What, you think the driver model, network stack, etc, in Linux is 100% static and will never, ever change?
The only reason you think it's "retarded" is because Microsoft likes these big splash releases every five years, while Linux is constantly evolving, and that means if the driver model changes, it could very well be between minor revision numbers (which aren't actually minor).
Wait wait... so you want the hypervisor, the thing that's granting access to the various hardware resources and has direct access to virtualized memory, storage, and so forth, by it's very nature... to be untrusted?
Am I the only one that sees a contradiction, here?
or they could end up poisoning the oceans globally
ROFL, good one, that's hilarious.
Wait, you're not joking, are you?
You know, this post is a classic example of the human mind's inability to grasp scale. The ocean is fucking *huge*. I mean, mindbogglingly big. It would take *far* more oil than what is currently being released to "[poison] the oceans globally".
Seriously, get a grip. This disaster is bad. Really really bad. But it's not "oh shit, we're all gonna die" bad. Not even close.
Conversely, I've found I sleep better when I make a habit of reading for a good half hour to hour before I sleep. And how do I read? Usually in the dark (don't want to disturb the wife), with my Palm TX (brightness set as low as possible, which is very low indeed).
Ahh, I see your mistake. You believe Mozilla is making this choice for pragmatic, legal reasons.
That, of course, is bullshit.
Firefox *could* be written to simply use ffmpeg or gstreamer or DirectShow, and then it could support basically *any* video codec. It would give the user and the website author *more* choice.
But that's not the point. The point is Mozilla sees themselves as some kind of defender of the internet commons. You know, hero-in-shiny-armour kind of stuff. It's absurd, of course, as Mozilla is *massively* overestimating their influence. And as a tradeoff, they're screwing their users.
But, they've chosen their ideals over being pragmatic. And now we have this ridiculous situation.
So thanks Mozilla. Thanks a lot. I hope, when you go to bed tonight, you sleep easy, enjoying your dreams of being a Jedi-like freedom fighter. Meanwhile, I get stuck with a crippled browser. Suddenly Chrome isn't looking like such a bad option...
Well, maybe if you and that hipster douchebag actually knew how to drive stick properly, you'd realize that you should be using the e-break to prevent rolling back on steep hills when first starting.
Yeah, but maintenance on a manual transmission is a fair bit cheaper. Moreover, an automatic requires far more regular maintenance that, if not properly performed, can lead to much faster breakdown.
Exactly! That's why we need to ban TVs, radios, videogame consoles, and all other consumer electronics that can be used without understanding the inner workings of the device in question.
I find it incredibly ironic that you should use "paternalism" as a defense for why the iPad is evil, when you are, yourself, telling everyone else, both consumers and manufacturers, what they should and shouldn't do with their consumer electronics...
Sorry, I'm more of a hot-rodder than a passive consumer.
So, wait, presumably that means you believe "passive consumption" is somehow a bad thing? That, say, looking at art pieces at a museum, or watching a great film, is somehow a negative thing? Interesting.
It might be gold-plated, but it's still a turd underneath
Why? If users like the experience and it let's them get things done, what makes it a "turd", exactly? Granted, it may not be your kind of turd (I'm more of a Linux guy, but god knows it can be a shitty experience sometimes), but that doesn't mean it's a poor product. It's just not marketed to you, that's all.
Look, I like HTML5, just as I like HTML4, but the web is a terrible programming environment.
Hard to disagree there.
Javascript is great, but to listen to all the web 2.0/3.0/x.x proponents blather on incessently about how web applications are great and the way of the future and... blah blah blah. It's ridiculous.
Wait... what does that have to do with your first point?
For the users, yes, web applications are great, and for some things, they are the way of the future. It sucks for developers, to be sure, but that doesn't change that reality.
Someone apparently doesn't do any modern website construction...
This is the exact right thing to do if you plan to use JQuery. Yeah, sure, you could be an idiot and host it yourself (it's an OSS project, after all), but then you're wasting people's bandwidth because their browser has to retrieve your copy, rather than using the copy of Google's that they've cached while browsing websites being run by people who actually know what they're doing. Furthermore, it reduces load on your own server, as if the browser doesn't have Google's copy cached, it's Google's server that gets hit, not yours.
