How about some fundamental changes that make sense for Linux as a desktop, as opposed to a Linux for a server? You know, like giving normal users the ability to shutdown the computer or turn on/off the ethernet interface. I can see how these things make sense when running a system with 20 users who like to login from across the country, but for a home system used by a few people, they just don't work that well.
Objects traveling in low Earth orbit--even those as small as marble or grains of sand--are traveling at a speed equivalent to a 1-ton safe being dropped from a five-story building. That can easily destroy a satellite. Because it is so easy, countries that value satellites have explicitly decided not to strike at them. Proposing space weapons throws that deterrence into question.
Except the satellites in the same orbit as the debris will be traveling at the same speed, otherwise it wouldn't be the same orbit.
Even if the debris were intersecting an orbit and impacting a satelite, some basic calculations show that it's not much. A 1 g mass (roughly a marble) traveling at 80 m/s (180 mph!) has a kinetic energy of 3.2 J, compared to a 9.8 J of a baseball flying at 14 m/s with a mass of 100 g. That means, roughly, a marble of debris would do less damage than a baseball moving at 30 mph. Satellites are designed to handle stresses much larger than that during launch, so a marble or piece of sand traveling quickly would do nothing to a satellite's structure. Physically destroying a satellite requires a significant weapon, whether explosive or purely kinetic.
And why does he mention a "1-ton safe" in his speed explanation? Does he think that heavier objects fall faster? Maybe we should focus on problems of American education before worrying about issues of space weaponry.
Do we need to defend ourselves to the best degree possible in times of war? Certainly, we do.
Do we need war at all? Certainly, we don't.
Is war inevitable, space weapons or not? 3,000 years of history says it is.
Which is more practical, pretending that war won't happen or accepting that it will? With the latter being more realistic, we may then follow through with the most effective defense and proceed with developing space weapons.
We've always been in some weapons race, though not necessarily at the pace of the Cold War. Space weapons won't initiate any Cold War-esque weapons race as much as any of our other weapons have. They're not holocaust devices like nukes or any NBC weaponry. Without anti-satellite weapons, we're back at traditional warfare. With those weapons, we only take it outside of earth.
Space weaponry if anything will reduce war to a battle of communications and intelligence, where space coverage matters more than occupying ground. With troops and conventional weapons reduced in importance, satellites will be the main casualties, as long as they directly affect the ground war below.
Well, the first 30 minutes of Stargate were pretty cool, but linguistics is more of a soft science, not even close to engineering science. How about a screenplay based on The Gadget Maker? It's a fascinating tale about an aerospace engineer, with explosions, rockets and missile design.
The most archaic-appearing part of Linux is probably hardware and low level process management. 95% of linux hardware drivers require editing a configuration file through a text editor, often through trial and error (xorg.conf anyone?). The "mount a drive to access it" is stupid, and it's sad that neither supermount, submount or ivman work well enough (yet) to replace it (none have worked for me). It's still ridiculous how many hardware types require kernel recompilations as well.
And when Linux applications crash, there's no easy and elegant way of killing them. For example, MPlayer crashed last night when I tried playing a video file with an unsupported codec. It was gmplayer, and the window froze up and stopped refreshing in a Windows98-esque crash. I couldn't click the "X" in the upper right corner and get an "End now" box as in Windows, or right click the the icon in the taskbar to end the process. I had to bring up xterm and "killall gmplayer." That didn't work, so it was "ps -ax" followed by a "kill 9 pid." It's pretty lame that I had to start up one program to kill another program, and that I had to use three commands in the process.
Why isn't there some universal way of killing apps through X? Gnome had something like that I think, but why isn't it some standard X keyboard shortcut ("hold down control-q and click the window to kill the program") in place? There's ctrl-alt-bksp for killing X after all.
I have a hard time seeing Linux advance on the desktop, when it is still so much harder managing devices and unresponsive programs on Linux than on Windows or OS X.
I used to think that too. Then, I grew up. I realized that mucking around with runlevels didn't help me get my MATLAB work done. It's a great relief to have an OS that doesn't need tending to.
...which only verifies file integrity. It doesn't check if the file is what its filename says it is. It only ensures correct data transfers, not correct data.
Doesn't the eDonkey2000 network already have a system like this? Users identify fakes and report them, then the phony file information propagates throughout the network and the fake file dies.
On another note, the best terrorist training manual is the American written "The Anarchist Cookbook". Have you ever even read it? It's over 30 years old now. It's all but useless if you already know that gasoline + fire = explosion. Directions on creating certain drugs are flat-out wrong. The sections on electronic communications disruption are particularly ludicrous this day and age.
