There is nothing that can be done with an HLV that can't be done cheaper with multiple smaller (and already/soon existing) rockets.
Bullshit. We have neither the technology nor the orbital facilities to perform the kind of space-based assembly that would be required if you did away with heavy-lift rockets. And that's ignoring the fact that you need that kind of thrust for interplanetary missions (good like shipping on Cassini on anything but a heavy lift vehicle).
Well, given he's willing to torpedo meaningful healthcare reform just so that he can indirectly limit a woman's right to control their own body, I'd say he's clearly part of the 40%. How is that not obvious?
Buh? Who said anything about music? We're talking about an organization taking the work of someone else, then creating a derivative work and profiting from it. If you can't see why that's different from casual music piracy, you're either a troll or too dumb to participate in this discussion.
Therefore, it is only logical that the title of this article be changed to "Microsoft Shares Code with Microblogging Startup".
Actually, "plagiarizes" is more accurate. Microsoft "shared" nothing... they simply copied someone else's work without attribution. At minimum, that's a dick move. In most modern legal frameworks, it's also illegal.
Christ, how is this even a question? Your *boss* tells you to do something? Then you fucking do it! Have a problem with it? Go over his head to his boss. And if that guy tells you to go pound sand? You do your fucking job and hand over the passwords.
In short: This guy was an idiot. That network wasn't his personal property and he had no right to refuse access to it for those in a position of authority, regardless of his impressions of their professional qualifications.
When you find that outside of the ant colony or Borg collective let me know.
I never said it was realistic. I'm simply explaining the concept. It's kinda like pure capitalism. A nice idea in theory, but in practice, completely absurd, based upon a foundation of human behaviour that's so idealized it's silly.
And what amount of public pressure will ever move the government to repudiate a treaty that serves the interests of the principal government campaign contributors?
Well, given that campaign contributions are severely curtailed in Canada, I'd say this particular issue you've cited isn't terribly relevant (thank you Elections Canada). In fact, the track record of our government thus far indicates that the government isn't terribly influenced by the copyright cartel (a DMCA-like law has been proposed multiple times, only to be shot down time after time, and while we do have tariffs on various storage media, we also get legalized personal copying as a tradeoff).
That's not to say that corporations don't have a very strong voice at the table, particularly in provinces like BC where the movie industry is an important sector of the economy. But they don't have nearly the strangehold on government that they do in the US.
If one follows the link in TFA to Michael Geist's interactive timeline, there's an element that leads to a short video of a debate in the Canadian Houses of Parliament-- one member says ACTA is a tool of US corporate interests and will lock millions of users out of the net; the government minister who responds says anything in ACTA is "subservient to the acts of this Parliament". What he DOESN'T say, and what the member is not sharp enough to pick up in the swift give-and-take of debate, is that *once the treaty is in place*, there is NO more subservience to *anything*
Clearly you have no understanding of the role of treaties in Canadian law.
Unlike our American neighbours to the south, treaties have *no legal force on their own*. That's right, they do *not* become the law of the land. Rather, once a treaty is ratified, it's up to the government to then pass laws which harmonize Canadian law with the treaty provisions. But that's *not legally required*. ie, there's nothing stopping the house from simply refusing to pass laws to harmonize Canadian law with our treaty obligations.
The argument that you need a PH.D to understand the climate models you folks have created means you've simply created a magic language like the religions of past
Uhuh.
So, what, quantum mechanics is just "magic"? How about higher mathematics? Computing science? Law? Medicine? Because all of these fields have a specialized language of their own, and contain within them concepts that will simply be incomprehensible to a layman.
This planet, and the life upon it, survived it before... it will do so again... even if we somehow actually were the cause of it (which as I said, I doubt).
Umm, no one is arguing that. There is not one single AGW proponent out there that would claim that global warming is going to destroy all live as we know it.
What it *will* do is alter the earth's climate such that it deviates from that which humanity is adapted to. Rising ocean levels due to polar melting and simple heat expansion of ocean water will result in coastline destruction, displacing millions, if not billions, of people. Meanwhile, changing weather will mean movements in fertile regions, destroying valuable cropland. I could go on, but I'm hoping you're starting to see the point.
And if not, let me spell it out for you: Humanity is adapted to the climate as it exists today. Change that climate and, regardless of the nature of that change, the result will almost certainly be negative. So, will AGW destroy all life on the planet? No, of course not. That's absurd. But it could seriously fuck us up.
While I can accept that music would be less distracting that office chatter, I simply don't understand the concept that music is better than silence. I can work with music, but if I need to concentrate on something intensely, like a complex coding problem or making decisions based on a large amount of data, I need silence.
