You completely mis-stated this. Allow me to insert a few corrections...
We cannot get anyone to spend the incredible ammounts of money necessary to build something that compares to the size and accuracy of the pyramids in Egypt, using only the materials and tools we believe they had available at the time.
Obviously, both of those completely ruins your point. I find the second one particularly telling. It's entirely possible we are simply mistaken about what tools they actually had available at the time.
In the US, what's the usual speed limit? Like 90 mp/h? Why do you need such a strong engine, then? You can't use it anyway!
SUVs aren't cars, they are pick-up trucks with a built-in camper-shell and extra seats.
While the powerful engines may be able to get up to 125MPH under perfect conditions, you should try to do that while towing a car or other type of heavy trailer. Or perhaps with 2,000lb load of cement in the back.
Horse power is not just a measure of what speed it can get the frame up to, it's a measure of how much weight it can haul at speed.
Of course most SUVs will probably never see loads like that. The real reason most people want engines with serious power is for the acceleration it gives. Mostly it's people that don't know how to drive, and insist on going from 0-60 in 4 seconds from a stop-light (only to be forced to slam on their breaks as they reach the next red-light or backed-up line of cars, but I digress).
That said, there is a legitimate argument for good acceleration. Merging onto a road with a 75MPH speed limit, from a very short on-ramp, uphill, etc., can be rather dangerous if you don't have the ability to accelerate quickly when you need to. One man was killed around here about a week ago partly because of that.
Of course, the only proper way to end any conversation with an autobahn devotee is to mention Montana...
So you're saing having a chip that uses 50% more power than its direct competitor and doesn't even beat it in a single benchmark isn't terrible?
Yes, I'm saying that.
Look, Pentium 4s have been peaking around double what equivalent Athlons were, and that has been the situation for years. It hasn't cut into Intel's lead all that much.
They may not be great specs, but these stories are vastly exaggerating the significance. These aren't at all out of line with previous Intel CPU specs, so the whole "OMG HOTTEST CPU EVER" crowd is making no sense. What's the big deal? Should we have a/. story every time Intel comes out with a new CPU that uses more power than an AMD processor? There's nothing here.
I'm not talking about Christian law dictating that we can't curse, that's not anywhere in the Bible.
You said: you can't tell me that we're not pandering to christian values
As I've said, those things have nothing at all to do with Christian values. Now you're just backpedaling and making yourself look more foolish.
The American Culture is primarily driven by Christians, and The American Culture does not like the use of curse words
Americans are Christians more often than not, but there's no correlation between the two.
Since America has the most overweight people, being overweight must be another of these Christian values as well, right?
That's the anti-christian bullshit. Guilt by association. Other heavily-christian countries have much different cultures, because these are NOT christian values in any sense of the word.
If you want to keep on backpedaling and trolling, go ahead, I just won't be paying any attention.
KOffice requires all of KDE to be loaded-up, which will eat more resources than OOo. If you already run a full KDE install, then you aren't loading all of it up just for KOffice, and it's tolerable. However, the same is true for OOo.
If you already have a GTK-based desktop environment loaded, OOo start-up time, and resources dedicated just to it, isn't so bad.
GNOME Office, I'm sorry to say, is like putting Wordpad, Paint, and Calc together, and calling it "Windows Office". The Gnome office apps are not at all impressive, I'm sorry to say. I'd love to have a GTK-based alternative to OOo, other than loading up all of KDE just to open a spreadsheet.
But you can't tell me that we're not pandering to christian values when... [...] we change the words coming out of the characters mouth from "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THAT HURT!" to "OUCH! Hey man, that hurt!"
Yes, I can in-fact say that. Last I checked, Christianity doesn't disallow curse words like "shit", "fuck", etc. The ONLY curse that is censored because of Christianity is: "Jesus Christ", and that is only censored in a select few usages of it. All the rest are censored for reasons that HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY.
So, your entire post is just anti-Christian bullshit.
Re:Japan has lowest teen pregnancy rate , USA high
on
Homer Becomes Omar
·
· Score: 1
but that you have no idea that not only do people in Japan have less sex, and lower crime rates.
The overall crime rate may be lower, but they have a FAR more serious problem with sexual assault, rape, etc. than the USA.
IMHO, Apple made one huge mistake with the video playback on the new iPod. ANYONE can tell you that 4:3 video is on it's way out, and 16:9 (and up!) video is already VERY popular.
Even now, while TV shows are still being broadcast in 4:3 over analog, the feed from the cameras, and the (H)DTV broadcasts are 16:9 for practically all shows. In addition, the pictures from digital cameras made in the past several years tend to be closer to a 16:9 aspect than a 4:3 one, making a widescreen better for viewing still pictures as well.
It seems that Apple is planning for the past, not the future... not even the PRESENT!
If I was behind the iPod, the dial would have dropped all the way to the bottom, and it and the screen would be rotated 90 degrees, to be operated horizontally. Then, widen the screen to a 16:9 ratio. THEN it would be a practical portable video device.
How does it more comfortably fit in your hand, vertically or horizontally? It's certainly more stable when standing on it's own (eg. on a table) if it's horizontal, rather than vertical.
Of course, this is just IMHO. I wouldn't even consider buying one of these for video, because cheap laptops have better capacity, FAR larger screens, play practically any video/audio codec, and can be used for more than just playing videos.
*Melon Farmers is a reference to the BBC TV cut of "Repo Man" where the words Mother-fucker were replaced by Melon farmer
Same thing in the USA with the movie "Die Hard: With a Vengance" when shown on TV. Sam Jackson says things like "You stupid white melon farmer," repeatedly.
Besides the comments others have made... DST has a purpose, and switching to UTC would eliminate any possibility for implimenting DST. How would that be a good thing?
Errr.. the crumple zones are the shock absorbers... in effect shock-mounted.
Yes, but you could easily get the same effect without totalling the car. That was the point.
And a controlled deformable cage means more energy absorbtion
No, it doesn't. If it isn't colapsing inward, it's not absorbing practically anything. Besides, car makers have repeatedly shown that they are certainly not able to make a flexible passenger compartment that won't cave-in on the passengers in one type of accident or another.
I don't like having all the kinetic energy of half a tonne of car travelling at 70 mph transferred to my torso via my seat belt!
Why do people always say crazy things like this? Driving down the road at 70 MPH does not increase your body mass. You have to deal-with your body's kinetic energy. It makes little difference how much your car weighs (assuming you are hitting an immovable object).
In any case, you don't want the passenger compartment to crumple, you want it to be as strong as humanly possible, although car manufacturers seem to want it to deform as much as possible for some reason. Hence, no roll-cages, and no reinforcement of any kind other than thin steel.
You could also eliminate the need for crumple-zones if the seats, or perhaps the entire passenger compartment, was shock-mounted.
By swapping out the gas engine with a diesel one you can get better gas mileage AND better performance.
It's not better gas mileage, because diesel isn't gas, per se. It has it's own pros and cons from gasoline, and you can't just interchangeably compare them.
Besides that, I doubt you're correct. Straight diesel engine cars are getting fuel-effeciencies of about that level already, so you'd just be making a car that's far more expensive, requiring a lot more maintenance, for practically no gain.
What car companies should be doing, IMHO, is making serial-hybrids. They would be far cheaper, far less complex, requiring much less maintenance, etc. Basically just an electric motor connected to the wheels, a reasonably-sized bank of batteries, and a simple generator. Incredibly simple, with better fuel-effeciency in city driving, with just as good effeciency in highway driving, and the possibilities of pluging-in your car for gas-free trips, or depending entirely on liquid fuels like gasoline. They could use turbines or sterling engines, which can provide better effeciency, and will operate on ANY flamable liquid you pump into the fuel tank.
Is this a joke? Are you saying that leaders of corporations can't go to jail (Martha Stewart), lose their jobs (Worldcom leaders - also went to jail), or be exposed as lying jackasses (Enron leaders - also are on their way to jail)?
Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading, a case having practically nothing to do with her company.
Worldcom and Enron were also cases of blatant fraud, which is not what the parent is talking about at all.
Look at any of millions of other cases, and you won't see anything else like Enron or Worldcom. Car companies making terribly unsafe cars to save a few dollars. Dell and others making monitors/laptops/adapters that catch fire and burn houses down. Companies making cellphones and/or batteries that result in explosions and cause serious injuries.
There are inumerable other cases like this. Companies may get fined a trivial ammount of money, but the people in-charge who decided they would needlessly KILL PEOPLE, to make a few dollars more, never go to jail.
They aren't going to spend $100 million if it's only going to bring in $10 million. Nor should they. Nor should the government. It's fiscally irresponsible and it's not someplace I want my tax dollars going. The fact that the public is NOT paying for something that it does not NEED is what I'd consider the "public good."
That's patently ridiculous. Broadband is making heaps of money. They aren't selling services at cost, or anywhere near it. There are many reasons prices are so high, and it's not because it's not economically feasable. I don't think anyone wants some distant government to step-in and provide internet service like a utility. However, enforcing the LAWS once in a while would be a good thing. Stoping companies from locking-out competitors would help. Holding companies to the contracts they signed to have access to the public lines would be a good thing. etc
I agree that BSD does not need Reiser, but I disagree with the blanket statement that BSD's filesystem is necessarily better.
If you have some basis for that belief, I'd be interesting in hearing about it.
Comparative benchmarking of full implementations has shown that the differences between filesystems is not that large for most workloads, so nobody needs to care as long as the filesystem safeguards its integrity.
I certainly agree with that. I never said that UFS2 should be ported to Linux, or any such thing. Why you seem to think I did, is beyond me. Keep in mind I posted this reply simply to refute the notion that the BSD should be using reiserfs.
(b) compares outdated journaling file systems, which are essentially strawmen.
Actually, to be fair, it compares currently-stable journaling filesystems (see next point), with a very outdated soft-updates filesystems (ie. UFS, not UFS2). It's not a strawman, it's just an older paper. The point of linking to that paper was for the theory behind it, not for benchmarks.
If you want to put this to rest, you'll need to run a benchmark with more modern journaling file systems (in particular, those with wandering logs).
*ahem* Unless I misread this, you think it would be a fair to compare benchmarks of an as-of-yet unstable journaling filesystem, which isn't yet even included with the latest unstable Linux kernel (last I checked), against UFS2, which is has been stable, and in production use for well over a year now?
Mounting a several-hundred GB Reiser partition takes a few seconds, even if it was not cleanly unmounted. How much faster do you want that to be?
I didn't say I needed or wanted it to be faster. It's just an interesting data point. Particularly because it was an argument commonly used on/. against UFS/soft-updates not long ago, particularly when it's better performance was an issue. It's just an amusing footnote, IMHO. Nothing worth debating.
From what I hear,/. isn't making much money, so using up their own bandwidth to host websites wouldn't go over well. In addition, there's the whole issue of archived stories. When the torrent goes down, the website is probably still there. Having them change the story when the torrent goes offline would be a big change and much added complexity for slashcode.
Does anybody know why ReiserFS 3 hasn't been ported to any of the BSDs yet?
Two reasons.
1. It's GPL'd code. Why in the world would a BSD-licensed project include GPL'd code, and in the kernel of all places?
2. UFS2 is better in just about every way. The issue of journaling vs. soft-updates has been rehashed a million times over, and soft-updates are simply better. http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceed ings/usenix2000/general/full_papers/seltzer/seltze r_html/index.html The one issue journaling had in it's favor was fsck times, and UFS2 with it's "background fsck" has eliminated that problem. A system based on UFS2 will be up-and-running far faster than a ReiserFS journaled system, due to reiserfsck taking much longer to complete.
So let me ask you. For what reason should anyone even consider porting reiserfs to any of the BSDs?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, both of those completely ruins your point. I find the second one particularly telling. It's entirely possible we are simply mistaken about what tools they actually had available at the time.
SUVs aren't cars, they are pick-up trucks with a built-in camper-shell and extra seats.
While the powerful engines may be able to get up to 125MPH under perfect conditions, you should try to do that while towing a car or other type of heavy trailer. Or perhaps with 2,000lb load of cement in the back.
Horse power is not just a measure of what speed it can get the frame up to, it's a measure of how much weight it can haul at speed.
Of course most SUVs will probably never see loads like that. The real reason most people want engines with serious power is for the acceleration it gives. Mostly it's people that don't know how to drive, and insist on going from 0-60 in 4 seconds from a stop-light (only to be forced to slam on their breaks as they reach the next red-light or backed-up line of cars, but I digress).
That said, there is a legitimate argument for good acceleration. Merging onto a road with a 75MPH speed limit, from a very short on-ramp, uphill, etc., can be rather dangerous if you don't have the ability to accelerate quickly when you need to. One man was killed around here about a week ago partly because of that.
Of course, the only proper way to end any conversation with an autobahn devotee is to mention Montana...
Yes, I'm saying that.
Look, Pentium 4s have been peaking around double what equivalent Athlons were, and that has been the situation for years. It hasn't cut into Intel's lead all that much.
They may not be great specs, but these stories are vastly exaggerating the significance. These aren't at all out of line with previous Intel CPU specs, so the whole "OMG HOTTEST CPU EVER" crowd is making no sense. What's the big deal? Should we have a
That's TWO Xeons, PLUS everything else eating power in the system. No doubt a good chunk of that is an ineffecient power supply, etc.
I still say buy AMD, but those figures aren't extreme at all.
You said: you can't tell me that we're not pandering to christian values
As I've said, those things have nothing at all to do with Christian values. Now you're just backpedaling and making yourself look more foolish.
Americans are Christians more often than not, but there's no correlation between the two.
Since America has the most overweight people, being overweight must be another of these Christian values as well, right?
That's the anti-christian bullshit. Guilt by association. Other heavily-christian countries have much different cultures, because these are NOT christian values in any sense of the word.
If you want to keep on backpedaling and trolling, go ahead, I just won't be paying any attention.
Parent should be modded "Funny" if anything...
KOffice requires all of KDE to be loaded-up, which will eat more resources than OOo. If you already run a full KDE install, then you aren't loading all of it up just for KOffice, and it's tolerable. However, the same is true for OOo.
If you already have a GTK-based desktop environment loaded, OOo start-up time, and resources dedicated just to it, isn't so bad.
GNOME Office, I'm sorry to say, is like putting Wordpad, Paint, and Calc together, and calling it "Windows Office". The Gnome office apps are not at all impressive, I'm sorry to say. I'd love to have a GTK-based alternative to OOo, other than loading up all of KDE just to open a spreadsheet.
Yes, I can in-fact say that. Last I checked, Christianity doesn't disallow curse words like "shit", "fuck", etc. The ONLY curse that is censored because of Christianity is: "Jesus Christ", and that is only censored in a select few usages of it. All the rest are censored for reasons that HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY.
So, your entire post is just anti-Christian bullshit.
The overall crime rate may be lower, but they have a FAR more serious problem with sexual assault, rape, etc. than the USA.
Then there's the suicide rate...
IMHO, Apple made one huge mistake with the video playback on the new iPod. ANYONE can tell you that 4:3 video is on it's way out, and 16:9 (and up!) video is already VERY popular.
Even now, while TV shows are still being broadcast in 4:3 over analog, the feed from the cameras, and the (H)DTV broadcasts are 16:9 for practically all shows. In addition, the pictures from digital cameras made in the past several years tend to be closer to a 16:9 aspect than a 4:3 one, making a widescreen better for viewing still pictures as well.
It seems that Apple is planning for the past, not the future... not even the PRESENT!
If I was behind the iPod, the dial would have dropped all the way to the bottom, and it and the screen would be rotated 90 degrees, to be operated horizontally. Then, widen the screen to a 16:9 ratio. THEN it would be a practical portable video device.
How does it more comfortably fit in your hand, vertically or horizontally? It's certainly more stable when standing on it's own (eg. on a table) if it's horizontal, rather than vertical.
Of course, this is just IMHO. I wouldn't even consider buying one of these for video, because cheap laptops have better capacity, FAR larger screens, play practically any video/audio codec, and can be used for more than just playing videos.
Music playback... is debatable.
Crap is a relative term. It will look far better than the best VHS tape*, no matter what the connector.
Same thing in the USA with the movie "Die Hard: With a Vengance" when shown on TV. Sam Jackson says things like "You stupid white melon farmer," repeatedly.
Besides the comments others have made... DST has a purpose, and switching to UTC would eliminate any possibility for implimenting DST. How would that be a good thing?
The fact that I already said (almost) as much in my post, for one.
His two (entirely redundant) sentences are only one statement. I don't know why you call that two statements.
Yes, but you could easily get the same effect without totalling the car. That was the point.
No, it doesn't. If it isn't colapsing inward, it's not absorbing practically anything. Besides, car makers have repeatedly shown that they are certainly not able to make a flexible passenger compartment that won't cave-in on the passengers in one type of accident or another.
Why do people always say crazy things like this? Driving down the road at 70 MPH does not increase your body mass. You have to deal-with your body's kinetic energy. It makes little difference how much your car weighs (assuming you are hitting an immovable object).
In any case, you don't want the passenger compartment to crumple, you want it to be as strong as humanly possible, although car manufacturers seem to want it to deform as much as possible for some reason. Hence, no roll-cages, and no reinforcement of any kind other than thin steel.
You could also eliminate the need for crumple-zones if the seats, or perhaps the entire passenger compartment, was shock-mounted.
Why do some people feel the need to (re-)state the obvious?
Oh yeah? Light a torch under it.
It's not better gas mileage, because diesel isn't gas, per se. It has it's own pros and cons from gasoline, and you can't just interchangeably compare them.
Besides that, I doubt you're correct. Straight diesel engine cars are getting fuel-effeciencies of about that level already, so you'd just be making a car that's far more expensive, requiring a lot more maintenance, for practically no gain.
What car companies should be doing, IMHO, is making serial-hybrids. They would be far cheaper, far less complex, requiring much less maintenance, etc. Basically just an electric motor connected to the wheels, a reasonably-sized bank of batteries, and a simple generator. Incredibly simple, with better fuel-effeciency in city driving, with just as good effeciency in highway driving, and the possibilities of pluging-in your car for gas-free trips, or depending entirely on liquid fuels like gasoline. They could use turbines or sterling engines, which can provide better effeciency, and will operate on ANY flamable liquid you pump into the fuel tank.
No, it's not "just air". It's pure oxygen, which is one of the most flamable and highly explosive substances on the planet.
Yes, Divx and Xvid are MPEG-4. H.264, however, is not the MPEG-4, as least not as you know it. H.264 is different, and far more complex than MPEG-4.
You'll have to re-encode videos, and H.264 encoding is very slow.
You obviously didn't bother to read my other reply:
8 07581
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165483&cid=13
Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading, a case having practically nothing to do with her company.
Worldcom and Enron were also cases of blatant fraud, which is not what the parent is talking about at all.
Look at any of millions of other cases, and you won't see anything else like Enron or Worldcom. Car companies making terribly unsafe cars to save a few dollars. Dell and others making monitors/laptops/adapters that catch fire and burn houses down. Companies making cellphones and/or batteries that result in explosions and cause serious injuries.
There are inumerable other cases like this. Companies may get fined a trivial ammount of money, but the people in-charge who decided they would needlessly KILL PEOPLE, to make a few dollars more, never go to jail.
That's patently ridiculous. Broadband is making heaps of money. They aren't selling services at cost, or anywhere near it. There are many reasons prices are so high, and it's not because it's not economically feasable. I don't think anyone wants some distant government to step-in and provide internet service like a utility. However, enforcing the LAWS once in a while would be a good thing. Stoping companies from locking-out competitors would help. Holding companies to the contracts they signed to have access to the public lines would be a good thing. etc
If you have some basis for that belief, I'd be interesting in hearing about it.
I certainly agree with that. I never said that UFS2 should be ported to Linux, or any such thing. Why you seem to think I did, is beyond me. Keep in mind I posted this reply simply to refute the notion that the BSD should be using reiserfs.
Actually, to be fair, it compares currently-stable journaling filesystems (see next point), with a very outdated soft-updates filesystems (ie. UFS, not UFS2). It's not a strawman, it's just an older paper. The point of linking to that paper was for the theory behind it, not for benchmarks.
*ahem* Unless I misread this, you think it would be a fair to compare benchmarks of an as-of-yet unstable journaling filesystem, which isn't yet even included with the latest unstable Linux kernel (last I checked), against UFS2, which is has been stable, and in production use for well over a year now?
I didn't say I needed or wanted it to be faster. It's just an interesting data point. Particularly because it was an argument commonly used on
From what I hear, /. isn't making much money, so using up their own bandwidth to host websites wouldn't go over well. In addition, there's the whole issue of archived stories. When the torrent goes down, the website is probably still there. Having them change the story when the torrent goes offline would be a big change and much added complexity for slashcode.
Two reasons.
1. It's GPL'd code. Why in the world would a BSD-licensed project include GPL'd code, and in the kernel of all places?
2. UFS2 is better in just about every way. The issue of journaling vs. soft-updates has been rehashed a million times over, and soft-updates are simply better. http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/procee
The one issue journaling had in it's favor was fsck times, and UFS2 with it's "background fsck" has eliminated that problem. A system based on UFS2 will be up-and-running far faster than a ReiserFS journaled system, due to reiserfsck taking much longer to complete.
So let me ask you. For what reason should anyone even consider porting reiserfs to any of the BSDs?