...has got to be the coolest I ever heard. You ARE the man! Does the name have a story behind it? Do you have a sibling named "Chaos"? Or maybe twins named "Pain" and "Panic"?
Yeah, no doubt. I think they're going to deliberately de-orbit it (as opposed to just letting it decay until it re-enters), which implies that they have some control over where it comes down. So my guess is they'll try to steer it for the middle of the Pacific.
Some enterprising cruise ship line could make some money - sort of like last year's eclipse cruise.
In any case, I'll miss it. Watching Mir (and other satellite) passes gives me something to do out at the observatory while I'm waiting for it to get dark. I once saw Mir and the Shuttle come over separated by only a degree or two. The shuttle had just dropped somebody off and was heading back to Earth. What a sight! I had goosebumps for days.
Nearly 10 years of continuous habitation in space is not accomplishing anything? To my way of thinking that's accomplishing quite a lot. Not only that, but much of what was learned with Mir is being put to use in the new ISS.
Here's to hoping it re-enters somewhere close by - should be one hell of a fireball.
I do think that they are trying to distance E from Gnome a little more, though.
This was the thrust of my question. I realize that E will sit perfectly well on top of any desktop or none at all for that matter. And that it predates gnome and that it used to have an iconbox.
If you look at theme development as a barometer of where the wm is at any given time, there has been a trend away from stand-alone operation and towards integration with gnome. You're seeing fewer themes with slideouts, dropdowns, etc. and more that rely on the gnome panel to do that stuff. However, Raster's departure from RH and the addition of the new features (iconbox, pager, file browser) seem to indicate a move in the opposite direction. Just trying to get some confirmation of that observation from the horse's mouth.
First, it seems to me that some of the newer features that you and Rasterman have been working on duplicate features already found in Gnome/KDE. Examples are the new iconbox and the pagers. (They admittedly work *better* than the other versions, but that's not the point). My question is are you heading more in the direction of making e more 'stand-alone' and reducing the coupling with the desktop environment.
Secondly, while I think e is the coolest wm out there due to its almost infinite configurability, its weakness right now is the lack of documentation. I understand that it's still under intense development and it's hard to document a moving target. But I hope that when we get closer to the 1.0 release and things settle down a little, you guys will think about putting together a good doc package. Any comments?
What you're probably missing is that the earth makes a complete rotation around its own axis every 24 hours.
So? What does this have to do with anything?
The moon, making a complete rotation around the earth every 28 days, therefore completing only 1/28th of a complete rotation during this 24 hour period.
So 12 hours after a solar eclipse, the moon will be 1/56th of a rotation further along in its orbit, which hardly puts it on the other side of the Earth from the sun. It is in fact about 6.4 degrees from the sun (roughly 13 moon diameters) - not 180 degrees.
Get a flashlight, a tennis ball and a ping pong ball....
Well, I figure kevlar has been flamed enough for his mistake. (Hopefully he's *wearing* some kevlar today). What annoys me, though, is that his post was moderated *up* for being insightful.
I'd sorta like to know whether or not there'll be a massive ecological disaster next week.
No need to wait, we can answer this question now: There won't be a *new* ecological disaster next week. But there will still be all the ecological disasters we already had.
This is a real (no pun intended) problem. When a major arterial runs through many jurisdictions, there is no coordination between them, even if there is coordination within the jurisdiction. There are lots of reasons for this and the industry is attempting to address some of them. One is that two adjacent cities may not be using the same vendor's equipment so therefore they can't communicate with one another. I am involved in an effort to standardize the comm. protocols used by all manufacturers. This new protocol suite is called NTCIP and is based on HDLC, TCP|UDP/IP, and SNMP. If you're interested, there's a website at http://www.ntcip.org
btw, some terminology - the diamonds you refer to are called 'loops'. They are literally loops of wire in the road surface that senses when a large piece of metal passes over them. When a traffic controller is using detectors (loops or otherwise) it is said to be actuated.
I work for a major manufacturer of traffic equipment. Most downtown areas and even outlying arterials are timed exactly this way (the proper term is 'coordinated'). Usually there is a speed that the system is designed to operate at and the signals are timed up and down the street to turn green just as a platoon of traffic approaches the intersection.
The problem is that as traffic volume increses - during rush hour, say - there are more cars trying to get through the system than will fit. Cars can't drive at the design speed and this means that they will 'stack up' causing even fewer cars to make it through the system. Bam! a phase change has occurred. Making the system more adaptive is a goal that we and every single one of our competitors are trying to achieve.
Hopefully my employers will never find out about this, but I think the only real solution is to put fewer cars on the roads. Mass transit will help do that, but here in the US you're considered some sort of second class citizen if you ride the bus to work (except in a few urban areas - eg, NYC). Also, people just don't want to give up the freedom that comes with having their own vehicle parked out in the lot. I like the idea of telecommuting - I could do 90% of my job from my house and I know many of you reading this could too. But to a great extent corporate America still operates under the paradigm that if you aren't at work, you aren't working.
This is very cool and I'll go see it if it comes near, but I kind of feel sorry for his widow. I'm sure she'd just like to see that thing stay on the bottom of the Atlantic.
I would rather suggest aggressively marketing _free_ MP3's (think of it!) which entice a user to buy the full album
Probably the best application for this technology, at least until such time as the quality improves to the point that it can be considered high fidelity.
You know more about internal combustion engines than you think you do. You know that they run on gasoline, you know that they use oil for lubrication and you know that they have coolant to keep them from overheating. You know enough to use an automobile and keep it running.
I'm afraid this is not true of most computer users. If these people used their cars the way they (try) to use their computers, they'd drive it until it ran out of gas and then call tech support on their cell phones.
I submit that it's good to know at least a little about what goes on under the hoods of cars, computers and pretty much any piece of technology.
I also believe that usability is a personal thing. I have my system set up the way that makes it most usable for _me_ because, after all, it's my system. I don't expect that my secretary would be productive on it any more than I'd be productive on hers. This is where configurability and flexibility become important. If you produce a lowest common denominator UI, it's equally unusable for all. To me the most user-UNfriendly interface is one I can't modify.
I do agree with a lot the original author has to say, but I disagree with: CLI==bad, configurability is evil, and that the user shouldn't have to know anything about what's behind the UI.
I think the solution, if there is to be one, must come from the top down. Those of us in a position to hire someone have to be careful when choosing a recruiter - or decide to not use one at all.
We have to make sure that the recruiting agency does more than just scan the resume through their buzzword filter. Interview the recruiter as it were, to find out what their weeding-out process is. If you *are* going to rely heavily on buzzwords, make sure you include spelled-out versions in addition to the acronyms. The pain of this process is starting to approach that of doing all the hiring 'manually' so it may be as good or better to circumvent the headhunters altogether.
Another idea is to rely more heavily on resumes on the web (everybody can read html) - especially if a programmer is what you're looking for. A programmer can show off his skills with the resume itself and can also use it to point to projects he has worked on, etc.
The work unit size can't be reduced b/c they would run the risk of missing a signal buried in the data. Also, the work units have some overlap in them, if they reduced the size, they would contain mostly overlap and little 'unique' data, which would be very inefficient.
Does anyone know if all these old objects are observed in one area of the sky?
They are everywhere. Some of them are quite nearby, in fact. There are globular clusters orbiting the Milky Way that are thought to be about 12 gigayears old. That was one of the problems with the previous estimates - there were globs that were older than the universe according to the estimates. I think the new age estimates are more in line.
My logic would tell me that we are seeing them now at the location where they were x billion years ago. And if we are seeing them as they were shortly after the BB, shouldn't they be fairly closely packed?
Not sure why you think this should be so. If two distant objects were on opposite 'sides' of the universe (from our point of view) when light left them 12 billion years ago, wouldn't they still appear to be on opposite sides of the universe today? In any case, I think they are distributed pretty uniformly.
Even though the universe is expanding (according to theory), as a whole it is stationary w.r.t. itself, so it does make sense to ask the question "how old is it?"
Doppler/Red shifting is always caused by a difference in speed. So the further away an object from earth, the faster it moves relative to earth.
Red shifting can also be caused by gravity. As light travels up through a gravity well, it gets red shifted by the time dilation. From the perspective of a distant observer, time slows down inside a gravity well.
Your other question was handled by the balloon analogy, but I'd like to add something. This type of misunderstanding arises from assuming that all the stuff in the universe was once contained in a very tiny volume and then exploded into a previously empty universe. This is not what the big bang theory states. It states that the universe itself was contained in a tiny volume. It's a subtle but important difference.
In order for this to be corrected, the lawmakers/politicians would have to become experts on whatever subjects are applicable to the laws they vote on. I hope I don't have to explain that this isn't possible.
True, but if they did, there would be fewer laws and better laws. Both of these would be Good Things, imo.
Slashdot Mirror
...has got to be the coolest I ever heard. You ARE the man! Does the name have a story behind it? Do you have a sibling named "Chaos"? Or maybe twins named "Pain" and "Panic"?
Being a Russian I just wanna put an end to this thread.
No chance! So 'mir mir' means 'world peace'. Cool.
Yeah, no doubt. I think they're going to deliberately de-orbit it (as opposed to just letting it decay until it re-enters), which implies that they have some control over where it comes down. So my guess is they'll try to steer it for the middle of the Pacific.
Some enterprising cruise ship line could make some money - sort of like last year's eclipse cruise.
In any case, I'll miss it. Watching Mir (and other satellite) passes gives me something to do out at the observatory while I'm waiting for it to get dark. I once saw Mir and the Shuttle come over separated by only a degree or two. The shuttle had just dropped somebody off and was heading back to Earth. What a sight! I had goosebumps for days.
Nearly 10 years of continuous habitation in space is not accomplishing anything? To my way of thinking that's accomplishing quite a lot. Not only that, but much of what was learned with Mir is being put to use in the new ISS.
Here's to hoping it re-enters somewhere close by - should be one hell of a fireball.
Nice theory, but mir means 'peace' in Russian.
Ok, just what do they look like, then??
I do think that they are trying to distance E from Gnome a little more, though.
This was the thrust of my question. I realize that E will sit perfectly well on top of any desktop or none at all for that matter. And that it predates gnome and that it used to have an iconbox.
If you look at theme development as a barometer of where the wm is at any given time, there has been a trend away from stand-alone operation and towards integration with gnome. You're seeing fewer themes with slideouts, dropdowns, etc. and more that rely on the gnome panel to do that stuff. However, Raster's departure from RH and the addition of the new features (iconbox, pager, file browser) seem to indicate a move in the opposite direction. Just trying to get some confirmation of that observation from the horse's mouth.
aj
First, it seems to me that some of the newer features that you and Rasterman have been working on duplicate features already found in Gnome/KDE. Examples are the new iconbox and the pagers. (They admittedly work *better* than the other versions, but that's not the point). My question is are you heading more in the direction of making e more 'stand-alone' and reducing the coupling with the desktop environment.
Secondly, while I think e is the coolest wm out there due to its almost infinite configurability, its weakness right now is the lack of documentation. I understand that it's still under intense development and it's hard to document a moving target. But I hope that when we get closer to the 1.0 release and things settle down a little, you guys will think about putting together a good doc package. Any comments?
Thanks for your time.
aj
What you're probably missing is that the earth makes a complete rotation around its own axis every 24 hours.
So? What does this have to do with anything?
The moon, making a complete rotation around the earth every 28 days, therefore completing only 1/28th of a complete rotation during this 24 hour period.
So 12 hours after a solar eclipse, the moon will be 1/56th of a rotation further along in its orbit, which hardly puts it on the other side of the Earth from the sun. It is in fact about 6.4 degrees from the sun (roughly 13 moon diameters) - not 180 degrees.
Get a flashlight, a tennis ball and a ping pong ball....
aj
Well, I figure kevlar has been flamed enough for his mistake. (Hopefully he's *wearing* some kevlar today). What annoys me, though, is that his post was moderated *up* for being insightful.
aj
I'd sorta like to know whether or not there'll be a massive ecological disaster next week.
No need to wait, we can answer this question now: There won't be a *new* ecological disaster next week. But there will still be all the ecological disasters we already had.
If you want to see where Cassini is right now, look here: Where is Cassini Now?
aj
This is a real (no pun intended) problem. When a major arterial runs through many jurisdictions, there is no coordination between them, even if there is coordination within the jurisdiction. There are lots of reasons for this and the industry is attempting to address some of them. One is that two adjacent cities may not be using the same vendor's equipment so therefore they can't communicate with one another. I am involved in an effort to standardize the comm. protocols used by all manufacturers. This new protocol suite is called NTCIP and is based on HDLC, TCP|UDP/IP, and SNMP. If you're interested, there's a website at http://www.ntcip.org
btw, some terminology - the diamonds you refer to are called 'loops'. They are literally loops of wire in the road surface that senses when a large piece of metal passes over them. When a traffic controller is using detectors (loops or otherwise) it is said to be actuated.
aj
I work for a major manufacturer of traffic equipment. Most downtown areas and even outlying arterials are timed exactly this way (the proper term is 'coordinated'). Usually there is a speed that the system is designed to operate at and the signals are timed up and down the street to turn green just as a platoon of traffic approaches the intersection.
The problem is that as traffic volume increses - during rush hour, say - there are more cars trying to get through the system than will fit. Cars can't drive at the design speed and this means that they will 'stack up' causing even fewer cars to make it through the system. Bam! a phase change has occurred. Making the system more adaptive is a goal that we and every single one of our competitors are trying to achieve.
Hopefully my employers will never find out about this, but I think the only real solution is to put fewer cars on the roads. Mass transit will help do that, but here in the US you're considered some sort of second class citizen if you ride the bus to work (except in a few urban areas - eg, NYC). Also, people just don't want to give up the freedom that comes with having their own vehicle parked out in the lot. I like the idea of telecommuting - I could do 90% of my job from my house and I know many of you reading this could too. But to a great extent corporate America still operates under the paradigm that if you aren't at work, you aren't working.
g
Take a look at
www.microsfot.com
aj
This is very cool and I'll go see it if it comes near, but I kind of feel sorry for his widow. I'm sure she'd just like to see that thing stay on the bottom of the Atlantic.
Any lack of discretion here would be on Amiga Central's part - that's where the quote originated.
I would rather suggest aggressively marketing _free_ MP3's (think of it!) which entice a user to buy the full album
Probably the best application for this technology, at least until such time as the quality improves to the point that it can be considered high fidelity.
aj
You know more about internal combustion engines than you think you do. You know that they run on gasoline, you know that they use oil for lubrication and you know that they have coolant to keep them from overheating. You know enough to use an automobile and keep it running.
I'm afraid this is not true of most computer users. If these people used their cars the way they (try) to use their computers, they'd drive it until it ran out of gas and then call tech support on their cell phones.
I submit that it's good to know at least a little about what goes on under the hoods of cars, computers and pretty much any piece of technology.
I also believe that usability is a personal thing. I have my system set up the way that makes it most usable for _me_ because, after all, it's my system. I don't expect that my secretary would be productive on it any more than I'd be productive on hers. This is where configurability and flexibility become important. If you produce a lowest common denominator UI, it's equally unusable for all. To me the most user-UNfriendly interface is one I can't modify.
I do agree with a lot the original author has to say, but I disagree with: CLI==bad, configurability is evil, and that the user shouldn't have to know anything about what's behind the UI.
aj
I think the solution, if there is to be one, must come from the top down. Those of us in a position to hire someone have to be careful when choosing a recruiter - or decide to not use one at all.
We have to make sure that the recruiting agency does more than just scan the resume through their buzzword filter. Interview the recruiter as it were, to find out what their weeding-out process is. If you *are* going to rely heavily on buzzwords, make sure you include spelled-out versions in addition to the acronyms. The pain of this process is starting to approach that of doing all the hiring 'manually' so it may be as good or better to circumvent the headhunters altogether.
Another idea is to rely more heavily on resumes on the web (everybody can read html) - especially if a programmer is what you're looking for. A programmer can show off his skills with the resume itself and can also use it to point to projects he has worked on, etc.
g
The work unit size can't be reduced b/c they would run the risk of missing a signal buried in the data. Also, the work units have some overlap in them, if they reduced the size, they would contain mostly overlap and little 'unique' data, which would be very inefficient.
aj
Does anyone know if all these old objects are observed in one area of the sky?
They are everywhere. Some of them are quite nearby, in fact. There are globular clusters orbiting the Milky Way that are thought to be about 12 gigayears old. That was one of the problems with the previous estimates - there were globs that were older than the universe according to the estimates. I think the new age estimates are more in line.
My logic would tell me that we are seeing them now at the location where they were x billion years ago. And if we are seeing them as they were shortly after the BB, shouldn't they be fairly closely packed?
Not sure why you think this should be so. If two distant objects were on opposite 'sides' of the universe (from our point of view) when light left them 12 billion years ago, wouldn't they still appear to be on opposite sides of the universe today? In any case, I think they are distributed pretty uniformly.
g
Even though the universe is expanding (according to theory), as a whole it is stationary w.r.t. itself, so it does make sense to ask the question "how old is it?"
I think.
g
Doppler/Red shifting is always caused by a difference in speed. So the further away an object from earth, the faster it moves relative to earth.
Red shifting can also be caused by gravity. As light travels up through a gravity well, it gets red shifted by the time dilation. From the perspective of a distant observer, time slows down inside a gravity well.
Your other question was handled by the balloon analogy, but I'd like to add something. This type of misunderstanding arises from assuming that all the stuff in the universe was once contained in a very tiny volume and then exploded into a previously empty universe. This is not what the big bang theory states. It states that the universe itself was contained in a tiny volume. It's a subtle but important difference.
g
In order for this to be corrected, the lawmakers/politicians would have to become experts on whatever subjects are applicable to the laws they vote on. I hope I don't have to explain that this isn't possible.
True, but if they did, there would be fewer laws and better laws. Both of these would be Good Things, imo.
g
This doesn't work for me, any other ideas?
tia...
g