"I assume you are joking, because all of the cosmonauts died on Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. No astronauts, true, but cosmonauts yes. There have been other accidents as well -- most notably a large casualty accident on the pad."
I was not joking. I was obviously misinformed...
Hmm, interesting that the space.com article I linked to does not mention that at all, even says "The only blemish on the record", about an incident in 1983 where nobody died.
Maybe it's only the Soyuz-FG booster rocket that has a good reliability record, but not when combined with crew capsule (landings...) and (?) launch pad?
Or maybe the initial problems are considered fixed, since since then it has been performing much better? (soyuz 11 was 1971, ten years before the first shuttle launch)...
"You're missing the point. The only reason that hidden functionality in Windows has anything to do with servers is that they are really part of the same market."
You're missing the point that Windows became a monopoly because they were on all the PCs, and when MS started their server business they had to displace the big iron servers, and did so by making the PCs talk better to their servers than the servers from the competition. And because MS had a monopoly on the PC and not on the server, that is monopoly abuse.
They ruled MS has a monopoly for PC OS's, and the monopoly was abused for unfair competition in the market of server OS's (by not disclosing the interface details of their PC OS's, therefore making hidden functionality in their PC OS's that could only be used by their server OS's), which is what the whole EU case is all about.
There is no inconsistency, and no conspiracy either.
"No manned launch vehicle is more reliable than the shuttle. 114 out of 115 successful launches. 113 out of 114 successful re-entries."
The shuttle is extremely impressive, and nothing even compares in its combination of reliability, manned launch, and impressive cargo capacity, but to state that 'no manned launch vehicle is more reliable' is debatable: Soyuz, the craft that picked up the slack to ferry up the crews when the shuttle was grounded, has a pretty impressive track record itself.
And: "The only blemish on the record: A 1983 incident in which a fire at the pad forced the cosmonauts to fire their emergency escape rocket and blast free of the area before the Soyuz exploded"
"I am sick and tired of this horseshit platitude. Windows is not by any reasonable definition a monopoly."
US federal law does not have a 'reasonable dfinition of a monopoly'?
November 1999, "A federal judge declared Friday that Microsoft Corp. possesses monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems and harmed consumers through its anti-competitive behavior"
"Microsoft still doesn't pay. " -> [snip] -> "EC prohibits Microsoft from doing business in Europe."
Not necessary. Combined European governmental software purchases from Microsoft quite possibly are still larger than the fine, and I don't think that MS will stop signing contracts with them (that would really give Linux a gigantic boost). Stopped (rerouted) payments from those purchases will balance out the fines just... fine...
"EC strips Microsoft's European copyright, permitting free distribution of MS products."
IMHO, those last 6 words will never happen, and not just for the reason above...
"I'm actually wondering how the wonderful non-biased folk here at/. are going to interpret these results."
You know "we" are not non-biased...
Anyway, I'll just say that my linksys router running Linux can do more than 1 transaction per second on web apps with Python. How these guys can pull off showing that that's the speed they get for an actual server is beyond me...
Actually, it's not... it's e-week... They have always been very MS-centered.
"I could lose up to 7 days of recordings..." Oh the humanity..
True, it's only TV, but still, better with raid5 than trying to do weekly backups...
ps: TV does become a whole lot more interesting when you can choose from a large set of recorded shows, plus when you can play it back at 1.4x real-time speed with mythtv's fantastic 'time stretch', which speeds up TV shows without distorting the sound.
"I love the way the site proclaims to me "you must have flash player 8", well actually, no I don't."
That's what I thought. After seeing that, it was an easy click to close the window.
Which webmaster in their right mind 'requires' the very latest instally-gadget junk for people to be able to use their website? Is it still the middle of the nineties when everybody with a two week crash course calls themselves a 'html programmer'?
"I agree with this. For most people, backing up your data every week is a LOT better option for data security. Users who should be using RAID 5 should also have dedicated controllers."
You're generalizing a little too much. For example: I have >1TB storage on my mythtv box (I just like to have a good selection of stuff to watch when I finally get to watch tv, and I'm never at home when the shows I like are being broadcasted), and I'm using software RAID5 on that. That is, software raid5, on shared controllers: All together seven disks off the mainboard, from a mixture of pata and sata connectors. I wouldn't do this on something like a server, but it's plenty fast enough for mythtv. It also gives a lot of protection for the array of disks, and it's a much, much better option than the weekly backup you suggest (first of all, a backup would take ages, cost waay more in disks (which wouldn't even fit in the HTPC), and last but not least: without raid5, if one disk dies, I could lose up to 7 days of recordings...).