Videos seem universally bad. Lots of skips and pixelization on videos which play fine on my Windows Desktop or the previously mentioned VM.
Bizarre, I was expecting you to say the precise opposite. Why? Because I *never* visit sites that use flash for navigation, nor to do I play Flash games. All I do is play videos with it, and it works very well, and certainly far better than the old 32-bit Flash 9 (for example, it can actually play fullscreen full speed).
From a legal point of view, they may be able to get away with it, but froma moral or professional standpoint it's still inexcusable.
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that people can *download the software for free* and test the claims themselves.
The amount of time I've wasted trying to get badly written, buggy, poorly documented, mispeading, out-of-date, incompatible or uncompilable open-source / free software to work is massive.
Then stop using it. No one's forcing you to use it, and you never paid for it, so why the fuck are you complaining about it? You've lost nothing but the time and effort you *chose* to sink into the software.
There are several FOSS projects where I have spent more time at my hourly rate trying to get the crap working, than the full-price commercial alternatives have cost.
Then buy that software and quit bitching. Seriously.
Pretty much, yeah. Besides which, why would you open yourself up to potential legal trouble from someone downloading kiddie porn or something through your link?
So by your logic, telecom companies should be liable if someone uses a payphone to harass someone?
If NASA had never existed then we'd have skipped over the unaffordable boondoggle era of space travel and right now companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon.
Wait wait... so suddenly putting people in orbit and on the moon is a profitable venture? Huh.
Please, explain to me the business model. I'm sure we'd all love to know why "companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon", given that competition presumes some kind of reward for the effort.
So I take that bit back. It's still a piddly step toward orbit, yes. But you're right, for commercial space flight, it's an impressive feat. It's just important to put this in perspective: getting up to 100 km is impressive, but the step from that to orbit is far bigger than the step from 0 to 100km in the first place.
I think you are not giving them enough credit. While this may be a small step for a space flight, it is a giant leap for non governmental funded commercial space flight. (thanks Neil)
Did I say otherwise? No, I didn't.
The OP asked, why is NASA so much more expensive? I answered, because what NASA does is far *far* harder. Does that belittle what Carmack, et al, are trying to do here? No. It simply gives NASA the credit that is their due.
it makes you wonder about nasa prices for each missions... and also wonder why this has not happened before
Well, given Carmack's proposal isn't even in the same league as the average shuttle launch, I suspect the cost differential is pretty understandable. After all, last I checked, NASA didn't bother with piddly little missions to send people just barely past the boundary of space (which is 62 mi/100 km) and then immediately bring them right back again. The delta between that and a real orbital mission is massive.
No, this is but a very tiny step toward real, commercial spaceflight. And the step from this to real commercial space flight is much much larger.
Satellites all over the world and they still don't know with certainty which direction the hurricane will move in the next 24 hours.
And then you failed again by demonstrating a total lack of understanding regarding statistics (hint: short term variance != long term trend).
Bzzzt - disqualified. Carbon dating absolutely does NOT work that way. A CO2 molecule's age can ABSOLUTELY NOT be determined.
And then you failed a third time! Wow! This phrase:
This extra CO2 is not coming from the oceans. It's coming from the burning of fossil fuels. We know this because carbon can be dated
Doesn't mean what you believe it means. It's a pop-sci, pablumized version of real science. Climatologists would never claim you can measure a "CO2 molecule's age", and the aforementioned quote doesn't say they do. That doesn't even make sense. It's referring to a method of inferring the source of a sample of CO2 by examining the relative concentration of carbon isotopes in sample.
Me, I will stick to REAL SCIENCE
Well, given you haven't even managed to grasp a basic understanding of chemistry and statistics, you'll forgive me if I doubt that claim.
So I'll say it again: Learn. Seriously. You're *definitely* not as smart as you think you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Applying that argument to Linux is retarded.
Uhh... why?
What, you think the driver model, network stack, etc, in Linux is 100% static and will never, ever change?
The only reason you think it's "retarded" is because Microsoft likes these big splash releases every five years, while Linux is constantly evolving, and that means if the driver model changes, it could very well be between minor revision numbers (which aren't actually minor).
Wait wait... so you want the hypervisor, the thing that's granting access to the various hardware resources and has direct access to virtualized memory, storage, and so forth, by it's very nature... to be untrusted?