So Epiphany uses Gecko. That's great. But when will they get rid of the silly separate button bar? They should trim the buttons, make them compact move them to the same bar as the address box. Why have they not kept pace with modern browsers like Firefox and Safari GUI-wise, and instead have taken to the original layout of Internet Explorer 3.0? It doesn't make any sense. It's not any easier to use when the button area is cluttered with functions better relegated to the menus. And its less usable for everyone when there's no google search box.
I don't get it; why did the GNOME team decide to use a space-wasting, cluttered UI in Epiphany? Why not a simpler layout in the vein of Safari?
I guess I'm a troll because I dissent with the party line, but why does this movie look good? The "bad boy" characters are completely Hollywood cliche by now, as is most of the humor in the trailer (airline pilot imitations are no longer funny). Some of the fight scenes are cool I admit, but big fucking deal; it's a little flash to distract the viewer from:
Lack of story
Flat characters
Script worthy of a thousand groans
Now, none of us have actually seen the movie in full. But I don't see why everyone is getting excited over these lame trailers. I only hope the real movie is better than what's been flauted about so far.
This is not offtopic, the story mentioned stealing shoes. Am I the only one concerned with the needs of the common man? Shoes are more than a luxury these days, they're often necessary for traversing rough terrain.
Our government will put people getting $50-$60K into a jet that costs $2B to build and that can carry very large nuclear payloads. They nearly crippled our navy's ability to wage war on other naval power through the SmartShip program, all because they wanted to save on the cost of a sysadmin's salary.
Do all of your examples come from pamphlets? Do you have any outside knowledge of any issue you discuss?
Certainly the amount of low-level hardware control a user has through the Windows GUI far exceeds that in the Linux world. Usually it's impossible to update the video card drivers in Linux without using the command line.
I wonder why MS is working on a new command line at all. Do people buy Xserves so that they can use the OS X command line? Do people run linux because they love staring at those grey characters on a black screen? No one really likes the command line... plenty of people get by with it, but it's obviously the most primitive computer interface. So why is Microsoft developing it? Do they really believe that *NIX users like their OS because of the command line?
Slashdot Mirror
No no no... I don't think so.
How about some fundamental changes that make sense for Linux as a desktop, as opposed to a Linux for a server? You know, like giving normal users the ability to shutdown the computer or turn on/off the ethernet interface. I can see how these things make sense when running a system with 20 users who like to login from across the country, but for a home system used by a few people, they just don't work that well.
Except the satellites in the same orbit as the debris will be traveling at the same speed, otherwise it wouldn't be the same orbit.
Even if the debris were intersecting an orbit and impacting a satelite, some basic calculations show that it's not much. A 1 g mass (roughly a marble) traveling at 80 m/s (180 mph!) has a kinetic energy of 3.2 J, compared to a 9.8 J of a baseball flying at 14 m/s with a mass of 100 g. That means, roughly, a marble of debris would do less damage than a baseball moving at 30 mph. Satellites are designed to handle stresses much larger than that during launch, so a marble or piece of sand traveling quickly would do nothing to a satellite's structure. Physically destroying a satellite requires a significant weapon, whether explosive or purely kinetic.
And why does he mention a "1-ton safe" in his speed explanation? Does he think that heavier objects fall faster? Maybe we should focus on problems of American education before worrying about issues of space weaponry.
Do we need to defend ourselves to the best degree possible in times of war? Certainly, we do.
Do we need war at all? Certainly, we don't.
Is war inevitable, space weapons or not? 3,000 years of history says it is.
Which is more practical, pretending that war won't happen or accepting that it will? With the latter being more realistic, we may then follow through with the most effective defense and proceed with developing space weapons.
We've always been in some weapons race, though not necessarily at the pace of the Cold War. Space weapons won't initiate any Cold War-esque weapons race as much as any of our other weapons have. They're not holocaust devices like nukes or any NBC weaponry. Without anti-satellite weapons, we're back at traditional warfare. With those weapons, we only take it outside of earth.
Space weaponry if anything will reduce war to a battle of communications and intelligence, where space coverage matters more than occupying ground. With troops and conventional weapons reduced in importance, satellites will be the main casualties, as long as they directly affect the ground war below.
think this is completely awesome.
Well, the first 30 minutes of Stargate were pretty cool, but linguistics is more of a soft science, not even close to engineering science. How about a screenplay based on The Gadget Maker? It's a fascinating tale about an aerospace engineer, with explosions, rockets and missile design.
The most archaic-appearing part of Linux is probably hardware and low level process management. 95% of linux hardware drivers require editing a configuration file through a text editor, often through trial and error (xorg.conf anyone?). The "mount a drive to access it" is stupid, and it's sad that neither supermount, submount or ivman work well enough (yet) to replace it (none have worked for me). It's still ridiculous how many hardware types require kernel recompilations as well.
And when Linux applications crash, there's no easy and elegant way of killing them. For example, MPlayer crashed last night when I tried playing a video file with an unsupported codec. It was gmplayer, and the window froze up and stopped refreshing in a Windows98-esque crash. I couldn't click the "X" in the upper right corner and get an "End now" box as in Windows, or right click the the icon in the taskbar to end the process. I had to bring up xterm and "killall gmplayer." That didn't work, so it was "ps -ax" followed by a "kill 9 pid." It's pretty lame that I had to start up one program to kill another program, and that I had to use three commands in the process.
Why isn't there some universal way of killing apps through X? Gnome had something like that I think, but why isn't it some standard X keyboard shortcut ("hold down control-q and click the window to kill the program") in place? There's ctrl-alt-bksp for killing X after all.
I have a hard time seeing Linux advance on the desktop, when it is still so much harder managing devices and unresponsive programs on Linux than on Windows or OS X.
I used to think that too. Then, I grew up. I realized that mucking around with runlevels didn't help me get my MATLAB work done. It's a great relief to have an OS that doesn't need tending to.
Ah, found it: donkey-fakes. eMule automatically downloads the fakes list upon startup, and prevents the files from spreading.
...which only verifies file integrity. It doesn't check if the file is what its filename says it is. It only ensures correct data transfers, not correct data.
Doesn't the eDonkey2000 network already have a system like this? Users identify fakes and report them, then the phony file information propagates throughout the network and the fake file dies.
We've all heard the story of Microsoft's battle cry of "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run"
I've used Windows for 9 years and have read slashdot for 7, and I've never heard "the story."
What a shame that not one bit of you story is true.
On another note, the best terrorist training manual is the American written "The Anarchist Cookbook".
Have you ever even read it? It's over 30 years old now. It's all but useless if you already know that gasoline + fire = explosion. Directions on creating certain drugs are flat-out wrong. The sections on electronic communications disruption are particularly ludicrous this day and age.
http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-12/images/epip hany-search.png
So Epiphany uses Gecko. That's great. But when will they get rid of the silly separate button bar? They should trim the buttons, make them compact move them to the same bar as the address box. Why have they not kept pace with modern browsers like Firefox and Safari GUI-wise, and instead have taken to the original layout of Internet Explorer 3.0? It doesn't make any sense. It's not any easier to use when the button area is cluttered with functions better relegated to the menus. And its less usable for everyone when there's no google search box.
I don't get it; why did the GNOME team decide to use a space-wasting, cluttered UI in Epiphany? Why not a simpler layout in the vein of Safari?
Evidently you've never been to a college party...
I just think it'd be cool if we sanded the moon perfectly round. It's so messy right now.
- Lack of story
- Flat characters
- Script worthy of a thousand groans
Now, none of us have actually seen the movie in full. But I don't see why everyone is getting excited over these lame trailers. I only hope the real movie is better than what's been flauted about so far.Mod me down because you disagree with me.
This is not offtopic, the story mentioned stealing shoes. Am I the only one concerned with the needs of the common man? Shoes are more than a luxury these days, they're often necessary for traversing rough terrain.
Fuck I just got new sneakers...
'll be damned surprised if we don't find life on Mars now that we know there's free-standing water (ice) on the planet.
We've known about the polar ice caps on Mars for at least 40 years.
I just saw that movie, that was awesome.
Our government will put people getting $50-$60K into a jet that costs $2B to build and that can carry very large nuclear payloads. They nearly crippled our navy's ability to wage war on other naval power through the SmartShip program, all because they wanted to save on the cost of a sysadmin's salary.
Do all of your examples come from pamphlets? Do you have any outside knowledge of any issue you discuss?
Certainly the amount of low-level hardware control a user has through the Windows GUI far exceeds that in the Linux world. Usually it's impossible to update the video card drivers in Linux without using the command line.
I wonder why MS is working on a new command line at all. Do people buy Xserves so that they can use the OS X command line? Do people run linux because they love staring at those grey characters on a black screen? No one really likes the command line... plenty of people get by with it, but it's obviously the most primitive computer interface. So why is Microsoft developing it? Do they really believe that *NIX users like their OS because of the command line?