I didn't know about inkscape, so I apt-get install'ed it, and I found the main feature missing is the 'any' feature other than the 'assertion failed' feature...
Trying again doesn't work, it just sits there, doesn't even give me the prompt back... (until I kill it and do 'rm -rf ~/.inkscape', then I get the wonderful world of 'assertion(name!='inkscape')' error... wtf, it's inkscape, and it's apt-get installed...)
I don't really care though, dia works fine for what I usually want to draw.
$ dpkg -l inkscape Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hol d | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed- config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name Version Description ii inkscape 0.44-1 vector-based drawing program $ inkscape ** (process:21357): ERROR (recursed) **: file inkscape.cpp: line 716 (Inkscape::XML::Node* inkscape_get_repr(Inkscape::Application*, const gchar*)): assertion failed: (!(strcmp (repr->name(), "inkscape"))) aborting...
"If it falls, you don't pick it up, then throw it to the ground as an 'experiment'. Which is what this sun-blocking is doing."
The main point is that global warming, as caused by humanity is not the result of anybody trying to control the climate. It's actually the result of not thinking about the climate when doing something.
In comes the analogy: If you knock something off a table accidentally, the fact that you knocked it off to begin with doesn't automatically make it a bad idea for you to try to catch it.
I'm not saying planting more trees is a bad idea. I'm saying calling every other idea a bad idea is a very bad idea.
About planting trees, it's a sound idea, sure. The great thing about it is that it doesn't need any grand projects. It just needs people to, well, plant trees. So... If you think the only thing we should be doing is planting trees (and maybe conservation), then that is exactly what I have an issue with. First of all, if it is the great solution, then why isn't it already a success: Did anything stop the 'plant trees' solution in 2005? 2004?, earlier?. What is stopping you and your neighbour from solving this by planting trees? And who kept messing up the plan by cutting down trees? Well, as life and cultures are on this planet, there are many reasons for all of that... Good luck trying to change world-wide culture enough to solve all those problems and make the 'plant trees' solution a success (dont forget making poor countries rich to stop them from cutting down forests for survival and money).
My point is that the 'planting trees' solution is not enough now, and it's not going to be enough ever. Focussing on just 'planting trees', and unfoundedly dismissing other methods as dangerous, and not even accepting good solid (well funded) research into those methods itself is very dangerous. It focusses on a solution that we already know isn't going to be enough, even if we manage to get it going enough to consider it a 'success'. Just going for conservation and planting trees by default ignores what potentially can save us. For example, who know what we may be able to do phytoplankton, which converts as much O2 into CO2 as all other plants on the planet combined?
This is a big and complex problem. Just as with the move to alternative fuels, no single method to counter global warming is the 'holy handgrenade' for this problem, and each and every avenue should be investigated.
"Your argument from analogy is stupid. Your refusal to learn from some of our worst mistakes is disgusting. You're not a "man of science", you're a morbid catastrophe freak."
Wow. That was a quick transition to insult. Anybody who doesn't agree with you is a 'morbid catastrophe freak' eh? Ok, point taken, insulting is indeed the best way to prove your point (sarcasm present).
Refusal to learn? It's poeple that say 'we made a mistake before, lets not try anything else ever again' that refuse to learn. Sad to see you don't can't understand that.
Just like the other guy in this thread, you're unfoundedly afraid that anything we do to actively counter global warming will result in catastrophe. You're exactly the same as people that were afraid to sail too far away when they thought the earth was flat.
I'm not going to reply further. One post with a baseless insult is enough for me thank you.
"Okay, just put a starter bomb(i.e. one that *does* explode when it falls, and is powerful enough to set off the nuke--yes, those do exist, for a fusion bomb it's a fission bomb) on the nuke to set it off."
It's not that simple (I'm not going to explain). But I guess you like having simplified looks on things.
"Stop dodging the issue."
I'm absolutely not dodging 'the issue'.
"And I was using Mengele to make a point that experiment is not an excuse for wholesale slaughter."
Where is the wholesale slaughter in stopping the planet from overheating?
Your reaction the same as people who said 'dont sail too far', because they would seriously be afraid that thought you would fall off the (flat) planet.
Or (back in the day when they started building trains) the people who were afraid that trains would make the milk in their cows sour.
"Do points fly over your head this much?"
Do your points always miss your target by so much?
"If you accidentially knock something breakable containing a nuclear bomb from the table, you catch it, and then you don't drop it again."
You're not a man of science, are you?
hint: Nuclear bombs need a little bigger shock than that from a fall to even get close to going off.
