records of everything that was said on it for at least a decade.
A whole continent of ice would have been a bit much carrying for a kid your age.... Jokes aside, there was little you could have done back then, so you really should not regret it. Actually, it was probably wise not to say anything, as it would have got you into trouble.
Perhaps you can find out who they were and post it here. That'd be interesting.
Also, keeping people under constant exhaustion and fear makes them docile, which is the way the corporate state likes its citizens. It is painfull to watch american people with bad insurance, no vacations, no job security, with debt piling well over their heads, etc. blathering about how free they are. Many americans are just slaves in denial of their enslavement.
Very rarely it is so. Very often, the gov provides services much cheaper than industry, in a more timely and efficient manner, and with higher quality. Health care is an example (not in the US, but just look over the pond).
You are so full of shit.
I'd add that this is true in more ways than the obvious one.
If you run into a team declaring their work to be crap and insisting on a rewrite based on your principles then you are most likely going to fail, not only technically but also professionally. People will talk shit behind your back, and all sorts of good things won't be happening to you.
There are, of course, exceptions to that rule, but they are rare.
Sorry to sabotage your joke, but that would be the median. If you have ten users, all of about the same moderate level of intelligence, and one really dumb, then 90% are above average.
This being facebook, of course, 90% is below average.
I presume it is a different problem. You don't know when and where it will launch, and have only very little time to do the whole thing. It's not the same as having a PID controller following the heat signature of a large plane.
In any case, we can only speculate. Previous systems did not work, so there is reason to assume that the whole thing is very challenging and needs number crunching.
It's not a falling object, it has a rocket engine.
You have to estimate acceleration, correct for mistakes, compute a plausible trajectory for it, compute a plausible trajectory for the interceptor, and since it involves objects moving at high speeds, it all has to be very accurate. You probably have a lot of crappy data sources to aggregate (radar, optical, etc) and things like wind and coriolis effects to take care of.
The optimal control problems involving launching and controlling the interceptor are already hard to write down on paper, and solving them numerically is far from trivial. And it all has to be done in real time.
In sum, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a 500-core, state-of-the-art supercomputer crunching the numbers.
Who knows? Whoever feels entitled to it and manages to convince enough people for it?
In any case, it's the classic "that shit belongs to me or i'm going Galt" kind of entitlement.
You are being ridiculous. The article in question was published in nature, which is about as reputable and prestigious as it gets.
Brushing aside the obvious doubts on your reading comprehension skills: Do you really believe that? Nobody who takes evidence seriously does. What else do you believe? That Ayn Rand was a great writer and philosopher? That Ludwig "Praxeology" van Mises was a lucid thinker?
So if by "radical and fresh ideas" you mean "radical, stale, and stupid right wing cliche" - then yes, I agree, that's what conservatives have specialized in. That won't save wild type Arabica.
Radical and fresh bullshit - I agree. Or do you have an example of a good idea comming from the conservatives? "Let the market fix healthcare" wouldn't count, for example.
Not necessarily. His point, that whenever evidence contradicts ideology on nuclear matters, supporters of nuclear energy tend to brush away the evidence (and get modded up as a result) is definitively true.
I know that if evidence doesn't fit the model, pro nuke people throw away the evidence (the same way as other right wing, libertarian, religious people do) so this all may be lost on you. The fact is that germany continued to export electricity some time ago despite the fact that 8 of their 17 nuclear reactors were down. A lot of that was sold to France, where the nuclear industry has traditionally had free reign, and yet consistenly (and "misteriously") fails to deliver.
Reuters on this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/europe-power-supply-idUSL5E8DD87020120214
(There is one error in the article. That fact did not silence critics of the nuclear phaseout. Nothing short of a gunshot will silence the hard-headed pro nuke fools. Not that I advocate that, mind you, just stating an empirical fact).
Oh, and at some point there was only one nuclear reactor running in Japan. That didn't push them to the stone age nor anything of the sort.
Hard to say, but perhaps it's postwar America, where tax rates where significantly higher, especially for the rich, and there was a lot less inequality. Of course it had other problems, but...