For me, it's purely a matter of psychology. Over the last ten years, there's been a lot of thought put into this idea of "flow". Any developer worth his or her salt knows exactly what "flow" is like, and everyone has different ways of getting into the flow. For me, the trick is music. Whenever I plan to bear down on a problem, the first thing I do is pop on the headphones. This probably dates back to my CS days, when I had to concentrate in a noisy computer lab and the only solution was music. The result? My brain is trained to use music as a cue that it's time to work.
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.
I find it amusing that you just assume that the cops are not, themselves, a danger on the roads when they're doing this.
No, but you have to have some compiled in. Most of the stock distros I've went looking through have things I don't want or need compiled in.
Uhuh.
Such as?
The modules tend to be a little slower
Citation please.
and at very least I have to wait for all of them to load before things work.
Arrange to have the ones you need loaded at startup so you only pay the (miniscule) cost at boot time.
Why should you have a delay while they load, when they can be put in the kernel right off, and just work.
Wait wait... now I'm confused. It's bloat when they're not modules. But you want stuff compiled right in? Let me guess: it's only bloat if it's something you don't need, right?
As an aside, to be clear, DRBD *wouldn't* be compiled in by default, so that argument has absolutely no bearing on the article at hand.
As for the rest, it's clear you like to waste time to squeeze an extra couple percent off your boot time. Good for you. But that has nothing to do with bloat. The Linux kernel, with few modules loaded, is lean and mean, and you can load as much or as little bloat as you want. Are there some minor benefits to building a custom kernel? Sure, it's hard to argue otherwise. But for the *vast* majority of people, the benefits don't outweight the cost, and so it's just not worth the effort.
Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications. It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.
Apparently *someone* doesn't understand what kernel modules are. Hint: The code *isn't* "compiled in".
People who build (and test) their own custom kernels are important. Sometimes, a bug won't show up except with some weird combination of kernel options, because some code path dependencies are missed with the fully configured kernels that the distros build for you.
Well, that's very noble. Nevertheless, those who make the choice to build their own kernels, as valuable as they may be, are still making a choice, and that choice means putting up with the tedium of configuring and building the kernel out. Don't like it? Stop doing it.
Maybe stop building kernels by hand and you'll be a lot happier, then, eh? Seriously, there's virtually no reason to build a custom kernel unless you have some pretty unusual requirements. So quit wasting your time. And if you insist on building kernels by hand for no particularly good reason, quit bitching. It's not like you don't have a choice.
It was an eye-opener for me when I realized that television networks are not in the business of putting out quality programming and paying for it with advertising, they're in the business of selling advertising and the programs are the means of attracting enough eyeballs to give that ad time value.
While that's true of the networks, it's less true for cable, telcos, and satellite, as the dollars per sub those services get from advertising is actually fairly low.
Funny, I switched *away* from in the web-based GMail client, opting for Evolution (mainly because of it's calendar integration). Why? Well, I wanted to access my personal and work email through the same client. But, of course, I'm not gonna forward my work email to GMail. So the only solution available was to use an IMAP client, through which I now access both my work and gmail accounts.
So, no, desktop clients are alive and well, and probably always will be, thanks to corporations and individuals who choose to run their own email services (Microsoft Exchange in particular).
Yeah, but e-book readers are apparently the hot item for the Holidays this year. If you can sell a device with a slow-refreshing screen that only does 16 levels of grayscale and supports no applications except a document viewer and (maybe) a stripped-down Web browser for $260, why wouldn't people be willing to buy a more fully-featured device for a similar price?
Unless said "more fully-featured device" has an eink display, I think the answer to that is obvious.
Funny how you left out the most important point he mentioned: They wear out. But what better way to make an argument than to ignore points you can't refute, eh?
I second xmonad. Don't know about running it within gnome as the parent says though, for me that would defeat the whole point.:)
Which, in your mind, is what, exactly? Because, last I checked, it was to manage windows, not to provide a functional taskbar (xmobar tries to do that, and does so rather poorly, AFAICT), system menus, filesystem browser, or the myriad other features that the Gnome environment provides.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing that can be done with an HLV that can't be done cheaper with multiple smaller (and already/soon existing) rockets.
Bullshit. We have neither the technology nor the orbital facilities to perform the kind of space-based assembly that would be required if you did away with heavy-lift rockets. And that's ignoring the fact that you need that kind of thrust for interplanetary missions (good like shipping on Cassini on anything but a heavy lift vehicle).
Who said anything about fillibustering? You're the first person to bring that up, AFAICT.
It's called rounding, and it's not all that new. Perhaps you've hard of it?
Well, given he's willing to torpedo meaningful healthcare reform just so that he can indirectly limit a woman's right to control their own body, I'd say he's clearly part of the 40%. How is that not obvious?
D*mn it. The government needs to stop competing with the private space industry and get the hell out of the way.
Umm, out of the way of what, exactly? Or are you aware of some as-yet-unannounced private sector effort to build a heavy lift rocket?
LOL! Code is work but music isn't!
Buh? Who said anything about music? We're talking about an organization taking the work of someone else, then creating a derivative work and profiting from it. If you can't see why that's different from casual music piracy, you're either a troll or too dumb to participate in this discussion.
Therefore, it is only logical that the title of this article be changed to "Microsoft Shares Code with Microblogging Startup".
Actually, "plagiarizes" is more accurate. Microsoft "shared" nothing... they simply copied someone else's work without attribution. At minimum, that's a dick move. In most modern legal frameworks, it's also illegal.
What. Do. You. Do?
Uh, you give them the passwords.
Christ, how is this even a question? Your *boss* tells you to do something? Then you fucking do it! Have a problem with it? Go over his head to his boss. And if that guy tells you to go pound sand? You do your fucking job and hand over the passwords.
In short: This guy was an idiot. That network wasn't his personal property and he had no right to refuse access to it for those in a position of authority, regardless of his impressions of their professional qualifications.
When you find that outside of the ant colony or Borg collective let me know.
I never said it was realistic. I'm simply explaining the concept. It's kinda like pure capitalism. A nice idea in theory, but in practice, completely absurd, based upon a foundation of human behaviour that's so idealized it's silly.
Who said anything about "taking"? In a truly communist society, people give voluntarily. Furthermore, there is no "government" as you refer to it.
No, what you describe is a dictatorship, plain and simple.
And what amount of public pressure will ever move the government to repudiate a treaty that serves the interests of the principal government campaign contributors?
Well, given that campaign contributions are severely curtailed in Canada, I'd say this particular issue you've cited isn't terribly relevant (thank you Elections Canada). In fact, the track record of our government thus far indicates that the government isn't terribly influenced by the copyright cartel (a DMCA-like law has been proposed multiple times, only to be shot down time after time, and while we do have tariffs on various storage media, we also get legalized personal copying as a tradeoff).
That's not to say that corporations don't have a very strong voice at the table, particularly in provinces like BC where the movie industry is an important sector of the economy. But they don't have nearly the strangehold on government that they do in the US.
If one follows the link in TFA to Michael Geist's interactive timeline, there's an element that leads to a short video of a debate in the Canadian Houses of Parliament-- one member says ACTA is a tool of US corporate interests and will lock millions of users out of the net; the government minister who responds says anything in ACTA is "subservient to the acts of this Parliament". What he DOESN'T say, and what the member is not sharp enough to pick up in the swift give-and-take of debate, is that *once the treaty is in place*, there is NO more subservience to *anything*
Clearly you have no understanding of the role of treaties in Canadian law.
Unlike our American neighbours to the south, treaties have *no legal force on their own*. That's right, they do *not* become the law of the land. Rather, once a treaty is ratified, it's up to the government to then pass laws which harmonize Canadian law with the treaty provisions. But that's *not legally required*. ie, there's nothing stopping the house from simply refusing to pass laws to harmonize Canadian law with our treaty obligations.
The argument that you need a PH.D to understand the climate models you folks have created means you've simply created a magic language like the religions of past
Uhuh.
So, what, quantum mechanics is just "magic"? How about higher mathematics? Computing science? Law? Medicine? Because all of these fields have a specialized language of their own, and contain within them concepts that will simply be incomprehensible to a layman.
This planet, and the life upon it, survived it before... it will do so again... even if we somehow actually were the cause of it (which as I said, I doubt).
Umm, no one is arguing that. There is not one single AGW proponent out there that would claim that global warming is going to destroy all live as we know it.
What it *will* do is alter the earth's climate such that it deviates from that which humanity is adapted to. Rising ocean levels due to polar melting and simple heat expansion of ocean water will result in coastline destruction, displacing millions, if not billions, of people. Meanwhile, changing weather will mean movements in fertile regions, destroying valuable cropland. I could go on, but I'm hoping you're starting to see the point.
And if not, let me spell it out for you: Humanity is adapted to the climate as it exists today. Change that climate and, regardless of the nature of that change, the result will almost certainly be negative. So, will AGW destroy all life on the planet? No, of course not. That's absurd. But it could seriously fuck us up.
While I can accept that music would be less distracting that office chatter, I simply don't understand the concept that music is better than silence. I can work with music, but if I need to concentrate on something intensely, like a complex coding problem or making decisions based on a large amount of data, I need silence.
For me, it's purely a matter of psychology. Over the last ten years, there's been a lot of thought put into this idea of "flow". Any developer worth his or her salt knows exactly what "flow" is like, and everyone has different ways of getting into the flow. For me, the trick is music. Whenever I plan to bear down on a problem, the first thing I do is pop on the headphones. This probably dates back to my CS days, when I had to concentrate in a noisy computer lab and the only solution was music. The result? My brain is trained to use music as a cue that it's time to work.
Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.
I find it amusing that you just assume that the cops are not, themselves, a danger on the roads when they're doing this.
No, but you have to have some compiled in. Most of the stock distros I've went looking through have things I don't want or need compiled in.
Uhuh.
Such as?
The modules tend to be a little slower
Citation please.
and at very least I have to wait for all of them to load before things work.
Arrange to have the ones you need loaded at startup so you only pay the (miniscule) cost at boot time.
Why should you have a delay while they load, when they can be put in the kernel right off, and just work.
Wait wait... now I'm confused. It's bloat when they're not modules. But you want stuff compiled right in? Let me guess: it's only bloat if it's something you don't need, right?
As an aside, to be clear, DRBD *wouldn't* be compiled in by default, so that argument has absolutely no bearing on the article at hand.
As for the rest, it's clear you like to waste time to squeeze an extra couple percent off your boot time. Good for you. But that has nothing to do with bloat. The Linux kernel, with few modules loaded, is lean and mean, and you can load as much or as little bloat as you want. Are there some minor benefits to building a custom kernel? Sure, it's hard to argue otherwise. But for the *vast* majority of people, the benefits don't outweight the cost, and so it's just not worth the effort.
Actually, custom kernels work better for most applications. It reduces the bloat of unwanted code that's been compiled in, and gives you exactly what you want.
Apparently *someone* doesn't understand what kernel modules are. Hint: The code *isn't* "compiled in".
People who build (and test) their own custom kernels are important. Sometimes, a bug won't show up except with some weird combination of kernel options, because some code path dependencies are missed with the fully configured kernels that the distros build for you.
Well, that's very noble. Nevertheless, those who make the choice to build their own kernels, as valuable as they may be, are still making a choice, and that choice means putting up with the tedium of configuring and building the kernel out. Don't like it? Stop doing it.
Maybe stop building kernels by hand and you'll be a lot happier, then, eh? Seriously, there's virtually no reason to build a custom kernel unless you have some pretty unusual requirements. So quit wasting your time. And if you insist on building kernels by hand for no particularly good reason, quit bitching. It's not like you don't have a choice.
It was an eye-opener for me when I realized that television networks are not in the business of putting out quality programming and paying for it with advertising, they're in the business of selling advertising and the programs are the means of attracting enough eyeballs to give that ad time value.
While that's true of the networks, it's less true for cable, telcos, and satellite, as the dollars per sub those services get from advertising is actually fairly low.
Funny, I switched *away* from in the web-based GMail client, opting for Evolution (mainly because of it's calendar integration). Why? Well, I wanted to access my personal and work email through the same client. But, of course, I'm not gonna forward my work email to GMail. So the only solution available was to use an IMAP client, through which I now access both my work and gmail accounts.
So, no, desktop clients are alive and well, and probably always will be, thanks to corporations and individuals who choose to run their own email services (Microsoft Exchange in particular).
Yeah, but e-book readers are apparently the hot item for the Holidays this year. If you can sell a device with a slow-refreshing screen that only does 16 levels of grayscale and supports no applications except a document viewer and (maybe) a stripped-down Web browser for $260, why wouldn't people be willing to buy a more fully-featured device for a similar price?
Unless said "more fully-featured device" has an eink display, I think the answer to that is obvious.
Funny how you left out the most important point he mentioned: They wear out. But what better way to make an argument than to ignore points you can't refute, eh?
I second xmonad. Don't know about running it within gnome as the parent says though, for me that would defeat the whole point. :)
Which, in your mind, is what, exactly? Because, last I checked, it was to manage windows, not to provide a functional taskbar (xmobar tries to do that, and does so rather poorly, AFAICT), system menus, filesystem browser, or the myriad other features that the Gnome environment provides.