I think it's the other way around. Both Linux and BSD had a VM long before the "mainstream" OSes had proper VMs. When Linux first came out, Windows 3.1 was mainstream. BSD was around before Windows 3.1.
So really it's the other way around - the mainstream OSes are playing catch-up:-) (And I've had cause to need to find out about the gory details of NT4's VMM this week too).
> > In fact, after a visit to sunfreeware.com, Solaris feels pretty much like Linux:-)
>Um, why not just use Linux then?:)
That'd mean re-installing the OS, and quite frankly, Solaris works fine and I don't need to fix something that ain't broke.
(You might then go on to ask why I went to the trouble of making my Windows system dual-boot Debian and Windows. Well, Windows ain't Unix, and Win98 is definitely broke )
I use Solaris. Once you've visited Sunfreeware.com and got all the things to make it into a proper UNIX (it doesn't come with a compiler, for heaven's sake! Unix without a C compiler is like a car without wheels!) Solaris becomes perfectly usable.
In fact, after a visit to sunfreeware.com, Solaris feels pretty much like Linux:-)
You can do this quite easily with a phone answering machine - just record the three-tone "invalid number" message at the start of your greeting.
Personally, I've not even bothered with doing that. During the time that telemarketers call (before 9pm weekdays/Saturdays) I just let the answering machine do the screening. All my friends know I'll pick up as soon as I hear them speak.
A fun site to visit is Antitelemarketer. Has some interesting telemarketer tormenting tricks:-]
I've used operator overloading quite a bit - it's pretty useful, and I think he's making a mistake by excluding it. Just because he doesn't use it, it doesn't mean the rest of us don't!
You know what scares me the most. If the TV news crews can't get the fact straight concerning a simple Virus how can we trust them with other information?
You can't. Not only am I a geek, I'm a geek who flies planes. For both computer related stuff AND aviation related stuff, they get it completely and totally wrong. With aviation, they sensationalize even more than they do with anything to do with the 'net or computers, spouting opinions based on zero knowledge (and it shows).
I no longer watch the news on TV. Print news I feel is a little better depending on the source - it's not nearly as sensationalistic - but I still take everything with a big enough grain of salt that you could make a large livestock salt-lick out of it.
I got the email about superheated water from your microwave, and how it could explode. Wrote back explaining, "No, mom. It's just another one of those hoaxes I keep telling you about." Sheesh, when will she learn [...] Umm yeah, Mom? Sorry. You were right...
The 'exploding water' thing predates the e-mail by a few years. When we got our first microwave (a Toshiba, IIRC) the manual contained a warning that you should make sure that if you were boiling the water, you should vigorously fill the container with water or it may "erupt". In fact, I've seen this happen - boil the water in the microwave, then drop a teabag in and it will erupt (anything from just fizzing like a can of Coke to water being splashed out of the container).
Hmmmm. That's not in my RoadRunner TOS - it doesn't even mention servers.
My cable data light started flashing like crazy the other day (and is still doing so). Out of curiousity, I ran iptraf, and discovered the traffic was all ARP packets coming from the default router (and I didn't see any destined for my MAC).
Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the "Poynting-Robertson effect"); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to v/c to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in v/c, is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat spacetime with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2 x 10^10 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR-at least, not if favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.
If you're talking about the Moller skycar, you're quite right to be skeptical.
Moller's performance claims are completely unrealistic. Aerodynamic engineers agree there's going to be a lot of inteference drag from the way the ducted-fan nacelles are set up. Also, rotary engines on a per-horsepower basis are a lot less fuel efficient than even normal gasoline piston engines. Yet his figures indicate they will be more efficient than the best diesel engines being made today.
Also, you CAN get your own personal air travel. My light aircraft cost half the price of a new Chevrolet Suburban, and burns less fuel too. It does have some limitations, and it was built in 1946, but it's very nice and a great deal of fun to fly. Go to your local small GA airport and ask about learning to fly, or see http://www.beapilot.com.
The trouble is that freedom-motors is basically tooting its own trumpet.
The flaw: the efficiency of rotary engines is much less than traditional piston engines. The advantages of rotary engines is that you can turn them fast and there's little vibration (turbine-like smoothness). But fuel efficient they are not.