Am I the only one that sees a contradiction, here?
or they could end up poisoning the oceans globally
ROFL, good one, that's hilarious.
Wait, you're not joking, are you?
You know, this post is a classic example of the human mind's inability to grasp scale. The ocean is fucking *huge*. I mean, mindbogglingly big. It would take *far* more oil than what is currently being released to "[poison] the oceans globally".
Seriously, get a grip. This disaster is bad. Really really bad. But it's not "oh shit, we're all gonna die" bad. Not even close.
Conversely, I've found I sleep better when I make a habit of reading for a good half hour to hour before I sleep. And how do I read? Usually in the dark (don't want to disturb the wife), with my Palm TX (brightness set as low as possible, which is very low indeed).
Shouldn't it be a user option?
Ahh, I see your mistake. You believe Mozilla is making this choice for pragmatic, legal reasons.
That, of course, is bullshit.
Firefox *could* be written to simply use ffmpeg or gstreamer or DirectShow, and then it could support basically *any* video codec. It would give the user and the website author *more* choice.
But that's not the point. The point is Mozilla sees themselves as some kind of defender of the internet commons. You know, hero-in-shiny-armour kind of stuff. It's absurd, of course, as Mozilla is *massively* overestimating their influence. And as a tradeoff, they're screwing their users.
But, they've chosen their ideals over being pragmatic. And now we have this ridiculous situation.
So thanks Mozilla. Thanks a lot. I hope, when you go to bed tonight, you sleep easy, enjoying your dreams of being a Jedi-like freedom fighter. Meanwhile, I get stuck with a crippled browser. Suddenly Chrome isn't looking like such a bad option...
Well, maybe if you and that hipster douchebag actually knew how to drive stick properly, you'd realize that you should be using the e-break to prevent rolling back on steep hills when first starting.
Buh? What makes you say that? Have you never heard of an e-brake?
Yeah, but maintenance on a manual transmission is a fair bit cheaper. Moreover, an automatic requires far more regular maintenance that, if not properly performed, can lead to much faster breakdown.
'course, that's why any sane vehicle owner drives stick...
Exactly! That's why we need to ban TVs, radios, videogame consoles, and all other consumer electronics that can be used without understanding the inner workings of the device in question.
Right?
I find it incredibly ironic that you should use "paternalism" as a defense for why the iPad is evil, when you are, yourself, telling everyone else, both consumers and manufacturers, what they should and shouldn't do with their consumer electronics...
Sorry, I'm more of a hot-rodder than a passive consumer.
So, wait, presumably that means you believe "passive consumption" is somehow a bad thing? That, say, looking at art pieces at a museum, or watching a great film, is somehow a negative thing? Interesting.
It might be gold-plated, but it's still a turd underneath
Why? If users like the experience and it let's them get things done, what makes it a "turd", exactly? Granted, it may not be your kind of turd (I'm more of a Linux guy, but god knows it can be a shitty experience sometimes), but that doesn't mean it's a poor product. It's just not marketed to you, that's all.
Look, I like HTML5, just as I like HTML4, but the web is a terrible programming environment.
Hard to disagree there.
Javascript is great, but to listen to all the web 2.0/3.0/x.x proponents blather on incessently about how web applications are great and the way of the future and... blah blah blah. It's ridiculous.
Wait... what does that have to do with your first point?
For the users, yes, web applications are great, and for some things, they are the way of the future. It sucks for developers, to be sure, but that doesn't change that reality.
Someone apparently doesn't do any modern website construction...
This is the exact right thing to do if you plan to use JQuery. Yeah, sure, you could be an idiot and host it yourself (it's an OSS project, after all), but then you're wasting people's bandwidth because their browser has to retrieve your copy, rather than using the copy of Google's that they've cached while browsing websites being run by people who actually know what they're doing. Furthermore, it reduces load on your own server, as if the browser doesn't have Google's copy cached, it's Google's server that gets hit, not yours.