Oh, you refer to Mengele to make a point that experimentation is wrong? Did you realize that each and every serial killer breathed air and ate food. Now, is eating and breathing wrong?
"Sure we do. I definitely would not contradict Steven Hawking in his field of expertise. But global climatology is an area where he's a layman just like the rest of us."
You can say what you want, but a scientist and author as bright as Mr Hawking is not a layman in anything that he talks about as a speaker at a conference.
Do you think that a thorough understanding of math, physics, chemistry, and astronomy, let's say "the universe" has nothing to do with climate? And when a highly intelligent scientist such as Mr Hawking talks about it, he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
A lot of fields of science are quite strongly related. For example, the famous physicist Niels Bohr was definitely not a layman in other fields, say chemistry.
"After we've messed with the atmosphere with CO2 on a global scale inducing the Greenhouse, we should know better than to mess with it again - until we do know enough."
If you accidentally knock something breakable from a table, you don't try to catch it? I do and have been succesful many times.
Do nothing "until we do know enough"? For your information: The only way to learn is to study and experiment.
Giving up is for quitters.
A greenhouse with a capital 'G', it that like a 'God'?
"because it cuts off all other traffic but torrent traffic"
Sounds like you're running out of the ip_conntrack_max. Try raising it.
"but a $400 router, it most certainly ain't."
The main reason being that you didn't pay $400 for it, and it's not configured as a $400 router out of the box, but when setup right, it will do the same things equally well as most $400 routers.
"If you think you can turn any WRT54g into a $400 router, you are dead wrong. Those things are unstable as hell, even with Linux on them."
I have to call bull. You must be a $400 router seller.
I've been use a WRT54G-v2 with DD-WRT for years and it's rock-solid stable (has _never_ even had a hickup), also under loads such as bittorrent and voip with a 7Mbit/512kbit link. Oh, and I also use the four ports as a switch with no problems whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
"I assume you are joking, because all of the cosmonauts died on Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. No astronauts, true, but cosmonauts yes. There have been other accidents as well -- most notably a large casualty accident on the pad."
I was not joking. I was obviously misinformed...
Hmm, interesting that the space.com article I linked to does not mention that at all, even says "The only blemish on the record", about an incident in 1983 where nobody died.
Maybe it's only the Soyuz-FG booster rocket that has a good reliability record, but not when combined with crew capsule (landings...) and (?) launch pad?
Or maybe the initial problems are considered fixed, since since then it has been performing much better? (soyuz 11 was 1971, ten years before the first shuttle launch)...
"You're missing the point. The only reason that hidden functionality in Windows has anything to do with servers is that they are really part of the same market."
You're missing the point that Windows became a monopoly because they were on all the PCs, and when MS started their server business they had to displace the big iron servers, and did so by making the PCs talk better to their servers than the servers from the competition. And because MS had a monopoly on the PC and not on the server, that is monopoly abuse.
They ruled MS has a monopoly for PC OS's, and the monopoly was abused for unfair competition in the market of server OS's (by not disclosing the interface details of their PC OS's, therefore making hidden functionality in their PC OS's that could only be used by their server OS's), which is what the whole EU case is all about.
There is no inconsistency, and no conspiracy either.
"No manned launch vehicle is more reliable than the shuttle. 114 out of 115 successful launches. 113 out of 114 successful re-entries."
_ 021029.html
The shuttle is extremely impressive, and nothing even compares in its combination of reliability, manned launch, and impressive cargo capacity, but to state that 'no manned launch vehicle is more reliable' is debatable: Soyuz, the craft that picked up the slack to ferry up the crews when the shuttle was grounded, has a pretty impressive track record itself.
100 manned flights, no astronaut died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_programme
And: "The only blemish on the record: A 1983 incident in which a fire at the pad forced the cosmonauts to fire their emergency escape rocket and blast free of the area before the Soyuz exploded"
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/soyuz_launch
"I am sick and tired of this horseshit platitude. Windows is not by any reasonable definition a monopoly."
o ft_finding/
US federal law does not have a 'reasonable dfinition of a monopoly'?
November 1999, "A federal judge declared Friday that Microsoft Corp. possesses monopoly power in the market for PC operating systems and harmed consumers through its anti-competitive behavior"
http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/05/technology/micros
The current administration overturned the verdict ('break up'), but not the ruling above...
"What do the EU nations have that might be akin to eminent domain seizures in the US? Here, u"
EU governments (like all/most) are still big MS customers... They can simply halt payments...
If bad comes to worse, I bet they can divert many payments to MS from big companies, banks, etc, too...