Moller's numbers are totally unrealistic. Aerodynamic engineers agree there would be colossal inteference drag between the ducted fans and the fuselage of the vehicle. To add to that, he's claiming a fuel-inefficient engine design will do much better than a traditional piston engines. If you work out his numbers, he's claiming the rotary engine will have a better BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) than the best diesel engines of today.
i read the fucking "manuals" what ever the fuck manuals are; search for google and you'll find lots of little write ups, some FAQ's some half baked guides, no "manual".
Why so hostile?
Personally, I can't see what the problem is. I'd never performed firewalling of any kind until I got a decent network connection 2 weeks ago. Coming from zero knowledge about firewalls to writing some effective iptables rules really wasn't difficult at all. As far as I saw, the documentation I read made it very clear that ipfw/ipchains was legacy support, and iptables was the firewalling system. I even managed to get NAT working despite not knowing what NAT was 2.5 weeks ago.
It just ain't rocket science, and I can't see why it's so confusing. If you don't like Linux, instead of complaining about it - why not go back to using FreeBSD?
I still use my E6-B (manual one) rather than an electronic one or a GPS for figuring time/distance problems - it's just so much faster. Batteries never go dead either!
I'm not some old timer either, I'm not even 30 yet and I've only been flying for 4 years. I do have a GPS (it's nice to have the HSI display when flying IFR), but a mechanical E6B is still a very useful tool. I upgraded from a cheap card one to a nice aluminium one too;-)
Re:I've always wanted to build this...
on
Water Guns
·
· Score: 2
We used to fill 2 Liter bottles with cold water and dry ice (don't use hot, as the bottle will expand, cold keeps the plastic from melting) and seal it up. After moments, the thing would blow.
Friend of mine did this, but for added effect, put an object over the bottle (like a colander or trashcan). Fortunately, he videoed it. The exploding bottle would fire the trashcan for some distance. On the video you heard >BOOM!
They then had the idea of putting one of these bottles in the bathroom, on a stool, and videoing it at close range (running a video cable, so they could watch it from the safety of another room). The first one wasn't very good, so they wrapped the bottle in tape to make the pressure build up.
The second one was rather too successful. It exploded, blowing the sink off the wall. The sink hit the toilet cistern, putting a hole in the cistern! Somehow, the videocamera remained standing during all of this. The first words on the tape when they re-enter the bathroom were "Holy Cow!" followed by "Oh don't worry, these aren't too expensive"...with the sound of running water in the background...
Re:AuDSL is more modem than DSL
on
DSLBlaster?
·
· Score: 2
They aren't using phone lines - they are using leased lines which is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. The FCC won't be complaining to them. Leased line modems ARE expensive.
They aren't trying to do this over a PSTN (regular phone lines) - they are trying to make use of a dedicated, leased line for which the modems are a lot more expensive than a plain DSL hookup.
Please, don't tell me that you should be allowed to break the laws in the country that you're in -- you agreed to be bound by those laws or you, right now, would be campaiging against your 70mph motorway speed limit (I'm British). You'd be campaigning against the drink-driving laws there are, and more.
Unfortunately you are stuck with them. Not enough people will care about the laws addressed by this article, and the tyranny of the majority will win. The only option is then emigration, which is only an option to very few people.
Odd how you can't campaign against the social shame of being caught with your hard disk full of pr0n, or the social shame of maknig a fool of yourself;-). This is what I really believe to be the issue.
These are really minor issues - few people care these days if you've got a hard disk full of pr0n, and for most private citizens, you won't get made a fool of publically.
But what about corruption? Say you're in a competitive business, and one of your competitors happens to know a law-enforcement official. What if said official was corrupt enough to allow your competitor to view all your phone traffic and your IP traffic? You're terribly naive if you think that won't happen, because it's almost certain to happen. And even if you encrypt it, under the RIP bill, the enforcer can force you to decrypt it and you can't even tell anyone you're being forced to do this without risking prison.
some form of artificial gravity. I don't see the big deal here - just spin the damn space craft. I've heard some comments that there are problems controling two body systems in a stable way, but there must be some way around it (rigidity, three-body systems, active feedback...?). All this endless talk about overcoming weightlessness (sp?) is stupid when such an obvious solution is at hand.
If we can get the nuclear propulsion (perhaps the Arthur C. Clarkesque fusion power, ejecting a propellant) that can be kept on for long enough - you don't have to even bother spinning the sucker. Just have it accelerate at a constant 5m/s per second - which will give you 0.5G gravity. Or if you have good enough propulsion systems, have it accelerate at 10m/s per sec. - that's 1G. At the halfway point, flip around and decelerate at the same rate.
Errrm, actually, in the second year of my university course, we did quite a bit on "Understanding system failures" (systems of all types, from Three Mile Island to business systems).
Any decent systems analysis course should have a good chunk devoted to understanding failure.
you just might think "i don't care, i want a #&*@ ferrari before i die!".
Naah. When you pull back on the wheel of a Ferrari, nothing happens!
Part of my lack of understanding of people who spend beyond their means to get nice cars is that, well...the speed limit is 70 mph, and you just can't have much fun [0] in a car.
[0] The back seat of a Ferrari is inadequate for having fun;-);-)
Most of these unfortunates are young. They've come far and fast by having the right kind of smarts at the right time and place. That they didn't know they were living in a speculative bubble and far beyond their means is due to inexperience and hubris, not malice.
Still their own stupid fault. I'm young, slightly immature, and certainly inexperienced...yet I have the intelligence to realise that borrowed money is expensive money, and living beyond your means is risky business. The repo man won't get my vehicle because I paid cash for it. I'd rather have a less expensive used car that's cheap to insure and paid for than a luxury vehicle or big SUV that I have to make payments on. I get sticker shock from the depreciation cost of driving a new car off the lot, so I don't do it;-)
When I started on my current job as a fresh graduate, we had some deadlines and it got hectic. We had 3 months of >80 hour weeks. Later on, it got calmer - about 9 months of 60-70 hour weeks.
We did things to make it fun (like the 2am ice-cream break etc. and a trip to the pub in the city center on Saturday evenings, followed by coding under the influence...) but looking back on it, it was just too much.
I decided that I never, ever want to do that again. It was definitely detrimental to my health, and I felt as though I lost a bit of my 23-year-old life. So I made a promise to myself:
1. I would only work unpaid overtime in exceptional circumstances. (Fortunately we're a lot better at scheduling work now than we were then, and a lot better at managing the customer's expectations, and marketing don't try and do sizings any more thus commiting us to 80 hour weeks).
2. I would take ALL my vacation. I would of course give my employer lots of notice for when I take off a couple of weeks - but the deal is that I tell them when I'm taking vacation, I'm not asking for it.
3. If it becomes clear that I can no longer do (1) and (2), I'll go to a different company where I can. If that means leaving software development altogether, so be it. I'd rather be happy than wealthy any day.
It just isn't worth throwing your life away for your job. Don't give me that "I love my job though!" stuff. If you think you love your job, ask yourself this: would you pay for the privelige of doing your day job? If not, I suggest you don't really love your job;-)
If an employer is trying to force you to do unpaid overtime, before committing, think of it this way: think of how much money you are effectively donating to the company - which is a for-profit business, not a charity! (Unless, of course, you work for a charity...)
You talk about "enjoying sex" as if it's a bad thing! I was always under the impression that consenting sex between adults was supposed to be enjoyable, not some sordid drudgery...
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's the other way around. Both Linux and BSD had a VM long before the "mainstream" OSes had proper VMs. When Linux first came out, Windows 3.1 was mainstream. BSD was around before Windows 3.1.
:-) (And I've had cause to need to find out about the gory details of NT4's VMM this week too).
So really it's the other way around - the mainstream OSes are playing catch-up
> > In fact, after a visit to sunfreeware.com, Solaris feels pretty much like Linux :-)
:)
>Um, why not just use Linux then?
That'd mean re-installing the OS, and quite frankly, Solaris works fine and I don't need to fix something that ain't broke.
(You might then go on to ask why I went to the trouble of making my Windows system dual-boot Debian and Windows. Well, Windows ain't Unix, and Win98 is definitely broke )
I use Solaris. Once you've visited Sunfreeware.com and got all the things to make it into a proper UNIX (it doesn't come with a compiler, for heaven's sake! Unix without a C compiler is like a car without wheels!) Solaris becomes perfectly usable.
:-)
In fact, after a visit to sunfreeware.com, Solaris feels pretty much like Linux
Personally, I've not even bothered with doing that. During the time that telemarketers call (before 9pm weekdays/Saturdays) I just let the answering machine do the screening. All my friends know I'll pick up as soon as I hear them speak.
A fun site to visit is Antitelemarketer. Has some interesting telemarketer tormenting tricks
The Eternal Project - what an ironically true to form name
You can't. Not only am I a geek, I'm a geek who flies planes. For both computer related stuff AND aviation related stuff, they get it completely and totally wrong. With aviation, they sensationalize even more than they do with anything to do with the 'net or computers, spouting opinions based on zero knowledge (and it shows).
I no longer watch the news on TV. Print news I feel is a little better depending on the source - it's not nearly as sensationalistic - but I still take everything with a big enough grain of salt that you could make a large livestock salt-lick out of it.
The 'exploding water' thing predates the e-mail by a few years. When we got our first microwave (a Toshiba, IIRC) the manual contained a warning that you should make sure that if you were boiling the water, you should vigorously fill the container with water or it may "erupt". In fact, I've seen this happen - boil the water in the microwave, then drop a teabag in and it will erupt (anything from just fizzing like a can of Coke to water being splashed out of the container).
My cable data light started flashing like crazy the other day (and is still doing so). Out of curiousity, I ran iptraf, and discovered the traffic was all ARP packets coming from the default router (and I didn't see any destined for my MAC).
Experimental evidence shows that gravity travels at not less than 2x10^10 times the speed of light. See The Speed of Gravity - what Experiments Say.
Here's the abstract:
Abstract
Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the "Poynting-Robertson effect"); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to v/c to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in v/c, is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat spacetime with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2 x 10^10 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR-at least, not if favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.
Moller's performance claims are completely unrealistic. Aerodynamic engineers agree there's going to be a lot of inteference drag from the way the ducted-fan nacelles are set up. Also, rotary engines on a per-horsepower basis are a lot less fuel efficient than even normal gasoline piston engines. Yet his figures indicate they will be more efficient than the best diesel engines being made today.
Also, you CAN get your own personal air travel. My light aircraft cost half the price of a new Chevrolet Suburban, and burns less fuel too. It does have some limitations, and it was built in 1946, but it's very nice and a great deal of fun to fly. Go to your local small GA airport and ask about learning to fly, or see http://www.beapilot.com.
Stop dreaming, start flying ;-)
The flaw: the efficiency of rotary engines is much less than traditional piston engines. The advantages of rotary engines is that you can turn them fast and there's little vibration (turbine-like smoothness). But fuel efficient they are not.
Moller's numbers are totally unrealistic. Aerodynamic engineers agree there would be colossal inteference drag between the ducted fans and the fuselage of the vehicle. To add to that, he's claiming a fuel-inefficient engine design will do much better than a traditional piston engines. If you work out his numbers, he's claiming the rotary engine will have a better BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) than the best diesel engines of today.
Why so hostile?
Personally, I can't see what the problem is. I'd never performed firewalling of any kind until I got a decent network connection 2 weeks ago. Coming from zero knowledge about firewalls to writing some effective iptables rules really wasn't difficult at all. As far as I saw, the documentation I read made it very clear that ipfw/ipchains was legacy support, and iptables was the firewalling system. I even managed to get NAT working despite not knowing what NAT was 2.5 weeks ago.
It just ain't rocket science, and I can't see why it's so confusing. If you don't like Linux, instead of complaining about it - why not go back to using FreeBSD?
I still use my E6-B (manual one) rather than an electronic one or a GPS for figuring time/distance problems - it's just so much faster. Batteries never go dead either!
I'm not some old timer either, I'm not even 30 yet and I've only been flying for 4 years. I do have a GPS (it's nice to have the HSI display when flying IFR), but a mechanical E6B is still a very useful tool. I upgraded from a cheap card one to a nice aluminium one too ;-)
Friend of mine did this, but for added effect, put an object over the bottle (like a colander or trashcan). Fortunately, he videoed it. The exploding bottle would fire the trashcan for some distance. On the video you heard >BOOM! They then had the idea of putting one of these bottles in the bathroom, on a stool, and videoing it at close range (running a video cable, so they could watch it from the safety of another room). The first one wasn't very good, so they wrapped the bottle in tape to make the pressure build up.
The second one was rather too successful. It exploded, blowing the sink off the wall. The sink hit the toilet cistern, putting a hole in the cistern! Somehow, the videocamera remained standing during all of this. The first words on the tape when they re-enter the bathroom were "Holy Cow!" followed by "Oh don't worry, these aren't too expensive"...with the sound of running water in the background...
They aren't trying to do this over a PSTN (regular phone lines) - they are trying to make use of a dedicated, leased line for which the modems are a lot more expensive than a plain DSL hookup.
Unfortunately you are stuck with them. Not enough people will care about the laws addressed by this article, and the tyranny of the majority will win. The only option is then emigration, which is only an option to very few people.
Odd how you can't campaign against the social shame of being caught with your hard disk full of pr0n, or the social shame of maknig a fool of yourself ;-). This is what I really believe to be the issue.
These are really minor issues - few people care these days if you've got a hard disk full of pr0n, and for most private citizens, you won't get made a fool of publically.
But what about corruption? Say you're in a competitive business, and one of your competitors happens to know a law-enforcement official. What if said official was corrupt enough to allow your competitor to view all your phone traffic and your IP traffic? You're terribly naive if you think that won't happen, because it's almost certain to happen. And even if you encrypt it, under the RIP bill, the enforcer can force you to decrypt it and you can't even tell anyone you're being forced to do this without risking prison.
If we can get the nuclear propulsion (perhaps the Arthur C. Clarkesque fusion power, ejecting a propellant) that can be kept on for long enough - you don't have to even bother spinning the sucker. Just have it accelerate at a constant 5m/s per second - which will give you 0.5G gravity. Or if you have good enough propulsion systems, have it accelerate at 10m/s per sec. - that's 1G. At the halfway point, flip around and decelerate at the same rate.
The Fokker F-100 etc. are airliners seen around the US fairly frequently. American Airlines, for one, have a bunch. I think ATC get tired of hearing:
Approach: Cessna 123, make a left base for 22, traffic ahead is a Fokker, caution wake turbulence
Cessna 123: I've got the Fokker in sight.
Errrm, actually, in the second year of my university course, we did quite a bit on "Understanding system failures" (systems of all types, from Three Mile Island to business systems).
Any decent systems analysis course should have a good chunk devoted to understanding failure.
Naah. When you pull back on the wheel of a Ferrari, nothing happens!
Part of my lack of understanding of people who spend beyond their means to get nice cars is that, well...the speed limit is 70 mph, and you just can't have much fun [0] in a car.
[0] The back seat of a Ferrari is inadequate for having fun ;-) ;-)
Still their own stupid fault. I'm young, slightly immature, and certainly inexperienced...yet I have the intelligence to realise that borrowed money is expensive money, and living beyond your means is risky business. The repo man won't get my vehicle because I paid cash for it. I'd rather have a less expensive used car that's cheap to insure and paid for than a luxury vehicle or big SUV that I have to make payments on. I get sticker shock from the depreciation cost of driving a new car off the lot, so I don't do it ;-)
We did things to make it fun (like the 2am ice-cream break etc. and a trip to the pub in the city center on Saturday evenings, followed by coding under the influence...) but looking back on it, it was just too much.
I decided that I never, ever want to do that again. It was definitely detrimental to my health, and I felt as though I lost a bit of my 23-year-old life. So I made a promise to myself:
1. I would only work unpaid overtime in exceptional circumstances. (Fortunately we're a lot better at scheduling work now than we were then, and a lot better at managing the customer's expectations, and marketing don't try and do sizings any more thus commiting us to 80 hour weeks).
2. I would take ALL my vacation. I would of course give my employer lots of notice for when I take off a couple of weeks - but the deal is that I tell them when I'm taking vacation, I'm not asking for it.
3. If it becomes clear that I can no longer do (1) and (2), I'll go to a different company where I can. If that means leaving software development altogether, so be it. I'd rather be happy than wealthy any day.
It just isn't worth throwing your life away for your job. Don't give me that "I love my job though!" stuff. If you think you love your job, ask yourself this: would you pay for the privelige of doing your day job? If not, I suggest you don't really love your job ;-)
If an employer is trying to force you to do unpaid overtime, before committing, think of it this way: think of how much money you are effectively donating to the company - which is a for-profit business, not a charity! (Unless, of course, you work for a charity...)
You talk about "enjoying sex" as if it's a bad thing! I was always under the impression that consenting sex between adults was supposed to be enjoyable, not some sordid drudgery...