technically those 12/24 numbers from ubuntu/fedora can overlap. Right now i dont run fedora, but once i move my main machine to fedora i will be both a fedora and a ubuntu user.
If every second fedora user also uses ubuntu (hardly likely), you would only need 24 milion users to make both numbers possible
my dev/web server runs ubuntu server, mainly because up to that point i only had considerable experience with configging ubuntu and such, and knowing at least apt-get is there after the install made life a bit easier for me.
Right now though, i also admin a centos webserver, and my cli skills have grown considerably since that ubuntu server install, so i probably wouldnt use it again, but if ubuntu is all the linux you know, and your server isnt mission-critical, going for something even remotely familiar makes sense
Mine dual-boots Lucid beta and a pirated Windows 7. It's on Linux more than 95% of the time, except when my stepson wants to play some stupidly programmed Java game with hardcoded paths starting with "C:\". If not for that, Windows would be 100% unnecessary for my household. Are you saying that I shouldn't be counted as a Linux user because of a damned game rarely played?
i'm not sure about the feasability of this, but how about running it in wine? If the sources are packaged into the jar file you could also just hack your linux paths in there and recompile
PXE booting? these days creating a bootable USB stick with the ubuntu (or whatever linux distro you like) installer iso on it is trivial. Heck, my last 10 or so installs of ubuntu/fedora were all done from a usb stick, no need for any physical disc
i'd say putty is a bit more efficient then an entire VM, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you mean by SSH tunneling...
anyway, i have my main machine set up to dual boot, linux for everything but gaming, windows for games. My laptop is also dual boot, linux for just about everything, windows for itunes and excel for my GF. I am aware the second case could be VM-ed, but since it is my GF who uses the windows partition, i dont want to sadle her with unneeded VM cruft to get to her excel-happy-place
using unique ip/agent combo's as a user will skew thing. I myself run 4 ubuntu machines (and have a 5th which is mostly powered off), and at least three distinct versions (off the top of my head, 9.10, 9.04 server and 8.10)
Perhaps count the number of machines that have downloaded updates more than once in any given month?
If you are after users rather then machines, this will give a VERY skewed figure. Not counting any virtual machines, i have 4 machines running ubuntu (that run daily) and one ubuntu server which is powered up occasionally. I would think that people who use ubuntu typically are more computer savy then the default windows-drone, and will have a higher tendency to own multiple machines, even if it is just a laptop/desktop combo without secondary laptop and fileserver like i run.
ubuntu has gone downhill too lately, and while 9.10 works well enough, some thing still are broken to the point that it annoyes me so much, im considering going Fedora the next time my machine is due for an overhaul (planning a complete new build)
For 9.10 the main issue for me has been pulseaudio. Sometimes the process just completely ties up one core, refusing to pass some audio tracks from the dvd i'm playing (background sounds, but no voices). And i've had issues like these with almost every recent release
the whole left-aligned windows controls for 10.4 (and the excuse that they have something planned for the right side in 10.10) means i probably have had enough of ubuntu, and fedora is high up on my list
Sounds like Sony could be more thorough with testing, but what with all the different versions of the "fat" PS3 that they've had
Keeping a dozen or so machines of each revision for testing should be standard procedure, if there is enough reason to make an update version, i'm sure having to keep a few in the test-lab wont tip the balance back in favor of not making a new version.
AFAIK the nintendo DS doesnt have firmware upgrades, not sure about the DSi though
but that's all i can really think off to be honest, off course your PC doesnt REQUIRE bios upgrades to run new games, but they might be beneficial for the entire system as a whole
i played a fair bit of PGR4 on the xbox, this game also have motorbikes as adversaries, but if you drive a car you can easily bash them into the guard rail, setting them back an easy 10 seconds.
Then one day i sat at the lights, and a motorbike stopped next to my, and "if i bash him as soon as the lights go green, at least i wont have to worry about him" flashed through my head....
Or, you move a significant portion of your nuke forces to Texas, while China and Russia then position boomers in Venezuela and Cuba. ANd then you have speed on your side. Sadly, that is the case right now.
