Most travellers don't just walk to the nearest park and spend a year walking laps of it. That's not travel.
It's not traveling very far, but it's certainly traveling around the perimeter of the park. Given enough time, it would certainly add up to many miles of travel. Heck, when I went to get coffee recently, I traveled to the kitchen. Hardly a voyage I'm going to brag about to my friends, but it was still travel. And the ISS isn't going around the park; it's going all the way around the world. That's travel by pretty much any definition.
Sure it is moving relative to the centre of the earth
It's not just moving relative to the center of the Earth. It's moving relative to the surface of the Earth. Which is pretty much the bog-standard definition of travel. Especially if the distance you move covers the entire globe!
so is the car on blocks.
That's why I asked if OP though the ISS was in geosynchronous orbit. The car on blocks isn't traveling relative to the surface of the Earth. The ISS is! In fact, it's not even in an equatorial orbit, so not only is it traveling east/west, it's also traveling north/south.
A satellite in a geosynchronous equatorial orbit could be seen as a reasonable analogy to your car on blocks, but the ISS is not!
Sure I get the (attempted) joke, but it doesn't help answer my question: what does he mean when he says its not moving? I honestly cannot see any perspective where that claim makes sense. The ISS isn't moving under its own power, but neither is a rock launched with a catapult. But the rock is, nonetheless, traveling. Launch it hard enough, it can come down miles away. Launch it even harder, and its ballistic trajectory will miss the Earth completely. Which is what the ISS does. So, a ballistic trajectory is traveling, and traveling farther the harder you're pushed, unless you're pushed so hard you miss the Earth, when, all of a sudden, your motion no longer counts as traveling because you're going too fast? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I can understand why a geosynch orbit might not be considered traveling, even though a geosynch satellite is moving way faster than the ISS. That at least makes some sense, and would make the joke make sense, but the ISS is in LEO, not geosynch, so it's traveling by any definition of traveling I can come up with.
the ISS hasn't travelled any farther in orbit than I've travelled on my treadmill.
Do you imagine that it's in geosynchronous orbit? Like some comms satellites are? I assure you, it's not. I've looked up. I've seen it go by. From where I sit, it is most definitely traveling.
Do you mean it goes around the Earth and ends up back where it started? That's true of most travelers. The ends-up-back-where-they-started bit, at least. Fewer will actually go all the way around the world to achieve that, but I don't think anyone would accept a claim that Phileas Fogg never traveled anywhere.
Do you mean it's not traveling because it's falling? I'm sorry, but if you're up high enough and moving fast enough to fall all the way around the world, I think you're traveling. If I'm riding a bicycle downhill, I may essentially be falling, and not need to pedal at all, but I think most people would consider me to be traveling.)
Yes, Debian ARM64 has already been released. That's why I said "when it was initially released." It's hard for something to have had its initial release if it hasn't been released. However, it still doesn't have all the packages that are available for most of its supported platforms. It's somewhere in the 96-98% range, last I checked. Plenty for embedded systems, but perhaps not ideal for a general purpose educational system.
For that matter, there's probably a version of Debian ARM64 available for the Pi. There's several OSes available for the Pi. However, the fact that Debian ARM64 is still not 100% may be part of the reason that Raspian isn't yet 64-bit. Or it may be because they want one distribution that will work on both older and newer Pis. I dunno. Just saying, it's not 100% yet.
The Debian ARM64 port is very new. When it was initially released, it was still missing several key components, including Mono, libvp8 (which means no node.js), Go, and Rust. Debian unstable is a little better, but still has a number of missing packages that simply don't build or don't run properly on ARM64 yet.
As for faster instruction execution, that's nice, as long as the larger pointer size doesn't cause more cache misses. Which in turn, depends on the sort of data structures your code uses. Vectors and arrays are probably fine; lists and trees may be more problematic.
Bottom line, it's not as bad as OP claimed, but not quite as rosy as you paint it. I'd certainly like to see a 64-bit option, but I'm willing to be patient for a bit while they work out more kinks. Heck ARM64 support in gcc itself is still fairly new; I'm not sure how good the optimization is yet. Probably still has some catching up to do, compared to widely-used architectures like x86-64.
it's still rather agonizing to have to use the stupid activities page
So, launch it in "classic" mode, or use the tweak tool to enable the applications menu. The only thing I use the activities page for is switching workspaces.
the lack of menu buttons is equally frustrating.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean here. If I were, I might have suggestions.