No need to screw around with 'taking copyrights' nonsense, etc.
"Microsoft still doesn't pay. " -> [snip] -> "EC prohibits Microsoft from doing business in Europe."
Not necessary. Combined European governmental software purchases from Microsoft quite possibly are still larger than the fine, and I don't think that MS will stop signing contracts with them (that would really give Linux a gigantic boost). Stopped (rerouted) payments from those purchases will balance out the fines just... fine...
"EC strips Microsoft's European copyright, permitting free distribution of MS products."
IMHO, those last 6 words will never happen, and not just for the reason above...
"I'm actually wondering how the wonderful non-biased folk here at /. are going to interpret these results."
You know "we" are not non-biased...
Anyway, I'll just say that my linksys router running Linux can do more than 1 transaction per second on web apps with Python. How these guys can pull off showing that that's the speed they get for an actual server is beyond me...
Actually, it's not... it's e-week... They have always been very MS-centered.
You never got to the wmv... wget the asc, and use the mms://blabla link with mplayer -dumpstream.
At least that's what I did, and it worked for me.
But of coure with a "~$", not with a "C:\BLABLA" prompt...
mplayer -dumpstream
can do that without decompressing...
"I could lose up to 7 days of recordings..."
Oh the humanity..
True, it's only TV, but still, better with raid5 than trying to do weekly backups...
ps: TV does become a whole lot more interesting when you can choose from a large set of recorded shows, plus when you can play it back at 1.4x real-time speed with mythtv's fantastic 'time stretch', which speeds up TV shows without distorting the sound.
"I love the way the site proclaims to me "you must have flash player 8", well actually, no I don't."
That's what I thought. After seeing that, it was an easy click to close the window.
Which webmaster in their right mind 'requires' the very latest instally-gadget junk for people to be able to use their website? Is it still the middle of the nineties when everybody with a two week crash course calls themselves a 'html programmer'?
"I agree with this. For most people, backing up your data every week is a LOT better option for data security. Users who should be using RAID 5 should also have dedicated controllers."
You're generalizing a little too much. For example: I have >1TB storage on my mythtv box (I just like to have a good selection of stuff to watch when I finally get to watch tv, and I'm never at home when the shows I like are being broadcasted), and I'm using software RAID5 on that. That is, software raid5, on shared controllers: All together seven disks off the mainboard, from a mixture of pata and sata connectors. I wouldn't do this on something like a server, but it's plenty fast enough for mythtv. It also gives a lot of protection for the array of disks, and it's a much, much better option than the weekly backup you suggest (first of all, a backup would take ages, cost waay more in disks (which wouldn't even fit in the HTPC), and last but not least: without raid5, if one disk dies, I could lose up to 7 days of recordings...).
Trying again doesn't work, it just sits there, doesn't even give me the prompt back... (until I kill it and do 'rm -rf ~/.inkscape', then I get the wonderful world of 'assertion(name!='inkscape')' error... wtf, it's inkscape, and it's apt-get installed...)
I don't really care though, dia works fine for what I usually want to draw.
"If it falls, you don't pick it up, then throw it to the ground as an 'experiment'. Which is what this sun-blocking is doing."
The main point is that global warming, as caused by humanity is not the result of anybody trying to control the climate. It's actually the result of not thinking about the climate when doing something.
In comes the analogy: If you knock something off a table accidentally, the fact that you knocked it off to begin with doesn't automatically make it a bad idea for you to try to catch it.
I'm not saying planting more trees is a bad idea. I'm saying calling every other idea a bad idea is a very bad idea.
About planting trees, it's a sound idea, sure. The great thing about it is that it doesn't need any grand projects. It just needs people to, well, plant trees. So... If you think the only thing we should be doing is planting trees (and maybe conservation), then that is exactly what I have an issue with. First of all, if it is the great solution, then why isn't it already a success: Did anything stop the 'plant trees' solution in 2005? 2004?, earlier?. What is stopping you and your neighbour from solving this by planting trees? And who kept messing up the plan by cutting down trees? Well, as life and cultures are on this planet, there are many reasons for all of that... Good luck trying to change world-wide culture enough to solve all those problems and make the 'plant trees' solution a success (dont forget making poor countries rich to stop them from cutting down forests for survival and money).
My point is that the 'planting trees' solution is not enough now, and it's not going to be enough ever. Focussing on just 'planting trees', and unfoundedly dismissing other methods as dangerous, and not even accepting good solid (well funded) research into those methods itself is very dangerous. It focusses on a solution that we already know isn't going to be enough, even if we manage to get it going enough to consider it a 'success'. Just going for conservation and planting trees by default ignores what potentially can save us. For example, who know what we may be able to do phytoplankton, which converts as much O2 into CO2 as all other plants on the planet combined?