If you MO is to put all your nukes in a single location, no amount of warheads will prevent the enemy from taking out your single point of failure. I would also assume that the US has boomers on patrol near russia/china. According to wikipedia, china has a max of 3 operational SSBNs currently, which carry 12 missiles with a range of 1500 miles, compared to the US' 18 Ohio class SSBNs which carry 24 tridents, which are actual ICBMs
But the problem is compounded by the fact that China is working on offense. In particular, we KNOW that they about to add multiple space stations in orbit. One is 'civilian' in that it will allow other nation's astronauts on-board. However, the PLA is openly saying that the other ones will remain solely under the control of the PLA. ANd they have stated that they will put up multiples of them. In addition, we DO know that they are working on anti-missile systems. The real problem is that China elects to keep quiet about everything. One thing that I liked about USSR was that they, like us, were open about their systems. Not in how they were done, but that they had them. And the USSR and USA were focused on defensive systems, not offensive. Big difference. China is working hard to hide thing. Even their budget is hidden. The proclaimed budget would take care of ONLY their conventional capabilities. Their nuclear force is not in their budget.
Rather interesting (oh, and frightening too), i didnt know the chinese were actually planning multiple space stations. On the matter of nukes in orbit though, china has signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty, so they "promissed" not to do that
ok, my point still stands, even if you make the "small margin" a "factor 10" to compensate for more problems then i initially guesstimated.
Beyond the point where you believe total destruction of the enemy is guaranteed, there is no reason to keep building nukes (perhaps replacing old ones, but expansion isnt needed)
By the way, do you have any info about how missile defenses work (in any meaningfull way)? For as far as i know current systems have limited succes even taking out a scud, never mind a rain of MIRVs from several ICBMs
in what scenario is 1500 warheads not enough for MAD? even if china had 15 milion warheads, the same 1500 US warheads would still be a garantee that the US can retalliate with enough force to destroy china.
Once you get to the point where you have enough warheads to destroy the enemy entirely (+ a small margin for lost launchers by a first strike), it pretty much doesnt mean anything to make more. The only thing that changes this would be either a very effective missile defense system (capable of stopping 99.9% in a 1000 object scenario), or the enemy being able to take out 99.9% of your weapons before launch, neither of which is very possible, given the speeds of balistic missiles, and the existence of Boomers and missile trains and such
I suggest you re-read your WWII history. During the course of the war, the Russians lost ~30 million people, which is >= half the population of 2008 S. Korea.
I think the GP means never seen before in terms of cassualties per minute (or whatever). Yes, 30 milion soviets died in WW2, but that is spread out over the span of four years. South korea could lose 5 milion (half of seouls population), within an hour or so (depending on north's firing rates, munitions, speed and nature of us intervention)
If North Korea were to start shelling Seoul, little in our arsenal short of nuclear weapons would be capable of taking out their heavily entrenched artillery before the south suffered horrific losses.
even nukes wouldnt be fast enough to prevent horrific losses for the south, once the north opens fire, it will take the US anywhere from at least 20 minutes, to perhaps 45 minutes to get a nuke on site (chain of command, give the order, confirm the order, launch a missile). in that timeframe, even if the north's artillery is only capable of 1 round per minute per tube, that will amount to at least 200.000 shells raining down on seoul. if you assume a litle more lead time for the nuke, and a more realistic artillery firing rate, and you are looking at a milion shells.
And dont forget the fact that since seoul and incheon and within artillery range also means that they will suffer significant fall-out from anything more then the most lightweight tactical nukes dropped on the north's positions.
If north korea decides to go for it, no amount of american nukes can prevent mass cassualties in seoul/incheon.
Granted though, going for conventional weapons in this case will likely make the difference between "half of seoul dead, entire city ruined" and "everyone in seoul dead, every building destroyed, incheon half dead"
to tie in to this, how does everyone play risk? do you declare the number of defenders before or after the attacker roles? I've done some simulation on the subject, and it impacts the attack/defense balance rather hard, futzing with this rule can make the game go from 'defense has the advantage' to 'attacker rapes defense' iirc
kudos to you then, i guess i don't have the self-discipline to do that myself.
last year i spent 6 months at home, and while the first few weeks were fun, after that i just basically got out of bed, hid behind my pc, and waste my entire day on the tubes...
sounds an awefull lot like how i spend my time at work though..
which will be used to completely screw over the second-hand market
"Oh, sorry, this key has already been used to download the content once, you can enter your CC number below to get it anyway, for the low low price of $50"
Also, adding a 10 hour speed-run (assuming a lengthy game here) to the pirates to-do list will hardly slow them down much
In case you didnt notice (if you never played Halo online, or battlefield), anonymous internet people are asshats. Halo online is a constant barage of 13 year old squeaky teens trying to teabag you, every single battlefield server has at least a few tards completely ruining the immersion by trying their best to exploit certain engine features (dolphin diving, running around with a 'nade launcher like they are playing quake, killing you with airdropped-supplies). I'm pretty sure every online game has some of this.