That's thinking as a developer. And git is great... if you're a developer.
That seems like a fairly positive thing...for a developer tool!
(If you want to argue that git could be more useful in more fields than software development if it were...something else, well, that might be true, but it was developed by developers for developers, and seems to be doing quite well in its intended role.)
Except that it has never been universally accepted, nor even close. It appeared as a stylistic suggestion and has never really gone beyond that.
If you want to restrict your own use of "less" to noncountables, that's fine. Nobody's stopping you. But it is simply false to claim that anyone who ignores your personal preference is doing something wrong.
These sorts of things are also subject to regional variation. If "less votes" sounds absolutely wrong to you, that may simply reflect the peculiarities of your specific dialect. To me, it merely sounds a bit informal. I'd say "he got less votes" if I was speaking informally, but in a formal context, I'd say "he received fewer votes". Note that the verb changes as well as adjective. To me, "he got fewer votes" sounds rather bizarre, like it's shifting registers mid-sentence. On the other hand, "he received less votes" sounds terrible.
Depends on the rate of growth and expansion. Your city might have had a small net loss, while your state as a whole had a net gain. Since you're unlikely to have surveyed the entire state, you might think there's still contraction.
In my case, my city actually had a net loss of one last year (two closed, one opened). However, one of the ones that closed actually just moved to a nearby city where the rents were cheaper. So, overall, it was a wash.
So, of the 3000+ modules I have on my drive, 80 of them are actually in use. (79, actually, since the first line of output from lsmod is a header describing the fields below.)
"Bloat"? Driver modules don't get loaded unless the hardware in question is detected. If you're worried about disk space, well, you should be compiling your own kernels, which allows you to leave out the portions you know you're not going to use. Not because of this device specifically, but because of the thousands of devices you don't have which have modules sitting on your disc unused and unneeded.
The summary seems a bit misleading. If you read TFA (I know, I know), you'll find:
"Informational, not Promotional: When referring to podcasts, and the people who host, produce, or contribute to them, we will mention the name of the podcast but not in a way that explicitly endorses it."
Still a bit odd, but not as bad as the summary makes it look, I think. No mentioning sites, but it's fine to mention the podcasts themselves.
I admit, I'm left with mixed feelings. I can partly understand it. If it were, say, a book publisher, I can see why they might not want people to promote Amazon, since a lot of book sales still happen through local, indy booksellers, and I'm a fan of local indy booksellers myself. But of course, the podcast sites aren't a big for-profit corporation, so the analogy isn't perfect, but there are similarities.
Another interesting quote:
"No NPR One: For now, NPR One will not be promoted on the air."
(Emphasis mine.) I'm a little reassured by that "for now". That implies that this policy may be subject to change in the future. That maybe things are still a bit in flux, and there's people in the organization who aren't 100% sure about this approach.
So, yeah, I'm not entirely sure what I think about this. If they couldn't mention podcasts at all, I'd be strongly against it, but as it is, I'm kinda neutral. Not a fan, but I can't bring myself to care all that strongly one way or the other.
Although the summary's not very clear (thanks, <strike>Obama</strike>Slashdot!), I'm pretty sure that's on Wayland, since I've been using middle-click paste with Gnome3 for ages now.
The "weirdness" of the *nix userland that most people in the *nix world have standardized on these days. Yeah, can't think why they'd possibly want that.
Regular FreeBSD is indeed just fine, but it has dozens of minor incompatibilities with both GNU and SysV that will trip you up if you're used to those others.
GNU/kFreeBSD is a really nice compromise if you're used to either GNU/Linux or SysV. GNU is designed to be as compatible as possible with both BSD and SysV. (So it's also a nice option if you're a BSD guy forced to work on a SysV system. Which is actually how I got started with it.)
If you're a BSD guy using BSD, then yeah, there's little point in putting GNU on it. But for everyone else, it makes a lot of sense.
Frankly, I try to stick GNU on everything. I've run it on BSD, HPUX, Solaris, SunOS, Windows, and, of course, Linux.
Right now, I'm running GNU/kFreeBSD in a vm to port some software to BSD. When I get it running, on that, I'll install regular BSD to make sure everything still works, but I'm interested in the porting effort, not in mucking around learning all of BSD's quirks, so GNU/kFreeBSD is a godsend. I'm not scared of the command line. I just don't want to waste my time remembering all the little incompatibilities of the BSD userland while I'm trying to get some work done. In recent years, every single time I've tried to use straight BSD, I end up getting frustrated at some little thing that just won't work the way I want it to. The way I'm used to.
Now, for someone who's new to *nix, I agree that BSD is a very fine option. Heck, I started with the BSD-based version of SunOS, and still have fond memories of it. But at this point in time, I am so used to the GNU userland that I just don't want to deal with something that doesn't have it. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who prefers GNU—after all, not only has the Debian GNU/BSD survived for many years, but now there's a second one!:)
These days (since around 2001), open-source software is basically exempt from the US ITAR export rules (with some qualifications—if you're planning to export crypto software source yourself, you need to check out the rules). Back before that was true, every major Linux distro had sites in Europe to host the essential crypto software (e.g. nonus.debian.org).
So, I dunno about Windows or MacOS, but with Linux, the reason you haven't seen any download links is probably that you're too young!
Is there a compelling reason to prefer Linux to the BSDs when it comes to the mainframe?
Well, there's the fact that the mainframe manufacturers (read: IBM) actively support Linux on their systems, and will happily sell you a mainframe with Linux pre-installed. In fact, that's more-or-less the standard configuration these days, as I understand it. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/...
I know none of the mainframes had Unix running on them [...]
Your knowledge is extremely out of date. RH, SUSE, and even Debian have been actively supporting IBM mainframes for years, with active help and support from IBM. Linux has been running on mainframes in datacenters for over a decade.
does [AIX] have more similarities to Linux than it does to BSD?
While this is a less relevant question than you thought, the answer is still yes. Linux—or, more specifically, GNU—generally steered a middle course between SysV and BSD, and, where it could, would implement compatibility with both. So, overall, Linux—or, at least, the flavor of Linux sometimes referred to as "GNU/Linux"—is closer to both SysV and BSD than either is to the other. (Although the differences between BSD and SysV have also diminished over time as BSD has adapted to become more flexible itself.)
No. Public keys exist to ensure only one person can decrypt what you are sending.
No, public keys also exist to verify private signatures. In all the years my public key has been out there, I've had it used for encryption maybe a handful of times (mostly for Debian voting verification), but it's been used for signature verification (mostly with Debian packages) more times than I can count.
R has been around longer than Java, and is based on S which is older than C++. There's a huge body of existing code and libraries to leverage. But from what I gather, the real reason to use R is because the only other option you're being offered is SAS, and you don't want to deal with that mess! Or so I hear.
Bottom line, if you're not being threatened with SAS, there may be little reason to learn R. But if you are, or if you think there's any danger you might be, R is probably something you want to learn ASAP!:)
You may be right, but it'll be hard to hear over all the SIWs screaming about how horrible and misleading this study must be, because some person somewhere once overstated a completely unrelated fact about gender/sex bias on some obscure Internet forum, which proves (PROVES, do you hear me?) that all women and men who support them are always and everywhere wrong!!!!1!
By "feel it necessary to point out their gender", do you mean going back in time and forcing their parents to give them a gender-neutral name like "Chris" instead of an obviously gendered name like "Maria"? Because I don't quite know how to tell you this, but time travel hasn't actually been invented yet...:D
Ignoring sovereign immunity (and the all-too-typical American response of "let's sue!"), I can only imagine the results:
You: I'm suing the IRS for telling me my SSN was compromised! IRS: Yes, when we discovered his SSN had been compromised, we notified him of the fact. Of course, we are in no way responsible for the compromise, so we have no idea why this idiot is suing us. Judge: He is an idiot, isn't he? Case dismissed.
But on the bright side, you would have caused a federal lawyer and a judge to spend time reading your suit, and, in the former case, writing a response, or, in the latter case, reading the response and writing a judgment. With that sort of practice at wasting taxpayer money, you might end up qualified to run for office!:D
Slashdot Mirror
Most travellers don't just walk to the nearest park and spend a year walking laps of it. That's not travel.
It's not traveling very far, but it's certainly traveling around the perimeter of the park. Given enough time, it would certainly add up to many miles of travel. Heck, when I went to get coffee recently, I traveled to the kitchen. Hardly a voyage I'm going to brag about to my friends, but it was still travel. And the ISS isn't going around the park; it's going all the way around the world. That's travel by pretty much any definition.
Sure it is moving relative to the centre of the earth
It's not just moving relative to the center of the Earth. It's moving relative to the surface of the Earth. Which is pretty much the bog-standard definition of travel. Especially if the distance you move covers the entire globe!
so is the car on blocks.
That's why I asked if OP though the ISS was in geosynchronous orbit. The car on blocks isn't traveling relative to the surface of the Earth. The ISS is! In fact, it's not even in an equatorial orbit, so not only is it traveling east/west, it's also traveling north/south.
A satellite in a geosynchronous equatorial orbit could be seen as a reasonable analogy to your car on blocks, but the ISS is not!
Sure I get the (attempted) joke, but it doesn't help answer my question: what does he mean when he says its not moving? I honestly cannot see any perspective where that claim makes sense. The ISS isn't moving under its own power, but neither is a rock launched with a catapult. But the rock is, nonetheless, traveling. Launch it hard enough, it can come down miles away. Launch it even harder, and its ballistic trajectory will miss the Earth completely. Which is what the ISS does. So, a ballistic trajectory is traveling, and traveling farther the harder you're pushed, unless you're pushed so hard you miss the Earth, when, all of a sudden, your motion no longer counts as traveling because you're going too fast? That doesn't make any sense to me.
I can understand why a geosynch orbit might not be considered traveling, even though a geosynch satellite is moving way faster than the ISS. That at least makes some sense, and would make the joke make sense, but the ISS is in LEO, not geosynch, so it's traveling by any definition of traveling I can come up with.
the ISS hasn't travelled any farther in orbit than I've travelled on my treadmill.
Do you imagine that it's in geosynchronous orbit? Like some comms satellites are? I assure you, it's not. I've looked up. I've seen it go by. From where I sit, it is most definitely traveling.
Do you mean it goes around the Earth and ends up back where it started? That's true of most travelers. The ends-up-back-where-they-started bit, at least. Fewer will actually go all the way around the world to achieve that, but I don't think anyone would accept a claim that Phileas Fogg never traveled anywhere.
Do you mean it's not traveling because it's falling? I'm sorry, but if you're up high enough and moving fast enough to fall all the way around the world, I think you're traveling. If I'm riding a bicycle downhill, I may essentially be falling, and not need to pedal at all, but I think most people would consider me to be traveling.)
Yes, Debian ARM64 has already been released. That's why I said "when it was initially released." It's hard for something to have had its initial release if it hasn't been released. However, it still doesn't have all the packages that are available for most of its supported platforms. It's somewhere in the 96-98% range, last I checked. Plenty for embedded systems, but perhaps not ideal for a general purpose educational system.
For that matter, there's probably a version of Debian ARM64 available for the Pi. There's several OSes available for the Pi. However, the fact that Debian ARM64 is still not 100% may be part of the reason that Raspian isn't yet 64-bit. Or it may be because they want one distribution that will work on both older and newer Pis. I dunno. Just saying, it's not 100% yet.
The Debian ARM64 port is very new. When it was initially released, it was still missing several key components, including Mono, libvp8 (which means no node.js), Go, and Rust. Debian unstable is a little better, but still has a number of missing packages that simply don't build or don't run properly on ARM64 yet.
As for faster instruction execution, that's nice, as long as the larger pointer size doesn't cause more cache misses. Which in turn, depends on the sort of data structures your code uses. Vectors and arrays are probably fine; lists and trees may be more problematic.
Bottom line, it's not as bad as OP claimed, but not quite as rosy as you paint it. I'd certainly like to see a 64-bit option, but I'm willing to be patient for a bit while they work out more kinks. Heck ARM64 support in gcc itself is still fairly new; I'm not sure how good the optimization is yet. Probably still has some catching up to do, compared to widely-used architectures like x86-64.
it's still rather agonizing to have to use the stupid activities page
So, launch it in "classic" mode, or use the tweak tool to enable the applications menu. The only thing I use the activities page for is switching workspaces.
the lack of menu buttons is equally frustrating.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean here. If I were, I might have suggestions.
That's thinking as a developer. And git is great... if you're a developer.
That seems like a fairly positive thing...for a developer tool!
(If you want to argue that git could be more useful in more fields than software development if it were...something else, well, that might be true, but it was developed by developers for developers, and seems to be doing quite well in its intended role.)
Except that it has never been universally accepted, nor even close. It appeared as a stylistic suggestion and has never really gone beyond that.
If you want to restrict your own use of "less" to noncountables, that's fine. Nobody's stopping you. But it is simply false to claim that anyone who ignores your personal preference is doing something wrong.
These sorts of things are also subject to regional variation. If "less votes" sounds absolutely wrong to you, that may simply reflect the peculiarities of your specific dialect. To me, it merely sounds a bit informal. I'd say "he got less votes" if I was speaking informally, but in a formal context, I'd say "he received fewer votes". Note that the verb changes as well as adjective. To me, "he got fewer votes" sounds rather bizarre, like it's shifting registers mid-sentence. On the other hand, "he received less votes" sounds terrible.
Depends on the rate of growth and expansion. Your city might have had a small net loss, while your state as a whole had a net gain. Since you're unlikely to have surveyed the entire state, you might think there's still contraction.
In my case, my city actually had a net loss of one last year (two closed, one opened). However, one of the ones that closed actually just moved to a nearby city where the rents were cheaper. So, overall, it was a wash.
Gaiman primarily writes fantasy.
From what I've heard (not that I follow this sort of thing closely), you're exactly right on all points. It really was a kind of genius move.
It's worse. They've been elevencimated! Nigel Tufnel would be proud! :D
Oh, and for comparison:
$ lsmod|wc -l
80
So, of the 3000+ modules I have on my drive, 80 of them are actually in use. (79, actually, since the first line of output from lsmod is a header describing the fields below.)
"Bloat"? Driver modules don't get loaded unless the hardware in question is detected. If you're worried about disk space, well, you should be compiling your own kernels, which allows you to leave out the portions you know you're not going to use. Not because of this device specifically, but because of the thousands of devices you don't have which have modules sitting on your disc unused and unneeded.
$ find /lib/modules/4.3.0-1-amd64/ -name '*.ko'|wc -l
3180
That's over 3000 modules, many of which support dozens, if not hundreds, of devices.
The summary seems a bit misleading. If you read TFA (I know, I know), you'll find:
"Informational, not Promotional: When referring to podcasts, and the people who host, produce, or contribute to them, we will mention the name of the podcast but not in a way that explicitly endorses it."
Still a bit odd, but not as bad as the summary makes it look, I think. No mentioning sites, but it's fine to mention the podcasts themselves.
I admit, I'm left with mixed feelings. I can partly understand it. If it were, say, a book publisher, I can see why they might not want people to promote Amazon, since a lot of book sales still happen through local, indy booksellers, and I'm a fan of local indy booksellers myself. But of course, the podcast sites aren't a big for-profit corporation, so the analogy isn't perfect, but there are similarities.
Another interesting quote:
"No NPR One: For now, NPR One will not be promoted on the air."
(Emphasis mine.) I'm a little reassured by that "for now". That implies that this policy may be subject to change in the future. That maybe things are still a bit in flux, and there's people in the organization who aren't 100% sure about this approach.
So, yeah, I'm not entirely sure what I think about this. If they couldn't mention podcasts at all, I'd be strongly against it, but as it is, I'm kinda neutral. Not a fan, but I can't bring myself to care all that strongly one way or the other.
Although the summary's not very clear (thanks, <strike>Obama</strike>Slashdot!), I'm pretty sure that's on Wayland, since I've been using middle-click paste with Gnome3 for ages now.
The "weirdness" of the *nix userland that most people in the *nix world have standardized on these days. Yeah, can't think why they'd possibly want that.
Regular FreeBSD is indeed just fine, but it has dozens of minor incompatibilities with both GNU and SysV that will trip you up if you're used to those others.
GNU/kFreeBSD is a really nice compromise if you're used to either GNU/Linux or SysV. GNU is designed to be as compatible as possible with both BSD and SysV. (So it's also a nice option if you're a BSD guy forced to work on a SysV system. Which is actually how I got started with it.)
If you're a BSD guy using BSD, then yeah, there's little point in putting GNU on it. But for everyone else, it makes a lot of sense.
Frankly, I try to stick GNU on everything. I've run it on BSD, HPUX, Solaris, SunOS, Windows, and, of course, Linux.
Right now, I'm running GNU/kFreeBSD in a vm to port some software to BSD. When I get it running, on that, I'll install regular BSD to make sure everything still works, but I'm interested in the porting effort, not in mucking around learning all of BSD's quirks, so GNU/kFreeBSD is a godsend. I'm not scared of the command line. I just don't want to waste my time remembering all the little incompatibilities of the BSD userland while I'm trying to get some work done. In recent years, every single time I've tried to use straight BSD, I end up getting frustrated at some little thing that just won't work the way I want it to. The way I'm used to.
Now, for someone who's new to *nix, I agree that BSD is a very fine option. Heck, I started with the BSD-based version of SunOS, and still have fond memories of it. But at this point in time, I am so used to the GNU userland that I just don't want to deal with something that doesn't have it. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who prefers GNU—after all, not only has the Debian GNU/BSD survived for many years, but now there's a second one! :)
These days (since around 2001), open-source software is basically exempt from the US ITAR export rules (with some qualifications—if you're planning to export crypto software source yourself, you need to check out the rules). Back before that was true, every major Linux distro had sites in Europe to host the essential crypto software (e.g. nonus.debian.org).
So, I dunno about Windows or MacOS, but with Linux, the reason you haven't seen any download links is probably that you're too young!
Is there a compelling reason to prefer Linux to the BSDs when it comes to the mainframe?
Well, there's the fact that the mainframe manufacturers (read: IBM) actively support Linux on their systems, and will happily sell you a mainframe with Linux pre-installed. In fact, that's more-or-less the standard configuration these days, as I understand it. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/...
I know none of the mainframes had Unix running on them [...]
Your knowledge is extremely out of date. RH, SUSE, and even Debian have been actively supporting IBM mainframes for years, with active help and support from IBM. Linux has been running on mainframes in datacenters for over a decade.
does [AIX] have more similarities to Linux than it does to BSD?
While this is a less relevant question than you thought, the answer is still yes. Linux—or, more specifically, GNU—generally steered a middle course between SysV and BSD, and, where it could, would implement compatibility with both. So, overall, Linux—or, at least, the flavor of Linux sometimes referred to as "GNU/Linux"—is closer to both SysV and BSD than either is to the other. (Although the differences between BSD and SysV have also diminished over time as BSD has adapted to become more flexible itself.)
No. Public keys exist to ensure only one person can decrypt what you are sending.
No, public keys also exist to verify private signatures. In all the years my public key has been out there, I've had it used for encryption maybe a handful of times (mostly for Debian voting verification), but it's been used for signature verification (mostly with Debian packages) more times than I can count.
Huh. Ok. Elizabeth then. :)
R has been around longer than Java, and is based on S which is older than C++. There's a huge body of existing code and libraries to leverage. But from what I gather, the real reason to use R is because the only other option you're being offered is SAS, and you don't want to deal with that mess! Or so I hear.
Bottom line, if you're not being threatened with SAS, there may be little reason to learn R. But if you are, or if you think there's any danger you might be, R is probably something you want to learn ASAP! :)
Cue the SJW claptrap in 3.... 2.... 1...
You may be right, but it'll be hard to hear over all the SIWs screaming about how horrible and misleading this study must be, because some person somewhere once overstated a completely unrelated fact about gender/sex bias on some obscure Internet forum, which proves (PROVES, do you hear me?) that all women and men who support them are always and everywhere wrong!!!!1!
By "feel it necessary to point out their gender", do you mean going back in time and forcing their parents to give them a gender-neutral name like "Chris" instead of an obviously gendered name like "Maria"? Because I don't quite know how to tell you this, but time travel hasn't actually been invented yet... :D
Ignoring sovereign immunity (and the all-too-typical American response of "let's sue!"), I can only imagine the results:
You: I'm suing the IRS for telling me my SSN was compromised!
IRS: Yes, when we discovered his SSN had been compromised, we notified him of the fact. Of course, we are in no way responsible for the compromise, so we have no idea why this idiot is suing us.
Judge: He is an idiot, isn't he? Case dismissed.
But on the bright side, you would have caused a federal lawyer and a judge to spend time reading your suit, and, in the former case, writing a response, or, in the latter case, reading the response and writing a judgment. With that sort of practice at wasting taxpayer money, you might end up qualified to run for office! :D