This is a big and complex problem. Just as with the move to alternative fuels, no single method to counter global warming is the 'holy handgrenade' for this problem, and each and every avenue should be investigated.
"Your argument from analogy is stupid. Your refusal to learn from some of our worst mistakes is disgusting. You're not a "man of science", you're a morbid catastrophe freak."
Wow. That was a quick transition to insult. Anybody who doesn't agree with you is a 'morbid catastrophe freak' eh? Ok, point taken, insulting is indeed the best way to prove your point (sarcasm present).
Refusal to learn? It's poeple that say 'we made a mistake before, lets not try anything else ever again' that refuse to learn. Sad to see you don't can't understand that.
Just like the other guy in this thread, you're unfoundedly afraid that anything we do to actively counter global warming will result in catastrophe. You're exactly the same as people that were afraid to sail too far away when they thought the earth was flat.
I'm not going to reply further. One post with a baseless insult is enough for me thank you.
"Okay, just put a starter bomb(i.e. one that *does* explode when it falls, and is powerful enough to set off the nuke--yes, those do exist, for a fusion bomb it's a fission bomb) on the nuke to set it off."
It's not that simple (I'm not going to explain). But I guess you like having simplified looks on things.
"Stop dodging the issue."
I'm absolutely not dodging 'the issue'.
"And I was using Mengele to make a point that experiment is not an excuse for wholesale slaughter."
Where is the wholesale slaughter in stopping the planet from overheating?
Your reaction the same as people who said 'dont sail too far', because they would seriously be afraid that thought you would fall off the (flat) planet.
Or (back in the day when they started building trains) the people who were afraid that trains would make the milk in their cows sour.
"Do points fly over your head this much?"
Do your points always miss your target by so much?
"If you accidentially knock something breakable containing a nuclear bomb from the table, you catch it, and then you don't drop it again."
You're not a man of science, are you?
hint: Nuclear bombs need a little bigger shock than that from a fall to even get close to going off.
Oh, you refer to Mengele to make a point that experimentation is wrong? Did you realize that each and every serial killer breathed air and ate food. Now, is eating and breathing wrong?
Geesh.
"Sure we do. I definitely would not contradict Steven Hawking in his field of expertise. But global climatology is an area where he's a layman just like the rest of us."
You can say what you want, but a scientist and author as bright as Mr Hawking is not a layman in anything that he talks about as a speaker at a conference.
Do you think that a thorough understanding of math, physics, chemistry, and astronomy, let's say "the universe" has nothing to do with climate? And when a highly intelligent scientist such as Mr Hawking talks about it, he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
A lot of fields of science are quite strongly related. For example, the famous physicist Niels Bohr was definitely not a layman in other fields, say chemistry.
"After we've messed with the atmosphere with CO2 on a global scale inducing the Greenhouse, we should know better than to mess with it again - until we do know enough."
If you accidentally knock something breakable from a table, you don't try to catch it? I do and have been succesful many times.
Do nothing "until we do know enough"? For your information: The only way to learn is to study and experiment.
Giving up is for quitters.
A greenhouse with a capital 'G', it that like a 'God'?
"I am still looking for a reputable scientist that believes in global warming, and isn't caught up in the hype."
t ent_623803.htm
Duh. Are you really looking, or just saying you're looking? Maybe you're blind?
For example, less than a week ago: How about Stephen Hawking (the 'weelchair guy').
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-06/22/con
He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."
I don't think anybody posting here has what it takes to call Stephen Hawking wrong.
"because it cuts off all other traffic but torrent traffic"
Sounds like you're running out of the ip_conntrack_max. Try raising it.
"but a $400 router, it most certainly ain't."
The main reason being that you didn't pay $400 for it, and it's not configured as a $400 router out of the box, but when setup right, it will do the same things equally well as most $400 routers.
Maybe you could check this:
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_conntrack_max
~ # cat
4096
"If you think you can turn any WRT54g into a $400 router, you are dead wrong. Those things are unstable as hell, even with Linux on them."
I have to call bull. You must be a $400 router seller.
I've been use a WRT54G-v2 with DD-WRT for years and it's rock-solid stable (has _never_ even had a hickup), also under loads such as bittorrent and voip with a 7Mbit/512kbit link. Oh, and I also use the four ports as a switch with no problems whatsoever.
I'm sorry dude, but there is a 'stop loss policy' on adulthood. You can't get out until either we all get out, or you reach retirement age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy