That may change by next year. The entire quadricycle loophole may be removed. The horrific results of the test have put the wheels of the Eurocracy in motion. It may take a while for them to start moving, but it is nearly impossible to stop them once they do.
The reason for the horrific tests results for the Wizz was a horrible design. It is not something that is specific to electric cars in particular. The pseudoengeneers from one well known country who designed the Wizz have built it around the battery. The battery neatly slots under the seats and carries most of the kinetic energy with it. From there on the car shell cannot sustain structural integrity in the crash. This is broken by design. It is also trivial to solve by making the battery and/or drive train free floating in a manner similar to the one used in modern car designs. In that case in the event of the crash it detaches itself and the chassis "climbs" on top of it. As a result it no longer needs to absorb all the kinetic energy carried in it.
The consumer has generally wizened up and if a car that has publically failed safety tests it is most likely going to see abissmal sales even if selling it is still legal due to a loophole in the law.
All of those arctic explorations you mentioned were trivial compared to space travel. How many full-time engineers were required to design a 18th century artic-seaworthy ship?. Several. They were called master shipbuilders in those days. For the reference the Bering expedition is unique in world naval history as it carried one of them onboard (engineering crew) and after the ship was wrecked on what is nowdays Bering Island in the Commodores, he personally redesigned and rebuilt the ship into a smaller one out of the wreckage.
How many ground crew were needed for every mission? This is probably the only difference between then and now. Ground crew is a function of communications, which people in those days did not possess. In those days the ship left port and disapeared for years on end.
How long could a voyage conceiveably last without resupplies? Many years for major resupplies, several months for minor prior to the 19th century. The aforementioned Bering journey continued for 7 years with the ship being rebuilt from scratch through the process without a major resupply.
How much dedicated training time was required per crewmember?5 years, more for "engineering" positions like the carpenters and sailmasters. Exploratory ships as a general rule did not sail with many ensigns on board.
How expensive was the entire voyage (how many top-5% wealthy people would it take to completely fund the trip)?. One actually. Not top-5%, top-0.0001%. The Russian or British emperor. Prior to that the British or the Spanish. Your choice. Prior to the late 19 century they were the only ones with enough money to finance an expedition of this type. Just read your history books. Do you think Cook travelled around the world for free? He also needed a fat (by those days) budget. Do you think Columbus would have sailed to America under a Spanish flag if he could find a budget in his native Italy?
The FCBs as a file access method were a sufficient easter egg in themselves. No need to add any extra easter eggs methinks. Compared to that the Unix ripoff of using integer filehandles in the later dos versions was a godsend. By the way the thing about the unix likeliness was proudly stated by Microsoft in the old MSDOS programmer manual. Yep. Those were the days when Microsoft was proud to be Unix-alike.
Re:Doesn't matter - the Chinese will get there fir
on
Can Space Nerds Get Along?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is a matter of perception.
The Northern Pacific and the Arctic were as difficult for the 17 and 18th century seafarer as the space is for us nowdays. May I remind you that prior to Vitus Bering and Chirikov every single attempt to explore the area has ended with a loss of the ship and all hands. Bering payed his life and the life of half of his crew for just mapping the southern coast of Alaska and the Aleut chain. So did many crews after him.
Actually our current is more the level of Amundsen and the Fram which happily travelled around the area freezing in ice for prolonged periods when necessary. So can we in space. We cannot get fast from A to B, but we already possess the technology level to do so slowly.
Yep, it is not the level of an Arctica class icebreaker which can nowdays sail around the arctic from the Barentz to Alaska and back as it sees fit, but before you build one you have to go through the sufferings of early discoveries and through long and tedious voyages on the Fram.
Sorry if the analogy seems far fetched. IMO it is not.
Re:Doesn't matter - the Chinese will get there fir
on
Can Space Nerds Get Along?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Alaska was also considered a remote sterile rock ya know... It is all relative and matter of perception...
If they make the port reliant on the TPM/DRM support present from 2.6.14 kernels onwards - not bloody likely. In fact it is likely to be possible to lock it down considerably better than Windows where this is not native to the OS prior to Vista.
I would speculate that the reason for Apple not doing any such port is completely different. There was a recent slashdot article about Vista/Apple/etc market share based on browser stats:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/ 23/1840206. This article has very clear stats which show that one of the primary targets of MacOS on Intel has been the desktop Unixes:http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx ?qprid=5. There is a direct correlation between the decrease of "Other" and increase of "MacOS Intel" in the graphs. I have also observed a fairly large set of converstions amidst friends and collegues in support of this trend.
If Apple ports iTunes to linux it will eliminate at least one of the market drives for these new MacOSX conversions. It is not mad to do so, so I would not expect any iTunes ports anytime soon.
It is the same level of thinking that tries to remove the nitration chemical reactions out of the chemistry textbooks. Very popular with many governments and many countries.
It does work after a fashion. Instead of working tireless only that grand bang that will make loads of smoke and noise, kids sit bored staring into the blue screen until they go completely brainnumb. The process produces easily controlled model taxpaying consumer-producers which is what the government wants. Bingo, goal achieved.
This combined with the fact that the guy is in need of a serious cluebat. He agreed to produce material that may damage somebody's else system under his own name as a sole trader. From a legal perspective this actually means full and sole reponsibility for any use or misuse of such material (and no, EULAs or licenses do not work here, any selfrespecting corporation legal staff will do with voiding an EULA in minutes).
Anyone out there who feels pissed off enough can go and sue him out of his house and all of his belongings even under German law (AFAIK, only anglosaxon nations have the "tools of trade" liability limitation, rest of the world does not, everything you have is a fair game for the bailif). If he had a clue he should have operated all of his security related business as a limited company. If sued, he would have been at most responsible to the value of his declared capital and that would have been it.
Yet another person in desperate need of a thick cluebat. Nothing to see here. Move along.
This is more for internal issue tracking and software development issue tracking. At least this is the way I have seen it used.
If you want to use something for external facing issue tracking and make it customer facing straight away I would suggest RT by Best Practical. It is GPL and relatively open as far as brain effort to extend it is concerned. It is also trivial to use for issue oriented CRM/sales which is typical of a service company or consultancy.
It is used as the primary system for tracking customer facing issues by companies with turnover in the billions like NTT/Verio. It is also used by small non-IT companies like my favourite plumbing supply shop http://www.plumbworld.co.uk/. It is also often adapted to integrate the support, CRM and sales process like in Claranet http://www.claranet.co.uk/. Judging by the people on its mailing list it is also running in pilots and internal projects at Audi, BT and a couple of other places.
It has been in stable for nearly 4-5 years now. I have used in my previous job, and while it is not completely free of bugs, it is possibly the best general purpose issue tracking system I have seen so far.
Antonio Bliar government wanted to do that from every single roadside CCTV camera in Britain (and there are loads of them here). They went as far as blatantly lying on national TV for 3 days that the greatest and latest automatic pilot system which they have in Bradford and Leeds helped them track the suspect vehicle after a policeman was shot during a robbery there.
After that they quietly stopped that advertisement as no suspects were caught so repeating the claim that the CCTV number plate scanning miracle helped them get one started to sound very bogus.
They can clone license plates. That is what they do here where such test networks are operating around Bradford and Leeds. They also do it to dodge the London congestion charge which operates similarly.
They are carry on as if cars have never been more fuel efficient which is bullshit. Corrected for mass - nope. The mass of a Golf has grown by a factor of 2 since the days of the carburettor. The mass of a nowdays Astra is 50%+ higher than the mass of a Cavalier/Cadett. The only cars still under 1 ton which can carry 4-5 are 2-3 models made by japanese like the Yaris, Sirion and the Aygo. Even the french have breached the 1 ton barrier with the new Clio and the Modus. The family cars start at 1.5 tons for EU specs and go into 2+ ton territory for the US ones. Compared to that 30 years ago the average family car was under or around 1 ton. So no wander that the fuel efficiency has gone to hell.
Do they still use wind tunnels for cars? They do. If you look at Daihatsu specs for EU, they have the aerodynamic drag coefficient prominently displayed and some of the numbers are quite remarkable for cars that are relatively high compared to their length. So do Saab, Honda and a couple of others. This in fact is quite obvious if you look at them from the side. While they also follow fashion all of them tend to be more jet-like compared to the average run-off the mill Ford box on wheels (GM is actually slightly better to that respect).
Where have those fuel economy warning lights gone?. They make no sense in an injection car. This info is trivially available from the trip computer and should be displayed on all cars. Unfortunately only Honda and Suzuki show it on all models. Rest, including the GM crapmobile you have described consider this to be a luxury feature and show it only on the high spec ones.
Overall, the fuel economy can come back only if new materials are used to reduce weight. This is the primary factor in determining fuel economy. Similarly there is a common factor in all cars showing stellar economy vs performance values on the market. It is the use of alloys and aluminium. Audi A2 - alluminium all over, Daihatsu and small Toyota's - alloy engines and heavy use of alloys in the drive train, Honda - same, etc.
I recall him admitting being wrong after coming on the side of Al Viro in some of the legendary Viro vs devfs and similar flamewars. As far as links, I need to remember the actual case to search for it, but I clearly remember him admitting being wrong on more than one occasion and apologising.
Sorry for not being able to be more exact, I have stopped following LKM around Y2K and the last time I have had any brush up with lk-?? lists was when reporting the fundamental bind/connect/send vs bind/sendto cockup in ipv4/udp.c 3-4 years ago.
Which by the way reminds me that Linus has one more point here. Selfselecting lists on one special subject suck. Based on trying to report the aforementioned ipv4/udp.c bogousity to linux-net I would absolutely agree with him here. It all went/dev/null as some "nobody" from outside the special selected club was reporting something not worthy of the divine attention of the deities. I did not get flamed "ab persona", I just got ignored. That hardly ever happens when posting questions or bug reports on lkm. You may get flamed, but someone generally looks at it.
C'mon, that fell through in hours after the arrest so they kept him under suspicion because he had bought a one-way plane ticket.
If that is a sufficient reason in itself, my entire family should go in jail straight away because we are going on our next holiday and coming back on a staggered schedule and thus forced to use one-way tickets for all trips. The idiots from British Airways (and most other airlines) do not allow you to have 3 people on the same e-ticket coming out and 2 of them returning on one date and one on another. You either have to book them separately (which you can't if one of them is under 14) or as separate one way tickets.
And let me not get into how exactly did Howard government bend the law when it lost the reasons to hold him. The moment they had nothing to hold him for they revoked his visa and held him on that account for "immigration violation". Classic case of using terrorism for propaganda in an election year. Almost as good as the British government inventing scary anti-airplane liquid plots to comply with their naso-rectal interfacing obligations to support an american congress election.
If we look at the core linux developers every single one of them has been flamed into a crisp by Linus on the average every few years (and some of them flamed back in turn). Every single one of them has had something turned down in flames and an alternative merged as well (in some cases Linus admitting that he made the wrong choice later). And I cannot recall anyone of them behaving like such a hissy primadonna.
Similarly, I have flamed people in a crips at work, I have been flamed back and I still work with this people 8+ years later. In some cases we have even come again to the same company and the same team to work together. It is just software, it is just a job and any code you have ever written can and would be ripped out by the project leader one day to be replaced by something else. Accepting this as a given is a sign of maturity. If you cannot do that, you are not mature enough to maintain a critical part of a software project. You should go away and play with toys in the sandpit for a while until you grow up.
He gets to see one of the most beautiful islands on Earth with one of the best wines on the planet while it is still there. It is on the island which will one day slide into the ocean to cause a giant tsunami that will wipe out everything around the Atlantic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsu nami.shtml.
It is a place which is worth to see while it is still there. Spanish are right calling it La Isla Bonita. It is so - the beautiful island. Most french wine is horsepiss compared to a good year of La Palma Tinto Negramol, or the high altitude grown albillo from the northern slopes, or the local malvasia which is probably the best in the world, or... The nature there is totally stunning. Fantastic looking mountains though climbing on them is outright suicide, they are rock is fragile. Fantastic place for paragliding, trekking, diving, fishing and practically devoid of the usual tourist infestation. It is insanely quiet. The only form of nightlife are cafes and restaurants with good food and drink. No nightclub infestation either.
Only problem is if you can stomach landing at the STC airport. It is like landing on an damaged aircraft carrier moored in a port next to a skyscraper. The runway is just long enough for an A320 to land with reverse thrust working at full blast. If it does not you go straight into the sea of the edge of a 200m high cliff. Nose down. It it is also slanted at 4-5 degrees and goes straight into the sea on 3 sides. Mountains on the third. And the final decision point on one of the sides is before you align up for landing.
Guns can be detected even if they are disguised. It is difficult to hide a chamber, rounds, etc from an X-Ray (not impssible, just difficult). Now this will be trivial to disguise like anything you want starting from a mobile phone and finishing with accessories normally sold in Ann Somers or Agent Provocateur.
So while the "good" guys (quotes quite intentional actually) may want to have this look like a gun...
1.They already had one with HP. They could not break into business accounts and it was limited to congigs that were of no interest to the average business. It was also not available in the most rabidly Microsoftic countries like the UK (yep, do we like it or not, but in UK Bill rules the market, if he did not Antonio Bliar would not have tried to start his election campaigns in MSFT building in Reading for the last two elections). I had a number of shouting matches with HP resellers on the subject only to surrender and buy with Winhoze preinstalled and load Debian on it. In addition to that various business discounts usually brought the MSFT preloaded price under the level the price of the systems sold with Mandrake. So it did not make financial sense either.
2. apt-get install light. Debian derived distros have a clear and definitive "unfair" advantage over any RPM based one due to the packaging format being simply better. Ubuntu has got a head start here and Mandrake can do very little about it.
3. Resistance is futile. You shall be packaged. Size of the package base and level of quality assurance. Ubuntu has been able to build on the enormous base of packaged software in Debian and extends it even further. No other linux distro gets anywhere close. Compared to that the RedHat package base is laughable and Mandrake does not get close enough on quality assurance.
Anyone who actually makes investment decisions based on reak information and not on slashdot line noise have made that consideration 2 years ago.
That was roughly the time when Ellacoya, Taz, P-Cube and their like went into trials with major telcos. Unfortunately they were all private at the time, otherwise I would have been seriously tempted to buy some stock. The telcos and ISPs that intended to deploy them have already done so. The ones that have not are looking at flexible bandwidth management and quotas as an alternative.
In either case Vonage is screwed unless it negotiates directly with the ISP to have its packets marked correctly. I am surprised they are not openly advertising for the position of transit/peering manager while openly stating that they will double the industry average for the position (that is what I would have done).
The elegece of the PDP instruction set made this easy if not easier. Really? You call "PDP Endian" elegant? Compared to that little endian is the pinnacle of elegance in memory representation.
I can't comment much on the PC-heavy end of the list, but DEC stands out to me as the one which least deserved to die
Really? Have you actually programmed on a DEC system? That was the most abominable IO record access semantics I have ever met in my career. An average homework written in pascal for a CS course consisted of one page of open declaration followed by 5 lines of homework. Totally nuts. Add to that the joke known as the BSD Unix subsystem (your best friend if you want to hack a DEC). Add to that the totally insane file/node/resource naming convention. I had that sorry excuse of an OS pwn3d left right and center anytime I liked. It was done mostly to run rogue or nethack which were prohibited by the club of religious freaks in charge of the computer system (I understood that they constitute a happy sect much later). It ended with getting a pre-expulsion warning and the equivalent of a campus ASBO where I was not allowed to enter a terminal room. No thank you. It deserved to die. Even the really clumsy early PC Unixes were so much better, it was simply unreal.
Borland deserved to die as well. While it had a fantastic DOS/protected mode compiler and runtime it never understood the idea that future will be ruled by resource editors and visual controls. I have had to deal with their visual controls on Mac (yep, Turbo Pascal 1.x for Mac System 8), Windows (both TPW and Dephi) and I have even tried to implement a graphical extension of the Vision stuff. It deserved to die. Anything else aside a rapid application development environment that did not understand the value of ready controls and resources did not belong on the market. Microsoft came with their lame, buggy, but usefull foundation class libs and wiped the floor. No surprise there.
I can continue with the list. Every single one of them had serious technical reasons to depart. While we may have some fond memories of them - good bye and good riddance. Unless you feel masochistic to write an RMS open statement and build a GUI with TPW (or god forbit TP for Mac).
This is his take on that. That is not necessarily the reality of what was happening.
While I agree with his take that 2.6 was a sequential rewrite and breakage of working parts a number of them were essential for having a fast working kernel in desktop and end-user applications. For example the full TTY layer rewrite around 2.6.15-16 was essential in improving the speed of newer high-end modems (GPRS/3G anyone) as well as other apps using the tty layer (there is still a lot of those). Same for the NFS improvements and introducing NFS 4.0 in 2.6.14 and so on and so fourth. Overall, 2.6 should not have been released. It should have been numbered 2.5.99 until circa 2.6.16 level. Alternatively we should have been at 2.8 or 3.0 now.
He was mostly pushing towards scheduler improvements, which was somewhere low on the priority list in the early 2.6. While I do not necessarily agree with Linux rephrasing "Wall Street" as "Scheduler is for Whimps, real hackers do VM", it is a fair description of the necessities of early 2.6 development. The VM in early 2.6 sucked, only to be broken around 2.6.10 followed with some cascading breakage into filesystems and just barely fixed around 2.6.16+. From there on scheduler was payed some attention and quite a lot actually. Some of the suggestions that came in that period actually are quite good. Most importantly they have some mathematical basis behind them. They are not hacked to gether and their behaviour is predictable. Unfortunately, they are considerably harder to tweak or tinker. So I am not surprised he is slamming the door. What I find annoying is that he is blaming everyone but himself on it. Not nice.
While the action is a bit clumsy, it has its merits.
1. Based on the contractual agreement between you and the carrier they can intercept the communication.
2. Based on the contractual agreement between you and the carrier they can alter the communication, provided that they do not directly materially benefit from the alteration (this is actually in the realm of common carrier, not contract law). This is a slightly murky area as for example transparent proxy is OK under most legislations while putting ads on hosted user pages is usually not. Both have material benefit to the provider, but only one is being penalised.
So legally this is most likely more or less OK. Morally, while slightly dubious it is also more or less OK provided that they give you a workaround. The workaround of running your own DNS is there and you can use it any time you like. If you are using IRC you probably know how to do that. It is not like they transparently proxy all traffic to specific addresses and/or ports (which I would have done).
Frankly, I would like to see more of that. They should be applauded. This is the first time I recall that a major provider has stood up and have started proactively cleaning their network. If they add to this mandatory network admission and mandatory quarantine of zombies until clean (with an automated luser friendly "download this to clean" option) I will personally send the person who authorized it a bottle of champagne.
Slashdot Mirror
That may change by next year. The entire quadricycle loophole may be removed. The horrific results of the test have put the wheels of the Eurocracy in motion. It may take a while for them to start moving, but it is nearly impossible to stop them once they do.
The reason for the horrific tests results for the Wizz was a horrible design. It is not something that is specific to electric cars in particular. The pseudoengeneers from one well known country who designed the Wizz have built it around the battery. The battery neatly slots under the seats and carries most of the kinetic energy with it. From there on the car shell cannot sustain structural integrity in the crash. This is broken by design. It is also trivial to solve by making the battery and/or drive train free floating in a manner similar to the one used in modern car designs. In that case in the event of the crash it detaches itself and the chassis "climbs" on top of it. As a result it no longer needs to absorb all the kinetic energy carried in it.
The consumer has generally wizened up and if a car that has publically failed safety tests it is most likely going to see abissmal sales even if selling it is still legal due to a loophole in the law.
All of those arctic explorations you mentioned were trivial compared to space travel. How many full-time engineers were required to design a 18th century artic-seaworthy ship?. Several. They were called master shipbuilders in those days. For the reference the Bering expedition is unique in world naval history as it carried one of them onboard (engineering crew) and after the ship was wrecked on what is nowdays Bering Island in the Commodores, he personally redesigned and rebuilt the ship into a smaller one out of the wreckage.
How many ground crew were needed for every mission? This is probably the only difference between then and now. Ground crew is a function of communications, which people in those days did not possess. In those days the ship left port and disapeared for years on end.
How long could a voyage conceiveably last without resupplies? Many years for major resupplies, several months for minor prior to the 19th century. The aforementioned Bering journey continued for 7 years with the ship being rebuilt from scratch through the process without a major resupply.
How much dedicated training time was required per crewmember?5 years, more for "engineering" positions like the carpenters and sailmasters. Exploratory ships as a general rule did not sail with many ensigns on board.
How expensive was the entire voyage (how many top-5% wealthy people would it take to completely fund the trip)?. One actually. Not top-5%, top-0.0001%. The Russian or British emperor. Prior to that the British or the Spanish. Your choice. Prior to the late 19 century they were the only ones with enough money to finance an expedition of this type. Just read your history books. Do you think Cook travelled around the world for free? He also needed a fat (by those days) budget. Do you think Columbus would have sailed to America under a Spanish flag if he could find a budget in his native Italy?
The FCBs as a file access method were a sufficient easter egg in themselves. No need to add any extra easter eggs methinks. Compared to that the Unix ripoff of using integer filehandles in the later dos versions was a godsend. By the way the thing about the unix likeliness was proudly stated by Microsoft in the old MSDOS programmer manual. Yep. Those were the days when Microsoft was proud to be Unix-alike.
This is a matter of perception.
The Northern Pacific and the Arctic were as difficult for the 17 and 18th century seafarer as the space is for us nowdays. May I remind you that prior to Vitus Bering and Chirikov every single attempt to explore the area has ended with a loss of the ship and all hands. Bering payed his life and the life of half of his crew for just mapping the southern coast of Alaska and the Aleut chain. So did many crews after him.
Actually our current is more the level of Amundsen and the Fram which happily travelled around the area freezing in ice for prolonged periods when necessary. So can we in space. We cannot get fast from A to B, but we already possess the technology level to do so slowly.
Yep, it is not the level of an Arctica class icebreaker which can nowdays sail around the arctic from the Barentz to Alaska and back as it sees fit, but before you build one you have to go through the sufferings of early discoveries and through long and tedious voyages on the Fram.
Sorry if the analogy seems far fetched. IMO it is not.
Alaska was also considered a remote sterile rock ya know... It is all relative and matter of perception...
If they make the port reliant on the TPM/DRM support present from 2.6.14 kernels onwards - not bloody likely. In fact it is likely to be possible to lock it down considerably better than Windows where this is not native to the OS prior to Vista.
/ 23/1840206. This article has very clear stats which show that one of the primary targets of MacOS on Intel has been the desktop Unixes:http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx ?qprid=5. There is a direct correlation between the decrease of "Other" and increase of "MacOS Intel" in the graphs. I have also observed a fairly large set of converstions amidst friends and collegues in support of this trend.
I would speculate that the reason for Apple not doing any such port is completely different. There was a recent slashdot article about Vista/Apple/etc market share based on browser stats:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07
If Apple ports iTunes to linux it will eliminate at least one of the market drives for these new MacOSX conversions. It is not mad to do so, so I would not expect any iTunes ports anytime soon.
It is the same level of thinking that tries to remove the nitration chemical reactions out of the chemistry textbooks. Very popular with many governments and many countries.
It does work after a fashion. Instead of working tireless only that grand bang that will make loads of smoke and noise, kids sit bored staring into the blue screen until they go completely brainnumb. The process produces easily controlled model taxpaying consumer-producers which is what the government wants. Bingo, goal achieved.
This combined with the fact that the guy is in need of a serious cluebat. He agreed to produce material that may damage somebody's else system under his own name as a sole trader. From a legal perspective this actually means full and sole reponsibility for any use or misuse of such material (and no, EULAs or licenses do not work here, any selfrespecting corporation legal staff will do with voiding an EULA in minutes).
Anyone out there who feels pissed off enough can go and sue him out of his house and all of his belongings even under German law (AFAIK, only anglosaxon nations have the "tools of trade" liability limitation, rest of the world does not, everything you have is a fair game for the bailif). If he had a clue he should have operated all of his security related business as a limited company. If sued, he would have been at most responsible to the value of his declared capital and that would have been it.
Yet another person in desperate need of a thick cluebat. Nothing to see here. Move along.
This is more for internal issue tracking and software development issue tracking. At least this is the way I have seen it used.
If you want to use something for external facing issue tracking and make it customer facing straight away I would suggest RT by Best Practical. It is GPL and relatively open as far as brain effort to extend it is concerned. It is also trivial to use for issue oriented CRM/sales which is typical of a service company or consultancy.
It is used as the primary system for tracking customer facing issues by companies with turnover in the billions like NTT/Verio. It is also used by small non-IT companies like my favourite plumbing supply shop http://www.plumbworld.co.uk/. It is also often adapted to integrate the support, CRM and sales process like in Claranet http://www.claranet.co.uk/. Judging by the people on its mailing list it is also running in pilots and internal projects at Audi, BT and a couple of other places.
It has been in stable for nearly 4-5 years now. I have used in my previous job, and while it is not completely free of bugs, it is possibly the best general purpose issue tracking system I have seen so far.
C'mon, that is data from one lame car camera.
Antonio Bliar government wanted to do that from every single roadside CCTV camera in Britain (and there are loads of them here). They went as far as blatantly lying on national TV for 3 days that the greatest and latest automatic pilot system which they have in Bradford and Leeds helped them track the suspect vehicle after a policeman was shot during a robbery there.
After that they quietly stopped that advertisement as no suspects were caught so repeating the claim that the CCTV number plate scanning miracle helped them get one started to sound very bogus.
They can clone license plates. That is what they do here where such test networks are operating around Bradford and Leeds. They also do it to dodge the London congestion charge which operates similarly.
They are carry on as if cars have never been more fuel efficient which is bullshit. Corrected for mass - nope. The mass of a Golf has grown by a factor of 2 since the days of the carburettor. The mass of a nowdays Astra is 50%+ higher than the mass of a Cavalier/Cadett. The only cars still under 1 ton which can carry 4-5 are 2-3 models made by japanese like the Yaris, Sirion and the Aygo. Even the french have breached the 1 ton barrier with the new Clio and the Modus. The family cars start at 1.5 tons for EU specs and go into 2+ ton territory for the US ones. Compared to that 30 years ago the average family car was under or around 1 ton. So no wander that the fuel efficiency has gone to hell.
Do they still use wind tunnels for cars? They do. If you look at Daihatsu specs for EU, they have the aerodynamic drag coefficient prominently displayed and some of the numbers are quite remarkable for cars that are relatively high compared to their length. So do Saab, Honda and a couple of others. This in fact is quite obvious if you look at them from the side. While they also follow fashion all of them tend to be more jet-like compared to the average run-off the mill Ford box on wheels (GM is actually slightly better to that respect).
Where have those fuel economy warning lights gone?. They make no sense in an injection car. This info is trivially available from the trip computer and should be displayed on all cars. Unfortunately only Honda and Suzuki show it on all models. Rest, including the GM crapmobile you have described consider this to be a luxury feature and show it only on the high spec ones.
Overall, the fuel economy can come back only if new materials are used to reduce weight. This is the primary factor in determining fuel economy. Similarly there is a common factor in all cars showing stellar economy vs performance values on the market. It is the use of alloys and aluminium. Audi A2 - alluminium all over, Daihatsu and small Toyota's - alloy engines and heavy use of alloys in the drive train, Honda - same, etc.
I recall him admitting being wrong after coming on the side of Al Viro in some of the legendary Viro vs devfs and similar flamewars. As far as links, I need to remember the actual case to search for it, but I clearly remember him admitting being wrong on more than one occasion and apologising.
/dev/null as some "nobody" from outside the special selected club was reporting something not worthy of the divine attention of the deities. I did not get flamed "ab persona", I just got ignored. That hardly ever happens when posting questions or bug reports on lkm. You may get flamed, but someone generally looks at it.
Sorry for not being able to be more exact, I have stopped following LKM around Y2K and the last time I have had any brush up with lk-?? lists was when reporting the fundamental bind/connect/send vs bind/sendto cockup in ipv4/udp.c 3-4 years ago.
Which by the way reminds me that Linus has one more point here. Selfselecting lists on one special subject suck. Based on trying to report the aforementioned ipv4/udp.c bogousity to linux-net I would absolutely agree with him here. It all went
C'mon, that fell through in hours after the arrest so they kept him under suspicion because he had bought a one-way plane ticket.
If that is a sufficient reason in itself, my entire family should go in jail straight away because we are going on our next holiday and coming back on a staggered schedule and thus forced to use one-way tickets for all trips. The idiots from British Airways (and most other airlines) do not allow you to have 3 people on the same e-ticket coming out and 2 of them returning on one date and one on another. You either have to book them separately (which you can't if one of them is under 14) or as separate one way tickets.
And let me not get into how exactly did Howard government bend the law when it lost the reasons to hold him. The moment they had nothing to hold him for they revoked his visa and held him on that account for "immigration violation". Classic case of using terrorism for propaganda in an election year. Almost as good as the British government inventing scary anti-airplane liquid plots to comply with their naso-rectal interfacing obligations to support an american congress election.
Well...
If we look at the core linux developers every single one of them has been flamed into a crisp by Linus on the average every few years (and some of them flamed back in turn). Every single one of them has had something turned down in flames and an alternative merged as well (in some cases Linus admitting that he made the wrong choice later). And I cannot recall anyone of them behaving like such a hissy primadonna.
Similarly, I have flamed people in a crips at work, I have been flamed back and I still work with this people 8+ years later. In some cases we have even come again to the same company and the same team to work together. It is just software, it is just a job and any code you have ever written can and would be ripped out by the project leader one day to be replaced by something else. Accepting this as a given is a sign of maturity. If you cannot do that, you are not mature enough to maintain a critical part of a software project. You should go away and play with toys in the sandpit for a while until you grow up.
Sorry, the guy does not get a bit of my sympathy.
Secondary goal most likely.
u nami.shtml.
... The nature there is totally stunning. Fantastic looking mountains though climbing on them is outright suicide, they are rock is fragile. Fantastic place for paragliding, trekking, diving, fishing and practically devoid of the usual tourist infestation. It is insanely quiet. The only form of nightlife are cafes and restaurants with good food and drink. No nightclub infestation either.
He gets to see one of the most beautiful islands on Earth with one of the best wines on the planet while it is still there. It is on the island which will one day slide into the ocean to cause a giant tsunami that will wipe out everything around the Atlantic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_ts
It is a place which is worth to see while it is still there. Spanish are right calling it La Isla Bonita. It is so - the beautiful island. Most french wine is horsepiss compared to a good year of La Palma Tinto Negramol, or the high altitude grown albillo from the northern slopes, or the local malvasia which is probably the best in the world, or
Only problem is if you can stomach landing at the STC airport. It is like landing on an damaged aircraft carrier moored in a port next to a skyscraper. The runway is just long enough for an A320 to land with reverse thrust working at full blast. If it does not you go straight into the sea of the edge of a 200m high cliff. Nose down. It it is also slanted at 4-5 degrees and goes straight into the sea on 3 sides. Mountains on the third. And the final decision point on one of the sides is before you align up for landing.
Actually the opposite.
Guns can be detected even if they are disguised. It is difficult to hide a chamber, rounds, etc from an X-Ray (not impssible, just difficult). Now this will be trivial to disguise like anything you want starting from a mobile phone and finishing with accessories normally sold in Ann Somers or Agent Provocateur.
So while the "good" guys (quotes quite intentional actually) may want to have this look like a gun...
Correct. There is energy saving only with CRT which is a dieing breed anyway.
1.They already had one with HP. They could not break into business accounts and it was limited to congigs that were of no interest to the average business. It was also not available in the most rabidly Microsoftic countries like the UK (yep, do we like it or not, but in UK Bill rules the market, if he did not Antonio Bliar would not have tried to start his election campaigns in MSFT building in Reading for the last two elections). I had a number of shouting matches with HP resellers on the subject only to surrender and buy with Winhoze preinstalled and load Debian on it. In addition to that various business discounts usually brought the MSFT preloaded price under the level the price of the systems sold with Mandrake. So it did not make financial sense either.
2. apt-get install light. Debian derived distros have a clear and definitive "unfair" advantage over any RPM based one due to the packaging format being simply better. Ubuntu has got a head start here and Mandrake can do very little about it.
3. Resistance is futile. You shall be packaged. Size of the package base and level of quality assurance. Ubuntu has been able to build on the enormous base of packaged software in Debian and extends it even further. No other linux distro gets anywhere close. Compared to that the RedHat package base is laughable and Mandrake does not get close enough on quality assurance.
Err...
Anyone who actually makes investment decisions based on reak information and not on slashdot line noise have made that consideration 2 years ago.
That was roughly the time when Ellacoya, Taz, P-Cube and their like went into trials with major telcos. Unfortunately they were all private at the time, otherwise I would have been seriously tempted to buy some stock. The telcos and ISPs that intended to deploy them have already done so. The ones that have not are looking at flexible bandwidth management and quotas as an alternative.
In either case Vonage is screwed unless it negotiates directly with the ISP to have its packets marked correctly. I am surprised they are not openly advertising for the position of transit/peering manager while openly stating that they will double the industry average for the position (that is what I would have done).
Nothing to see here people, move along.
The elegece of the PDP instruction set made this easy if not easier. Really? You call "PDP Endian" elegant? Compared to that little endian is the pinnacle of elegance in memory representation.
which least deserved to die
Really? Have you actually programmed on a DEC system? That was the most abominable IO record access semantics I have ever met in my career. An average homework written in pascal for a CS course consisted of one page of open declaration followed by 5 lines of homework. Totally nuts. Add to that the joke known as the BSD Unix subsystem (your best friend if you want to hack a DEC). Add to that the totally insane file/node/resource naming convention. I had that sorry excuse of an OS pwn3d left right and center anytime I liked. It was done mostly to run rogue or nethack which were prohibited by the club of religious freaks in charge of the computer system (I understood that they constitute a happy sect much later). It ended with getting a pre-expulsion warning and the equivalent of a campus ASBO where I was not allowed to enter a terminal room. No thank you. It deserved to die. Even the really clumsy early PC Unixes were so much better, it was simply unreal.
Borland deserved to die as well. While it had a fantastic DOS/protected mode compiler and runtime it never understood the idea that future will be ruled by resource editors and visual controls. I have had to deal with their visual controls on Mac (yep, Turbo Pascal 1.x for Mac System 8), Windows (both TPW and Dephi) and I have even tried to implement a graphical extension of the Vision stuff. It deserved to die. Anything else aside a rapid application development environment that did not understand the value of ready controls and resources did not belong on the market. Microsoft came with their lame, buggy, but usefull foundation class libs and wiped the floor. No surprise there.
I can continue with the list. Every single one of them had serious technical reasons to depart. While we may have some fond memories of them - good bye and good riddance. Unless you feel masochistic to write an RMS open statement and build a GUI with TPW (or god forbit TP for Mac).
This is his take on that. That is not necessarily the reality of what was happening.
While I agree with his take that 2.6 was a sequential rewrite and breakage of working parts a number of them were essential for having a fast working kernel in desktop and end-user applications. For example the full TTY layer rewrite around 2.6.15-16 was essential in improving the speed of newer high-end modems (GPRS/3G anyone) as well as other apps using the tty layer (there is still a lot of those). Same for the NFS improvements and introducing NFS 4.0 in 2.6.14 and so on and so fourth. Overall, 2.6 should not have been released. It should have been numbered 2.5.99 until circa 2.6.16 level. Alternatively we should have been at 2.8 or 3.0 now.
He was mostly pushing towards scheduler improvements, which was somewhere low on the priority list in the early 2.6. While I do not necessarily agree with Linux rephrasing "Wall Street" as "Scheduler is for Whimps, real hackers do VM", it is a fair description of the necessities of early 2.6 development. The VM in early 2.6 sucked, only to be broken around 2.6.10 followed with some cascading breakage into filesystems and just barely fixed around 2.6.16+. From there on scheduler was payed some attention and quite a lot actually. Some of the suggestions that came in that period actually are quite good. Most importantly they have some mathematical basis behind them. They are not hacked to gether and their behaviour is predictable. Unfortunately, they are considerably harder to tweak or tinker. So I am not surprised he is slamming the door. What I find annoying is that he is blaming everyone but himself on it. Not nice.
While the action is a bit clumsy, it has its merits.
1. Based on the contractual agreement between you and the carrier they can intercept the communication.
2. Based on the contractual agreement between you and the carrier they can alter the communication, provided that they do not directly materially benefit from the alteration (this is actually in the realm of common carrier, not contract law). This is a slightly murky area as for example transparent proxy is OK under most legislations while putting ads on hosted user pages is usually not. Both have material benefit to the provider, but only one is being penalised.
So legally this is most likely more or less OK. Morally, while slightly dubious it is also more or less OK provided that they give you a workaround. The workaround of running your own DNS is there and you can use it any time you like. If you are using IRC you probably know how to do that. It is not like they transparently proxy all traffic to specific addresses and/or ports (which I would have done).
Frankly, I would like to see more of that. They should be applauded. This is the first time I recall that a major provider has stood up and have started proactively cleaning their network. If they add to this mandatory network admission and mandatory quarantine of zombies until clean (with an automated luser friendly "download this to clean" option) I will personally send the person who authorized it a bottle of champagne.
Not true for you specifically. Is it true for a statistically significant sample of the Linux population? What is the actual proportion? Hell knows...