Heh, you just very nearly described my laptop, a 3-year-old T61, where I run 64-bit flash quite happily:
CPU: model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7300 @ 2.00GHz
Memory:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 2024032 1963804 60228 0 187404 563408
Videocard: (--) PCI:*(0:1:0:0) 10de:0429:17aa:20d8 nVidia Corporation Quadro NVS 140M rev 161,
Videos seem universally bad. Lots of skips and pixelization on videos which play fine on my Windows Desktop or the previously mentioned VM.
Bizarre, I was expecting you to say the precise opposite. Why? Because I *never* visit sites that use flash for navigation, nor to do I play Flash games. All I do is play videos with it, and it works very well, and certainly far better than the old 32-bit Flash 9 (for example, it can actually play fullscreen full speed).
64 bit Linux has an Alpha Flash player. It's been in Alpha for *years*. It's a piece of crap, even by the standards of Flash players.
Really? Weird. I've been using the 64-bit Flash 10 beta for a solid year now with no problems at all (well, by Flash-for-Linux standards, anyway).
From a legal point of view, they may be able to get away with it, but froma moral or professional standpoint it's still inexcusable.
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that people can *download the software for free* and test the claims themselves.
The amount of time I've wasted trying to get badly written, buggy, poorly documented, mispeading, out-of-date, incompatible or uncompilable open-source / free software to work is massive.
Then stop using it. No one's forcing you to use it, and you never paid for it, so why the fuck are you complaining about it? You've lost nothing but the time and effort you *chose* to sink into the software.
There are several FOSS projects where I have spent more time at my hourly rate trying to get the crap working, than the full-price commercial alternatives have cost.
Then buy that software and quit bitching. Seriously.
Pretty much, yeah. Besides which, why would you open yourself up to potential legal trouble from someone downloading kiddie porn or something through your link?
So by your logic, telecom companies should be liable if someone uses a payphone to harass someone?
Interesting.
If NASA had never existed then we'd have skipped over the unaffordable boondoggle era of space travel and right now companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon.
Wait wait... so suddenly putting people in orbit and on the moon is a profitable venture? Huh.
Please, explain to me the business model. I'm sure we'd all love to know why "companies would be competing to be the first to put people in orbit and land them on the moon", given that competition presumes some kind of reward for the effort.
Hah, actually, looking back at it, yes, I did.
So I take that bit back. It's still a piddly step toward orbit, yes. But you're right, for commercial space flight, it's an impressive feat. It's just important to put this in perspective: getting up to 100 km is impressive, but the step from that to orbit is far bigger than the step from 0 to 100km in the first place.
I think you are not giving them enough credit. While this may be a small step for a space flight, it is a giant leap for non governmental funded commercial space flight. (thanks Neil)
Did I say otherwise? No, I didn't.
The OP asked, why is NASA so much more expensive? I answered, because what NASA does is far *far* harder. Does that belittle what Carmack, et al, are trying to do here? No. It simply gives NASA the credit that is their due.
it makes you wonder about nasa prices for each missions... and also wonder why this has not happened before
Well, given Carmack's proposal isn't even in the same league as the average shuttle launch, I suspect the cost differential is pretty understandable. After all, last I checked, NASA didn't bother with piddly little missions to send people just barely past the boundary of space (which is 62 mi/100 km) and then immediately bring them right back again. The delta between that and a real orbital mission is massive.
No, this is but a very tiny step toward real, commercial spaceflight. And the step from this to real commercial space flight is much much larger.
Satellites all over the world and they still don't know with certainty which direction the hurricane will move in the next 24 hours.
And then you failed again by demonstrating a total lack of understanding regarding statistics (hint: short term variance != long term trend).
Bzzzt - disqualified. Carbon dating absolutely does NOT work that way. A CO2 molecule's age can ABSOLUTELY NOT be determined.
And then you failed a third time! Wow! This phrase:
Doesn't mean what you believe it means. It's a pop-sci, pablumized version of real science. Climatologists would never claim you can measure a "CO2 molecule's age", and the aforementioned quote doesn't say they do. That doesn't even make sense. It's referring to a method of inferring the source of a sample of CO2 by examining the relative concentration of carbon isotopes in sample.
Me, I will stick to REAL SCIENCE
Well, given you haven't even managed to grasp a basic understanding of chemistry and statistics, you'll forgive me if I doubt that claim.
So I'll say it again: Learn. Seriously. You're *definitely* not as smart as you think you are.