When i want to enjoy the environment of a video game, i do not trust anonymous internet asshats to co-operate with giving me a nice WW2 (or whatever) like experience, they will fuck it up. In those cases i much prefer the slightly less smart, but much more realistic IA the developer puts in the game.
online gaming is fine for no-holds-barred Deathmatch, unreal/quake already is unrealistic as fuck, but i dont need some asshat ruining my RPG-experience jumping around and killing NPCs
his netbook also runs tons of flavors of linux (where you can customise the gui to no end), and perhaps (depending on the hardware, some do, some don't) OS X.
I'm no windows fan by any measure, but that was just childish
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
I have used my iPod Touch occasionally for casual web surfing and thought "gee, I really wish this screen was a lot bigger".
Conversely, i carry my ipod touch with me all day, using it for music at work, casual websurfing and games at home, and note-taking all over the place, and every time i pull it out of my jeans-pocket i think "Gee, i sure am glad i can carry this thing with me this easily"
i agree that the small screen rather limits what it does, but for me the winner is the small size, i also have a netbook (original eee-701), but it just lives in the living-room, as it is to big to carry around with me all day.
i am interested in the dell mini-5 though, a 5 inch touch screen MID
I question the ideology that one gets a raise simply for putting in time.
I would personally expect to keep at least equivalent purchasing power, thus inflation compensation (an employer will raise their prices to compensate this themselves anyway), add to that that i am still early in my career, and getting noticably more experienced and knowledgeable every year, and yes, i should be seeing a periodic increase in my euro/hour ratio.
I have no problem with going the extra mile sometime, but if an employer fails to make me feel apprieciated (not necceserilly with raises), i would quickly default to just putting in my hours
I would prefer to keep my job at my current pay than to lose it.
No argument there, although i am thinking of option C
Slashdot Mirror
technically those 12/24 numbers from ubuntu/fedora can overlap. Right now i dont run fedora, but once i move my main machine to fedora i will be both a fedora and a ubuntu user.
If every second fedora user also uses ubuntu (hardly likely), you would only need 24 milion users to make both numbers possible
my dev/web server runs ubuntu server, mainly because up to that point i only had considerable experience with configging ubuntu and such, and knowing at least apt-get is there after the install made life a bit easier for me.
Right now though, i also admin a centos webserver, and my cli skills have grown considerably since that ubuntu server install, so i probably wouldnt use it again, but if ubuntu is all the linux you know, and your server isnt mission-critical, going for something even remotely familiar makes sense
Mine dual-boots Lucid beta and a pirated Windows 7. It's on Linux more than 95% of the time, except when my stepson wants to play some stupidly programmed Java game with hardcoded paths starting with "C:\". If not for that, Windows would be 100% unnecessary for my household. Are you saying that I shouldn't be counted as a Linux user because of a damned game rarely played?
i'm not sure about the feasability of this, but how about running it in wine? If the sources are packaged into the jar file you could also just hack your linux paths in there and recompile
PXE booting? these days creating a bootable USB stick with the ubuntu (or whatever linux distro you like) installer iso on it is trivial. Heck, my last 10 or so installs of ubuntu/fedora were all done from a usb stick, no need for any physical disc
The only thing I use it for is SSH tunnelling...
i'd say putty is a bit more efficient then an entire VM, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you mean by SSH tunneling...
anyway, i have my main machine set up to dual boot, linux for everything but gaming, windows for games. My laptop is also dual boot, linux for just about everything, windows for itunes and excel for my GF. I am aware the second case could be VM-ed, but since it is my GF who uses the windows partition, i dont want to sadle her with unneeded VM cruft to get to her excel-happy-place
using unique ip/agent combo's as a user will skew thing. I myself run 4 ubuntu machines (and have a 5th which is mostly powered off), and at least three distinct versions (off the top of my head, 9.10, 9.04 server and 8.10)
Perhaps count the number of machines that have downloaded updates more than once in any given month?
If you are after users rather then machines, this will give a VERY skewed figure. Not counting any virtual machines, i have 4 machines running ubuntu (that run daily) and one ubuntu server which is powered up occasionally. I would think that people who use ubuntu typically are more computer savy then the default windows-drone, and will have a higher tendency to own multiple machines, even if it is just a laptop/desktop combo without secondary laptop and fileserver like i run.
ubuntu has gone downhill too lately, and while 9.10 works well enough, some thing still are broken to the point that it annoyes me so much, im considering going Fedora the next time my machine is due for an overhaul (planning a complete new build)
For 9.10 the main issue for me has been pulseaudio. Sometimes the process just completely ties up one core, refusing to pass some audio tracks from the dvd i'm playing (background sounds, but no voices). And i've had issues like these with almost every recent release
the whole left-aligned windows controls for 10.4 (and the excuse that they have something planned for the right side in 10.10) means i probably have had enough of ubuntu, and fedora is high up on my list
Sounds like Sony could be more thorough with testing, but what with all the different versions of the "fat" PS3 that they've had
Keeping a dozen or so machines of each revision for testing should be standard procedure, if there is enough reason to make an update version, i'm sure having to keep a few in the test-lab wont tip the balance back in favor of not making a new version.
more like sony randomly blows their brain out while trying to shoot their own foot...
anyway, i agree with your second line, so i'll shut up now
AFAIK the nintendo DS doesnt have firmware upgrades, not sure about the DSi though
but that's all i can really think off to be honest, off course your PC doesnt REQUIRE bios upgrades to run new games, but they might be beneficial for the entire system as a whole
i played a fair bit of PGR4 on the xbox, this game also have motorbikes as adversaries, but if you drive a car you can easily bash them into the guard rail, setting them back an easy 10 seconds.
Then one day i sat at the lights, and a motorbike stopped next to my, and "if i bash him as soon as the lights go green, at least i wont have to worry about him" flashed through my head....
yup, MS wireless force feedback wheel, forza 3, bonnet view (i find that in cab view restricts what you see much more then real life), and away i am
I have a fair feeling that my race-gaming does indeed translate to real-life driving-skills, such as spotting ideal-lines and such
Or, you move a significant portion of your nuke forces to Texas, while China and Russia then position boomers in Venezuela and Cuba. ANd then you have speed on your side. Sadly, that is the case right now.
If you MO is to put all your nukes in a single location, no amount of warheads will prevent the enemy from taking out your single point of failure. I would also assume that the US has boomers on patrol near russia/china. According to wikipedia, china has a max of 3 operational SSBNs currently, which carry 12 missiles with a range of 1500 miles, compared to the US' 18 Ohio class SSBNs which carry 24 tridents, which are actual ICBMs
But the problem is compounded by the fact that China is working on offense. In particular, we KNOW that they about to add multiple space stations in orbit. One is 'civilian' in that it will allow other nation's astronauts on-board. However, the PLA is openly saying that the other ones will remain solely under the control of the PLA. ANd they have stated that they will put up multiples of them. In addition, we DO know that they are working on anti-missile systems. The real problem is that China elects to keep quiet about everything. One thing that I liked about USSR was that they, like us, were open about their systems. Not in how they were done, but that they had them. And the USSR and USA were focused on defensive systems, not offensive. Big difference. China is working hard to hide thing. Even their budget is hidden. The proclaimed budget would take care of ONLY their conventional capabilities. Their nuclear force is not in their budget.
Rather interesting (oh, and frightening too), i didnt know the chinese were actually planning multiple space stations. On the matter of nukes in orbit though, china has signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty, so they "promissed" not to do that
ok, my point still stands, even if you make the "small margin" a "factor 10" to compensate for more problems then i initially guesstimated.
Beyond the point where you believe total destruction of the enemy is guaranteed, there is no reason to keep building nukes (perhaps replacing old ones, but expansion isnt needed)
By the way, do you have any info about how missile defenses work (in any meaningfull way)? For as far as i know current systems have limited succes even taking out a scud, never mind a rain of MIRVs from several ICBMs
in what scenario is 1500 warheads not enough for MAD? even if china had 15 milion warheads, the same 1500 US warheads would still be a garantee that the US can retalliate with enough force to destroy china.
Once you get to the point where you have enough warheads to destroy the enemy entirely (+ a small margin for lost launchers by a first strike), it pretty much doesnt mean anything to make more. The only thing that changes this would be either a very effective missile defense system (capable of stopping 99.9% in a 1000 object scenario), or the enemy being able to take out 99.9% of your weapons before launch, neither of which is very possible, given the speeds of balistic missiles, and the existence of Boomers and missile trains and such
I suggest you re-read your WWII history.
During the course of the war, the Russians lost ~30 million people, which is >= half the population of 2008 S. Korea.
I think the GP means never seen before in terms of cassualties per minute (or whatever). Yes, 30 milion soviets died in WW2, but that is spread out over the span of four years. South korea could lose 5 milion (half of seouls population), within an hour or so (depending on north's firing rates, munitions, speed and nature of us intervention)
If North Korea were to start shelling Seoul, little in our arsenal short of nuclear weapons would be capable of taking out their heavily entrenched artillery before the south suffered horrific losses.
even nukes wouldnt be fast enough to prevent horrific losses for the south, once the north opens fire, it will take the US anywhere from at least 20 minutes, to perhaps 45 minutes to get a nuke on site (chain of command, give the order, confirm the order, launch a missile). in that timeframe, even if the north's artillery is only capable of 1 round per minute per tube, that will amount to at least 200.000 shells raining down on seoul. if you assume a litle more lead time for the nuke, and a more realistic artillery firing rate, and you are looking at a milion shells.
And dont forget the fact that since seoul and incheon and within artillery range also means that they will suffer significant fall-out from anything more then the most lightweight tactical nukes dropped on the north's positions.
If north korea decides to go for it, no amount of american nukes can prevent mass cassualties in seoul/incheon.
Granted though, going for conventional weapons in this case will likely make the difference between "half of seoul dead, entire city ruined" and "everyone in seoul dead, every building destroyed, incheon half dead"
to tie in to this, how does everyone play risk? do you declare the number of defenders before or after the attacker roles? I've done some simulation on the subject, and it impacts the attack/defense balance rather hard, futzing with this rule can make the game go from 'defense has the advantage' to 'attacker rapes defense' iirc
kudos to you then, i guess i don't have the self-discipline to do that myself.
last year i spent 6 months at home, and while the first few weeks were fun, after that i just basically got out of bed, hid behind my pc, and waste my entire day on the tubes...
sounds an awefull lot like how i spend my time at work though..
which will be used to completely screw over the second-hand market
"Oh, sorry, this key has already been used to download the content once, you can enter your CC number below to get it anyway, for the low low price of $50"
Also, adding a 10 hour speed-run (assuming a lengthy game here) to the pirates to-do list will hardly slow them down much
that would be my cue to stop gaming alltogether.
In case you didnt notice (if you never played Halo online, or battlefield), anonymous internet people are asshats. Halo online is a constant barage of 13 year old squeaky teens trying to teabag you, every single battlefield server has at least a few tards completely ruining the immersion by trying their best to exploit certain engine features (dolphin diving, running around with a 'nade launcher like they are playing quake, killing you with airdropped-supplies). I'm pretty sure every online game has some of this.
When i want to enjoy the environment of a video game, i do not trust anonymous internet asshats to co-operate with giving me a nice WW2 (or whatever) like experience, they will fuck it up. In those cases i much prefer the slightly less smart, but much more realistic IA the developer puts in the game.
online gaming is fine for no-holds-barred Deathmatch, unreal/quake already is unrealistic as fuck, but i dont need some asshat ruining my RPG-experience jumping around and killing NPCs
my netbook runs Windows
Score:
iPad 1, Netbook 0
Boohoo, whiner...
his netbook also runs tons of flavors of linux (where you can customise the gui to no end), and perhaps (depending on the hardware, some do, some don't) OS X.
I'm no windows fan by any measure, but that was just childish
I have used my iPod Touch occasionally for casual web surfing and thought "gee, I really wish this screen was a lot bigger".
Conversely, i carry my ipod touch with me all day, using it for music at work, casual websurfing and games at home, and note-taking all over the place, and every time i pull it out of my jeans-pocket i think "Gee, i sure am glad i can carry this thing with me this easily"
i agree that the small screen rather limits what it does, but for me the winner is the small size, i also have a netbook (original eee-701), but it just lives in the living-room, as it is to big to carry around with me all day.
i am interested in the dell mini-5 though, a 5 inch touch screen MID
I question the ideology that one gets a raise simply for putting in time.
I would personally expect to keep at least equivalent purchasing power, thus inflation compensation (an employer will raise their prices to compensate this themselves anyway), add to that that i am still early in my career, and getting noticably more experienced and knowledgeable every year, and yes, i should be seeing a periodic increase in my euro/hour ratio.
I have no problem with going the extra mile sometime, but if an employer fails to make me feel apprieciated (not necceserilly with raises), i would quickly default to just putting in my hours
I would prefer to keep my job at my current pay than to lose it.
No argument there, although i am thinking of option C