No, but you're missing my point. Of course if you take Earth and make it 10x larger then it will have 10x the mass, and therefore you'll experience 10x the acceleration at surface level, assuming no variations in rotational speed (acceleration in the opposite direction). That will be hard on your joints, to say the least.
What I'm theorizing about is a planet whose geological structure makes it have *less* mass, and therefore generate the same gravitational field as Earth (1g), while at the same time increasing the effective surface by the same amount of relative size. Not mass.
Perhaps it's a planet where the majority of the crust is some sort of very strong honeycomb-like structure, maybe more lightweight material (like pumice?) with a smaller iron core or something like that.
Since the strength of the gravitational field of a planet is a factor of its mass, and the gravitational pull on the surface is in direct relation to the distance from the center of the planet... could it not be possible to have a planet the size of say, Neptune, with a geological makeup similar to the Earth, that has a lower mass and therefore the acceleration at the surface is exactly 1g (as we understand it here on Earth). That is within the bounds of physics, is it not?
Or maybe the effective gravity is stronger, but the planet spins faster. Faster days as well?
The problem I guess would be the existence of a formation process that actually creates a planet with such a large surface but happens to be mostly rock instead of mostly gas (supposedly gas giants are "failed stars"). If it has a molten iron core, would it not collapse in on itself?
Interesting, imagine a planet with the surface composition and atmosphere of Earth (and supposedly biomass) but 10 or more times the surface. That would be amazing.
I have no idea what the MTBF is on these things, but is the expectation of a shortened life because of the additional write activity really that much of a concern?
What bothers me about Vista 64 is that Microsoft do not let you load unsigned drivers.
Agreed. On the other hand, "normal" consumers don't usually run it anyway.
And then you'd have more people get on Slashdot and post the usual "OMFG Vista bluescreened HAHAHA LOLOL" comments, conveniently ignoring the fact that Microsoft told them not to load unsigned/untested drivers.
Hypothermia can kill you even if you're not at 14K feet. There's a stage where you actually feel *warm*, like you're burning up. I've felt it. And while not as pronounced as the high/low you get from hypoxia, it can also leave you impaired to make wonderfully stupid decisions that can get you killed.
I think Yahoo has been slowly reinventing themselves in the past two years. To call them "the old web" is rather shortsighted.
Maybe they're not moving as quickly as many people would like, but that's a different institutional issue. Also, consider that Yahoo has a crapload of "old web" customers and users who in many cases are simply averse to change. You can't just one day drop them in a super slick Ajax interface that ties into nine different social sites and expect them to be thankful - because they just don't care about that sort of thing. Microsoft tried that and it didn't work.
Remember Blaster, which had a full 40 days or something like that before the exploit was seen in the wild. 10 days is obviously not enough lead time. I personally think we should all be given at least 6 months warning for each vulnerability. Then the attack success rate would plummet to 20% from the 70% it seems to be at these days.
One year would be even better. 365 glorious days to decide whether or not to patch! That would be great.
Yes, I can confirm this. I am currently in the process of helping Abacha's widow, Miriam, extricate the sum of $12,000,000 from Nigeria for a $1M cut. And get this - all I had to do is wire her $2,000 for legal expenses! Bwahahahah!
That's the problem right there. There are trolls and there are trolls, but this type of thing is so subjective that it shouldn't be tied to the ability to play a game you paid money for.
The key is how disruptive the DRM becomes. If it doesn't affect Average Joe Windows then you're right, all the nerd bitching in the world won't make a difference.
But if normal people start complaining about it (I think it's SecureROM?) then it's game over, because it gets to the mainstream media.
Admittedly I'm not going to bankrupt EA all on my own, and I suspect that a great many people who blather on here and elsewhere about DRM and "boycott EA" ultimately do buy their games anyway.
It's really not an issue that a company will ban you for disruptive behavior on forums they control, or online because you're behaving like a 12-year old with Tourette's. But banning you from online play because you got into an argument in the forums and some admin decided he didn't like your tone is something else entirely. That's especially true for games whose main draw is online play, like COD4 for example.
Fo'shure I'm looking forward to shelling out my hard-earned money (especially in this wonderful economy) for EA titles in the future after seeing this.
I enjoyed EA games in the past. Being a military buff I especially enjoyed their flight simulators. They were mostly stable and fun to play. I cringed when they bought out Westwood because I thought they were going to screw up the C&C franchise, but (mostly) they didn't.
But being banned from online play because I let out a "fuck" on their forums? Or for any reason whatsoever unrelated to behavior within the game? Never mind the insane DRM on their latest output.
Fuck that. No more EA games for me. I'm getting old anyway. Time to switch to online Scrabble or something. Flash DigDug and Galaga FTW.
A kill switch in any type of consumer device owned by the consumer is bad, no matter what platitudes are used to justify it.
If people trust Google more than Apple that's fine, just don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's OK for either of them to much around with a device I paid good money for and therefore is my property, including whatever happens to be installed on it.
It doesn't matter what the so-called reason is, period.
Kill switches are for ICBMs and evil terminator robots, not cell phones.
The package system is impressive (and one of the few things that Linux didn't just jack from Unix), but the current model where the repositories are controlled by a single entity is never going to work once Linux hits the mainstream. And I think it will be a huge vector for compromising machines when Joe Windows gets an email with instructions on how to add a URL using the Yum UI... once you entered the root password, it'll be game over. However, the system will be a great advantage at the corporate level (not that corporations don't already have something like that for their desktop Windows, but still). None of that detracts from the technical value of the package model, though.
$SHELL shell
That was absolutely true. No question about it. Until Powershell.
UI consistency
That's true... except that it assumes you are using the K* or G* versions of apps for everything, which in my experience is hardly ever the case. And all those companies that start writing cook software for Linux are going to have a hard time figuring out whether to use Qt or GTK to write them. I've never thought this was an advantage, honestly. Besides, the UI consistency that really matters are ultimately major UI locations and metaphors, and window decorations. Those are not KDE or GNOME-specific.
Since you're a developer I was hoping for some more developer-specific things. COM+/IIS/MSMQ for example. Unified shell. Namespaces. Common UI widget model. Locking primitives. Threading. Profiling. The service control manager. Network pipes. ACLs. ActiveDirectory. The sort of thing where (IMO) Windows blows Linux out of the water. And areas where Windows tends to suck, areas where Linux is superior, of course (IPC is a *huge* advantage in Linux and it's so easy, or the level of control over how the kernel works, etc), and things about Linux that also suck. There are enough of all those.
The GPs point that Linux is "light years ahead" of Windows is, frankly, bullshit. It's easy to throw that into a post because it will play well with the peanut gallery. Quite another to actually defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but you're missing my point. Of course if you take Earth and make it 10x larger then it will have 10x the mass, and therefore you'll experience 10x the acceleration at surface level, assuming no variations in rotational speed (acceleration in the opposite direction). That will be hard on your joints, to say the least.
What I'm theorizing about is a planet whose geological structure makes it have *less* mass, and therefore generate the same gravitational field as Earth (1g), while at the same time increasing the effective surface by the same amount of relative size. Not mass.
Perhaps it's a planet where the majority of the crust is some sort of very strong honeycomb-like structure, maybe more lightweight material (like pumice?) with a smaller iron core or something like that.
Since the strength of the gravitational field of a planet is a factor of its mass, and the gravitational pull on the surface is in direct relation to the distance from the center of the planet... could it not be possible to have a planet the size of say, Neptune, with a geological makeup similar to the Earth, that has a lower mass and therefore the acceleration at the surface is exactly 1g (as we understand it here on Earth). That is within the bounds of physics, is it not?
Or maybe the effective gravity is stronger, but the planet spins faster. Faster days as well?
The problem I guess would be the existence of a formation process that actually creates a planet with such a large surface but happens to be mostly rock instead of mostly gas (supposedly gas giants are "failed stars"). If it has a molten iron core, would it not collapse in on itself?
Interesting, imagine a planet with the surface composition and atmosphere of Earth (and supposedly biomass) but 10 or more times the surface. That would be amazing.
As if the frakin' telecommunications industry in this country wasn't crap enough compared to Europe and Asia.
Way to go.
Interesting, I didn't realize they were so "fragile", so to speak. Thank you for the explanation.
I have no idea what the MTBF is on these things, but is the expectation of a shortened life because of the additional write activity really that much of a concern?
What bothers me about Vista 64 is that Microsoft do not let you load unsigned drivers.
Agreed. On the other hand, "normal" consumers don't usually run it anyway.
And then you'd have more people get on Slashdot and post the usual "OMFG Vista bluescreened HAHAHA LOLOL" comments, conveniently ignoring the fact that Microsoft told them not to load unsigned/untested drivers.
Somebody think up something that includes the term "beleaguered".
Hypothermia can kill you even if you're not at 14K feet. There's a stage where you actually feel *warm*, like you're burning up. I've felt it. And while not as pronounced as the high/low you get from hypoxia, it can also leave you impaired to make wonderfully stupid decisions that can get you killed.
Sunday night + Something vaguely criticizing Microsoft == Slashdot Front Page
Which this particular patch qualifies as.
I think Yahoo has been slowly reinventing themselves in the past two years. To call them "the old web" is rather shortsighted.
Maybe they're not moving as quickly as many people would like, but that's a different institutional issue. Also, consider that Yahoo has a crapload of "old web" customers and users who in many cases are simply averse to change. You can't just one day drop them in a super slick Ajax interface that ties into nine different social sites and expect them to be thankful - because they just don't care about that sort of thing. Microsoft tried that and it didn't work.
No, and that's obviously Microsoft's fault.
Remember Blaster, which had a full 40 days or something like that before the exploit was seen in the wild. 10 days is obviously not enough lead time. I personally think we should all be given at least 6 months warning for each vulnerability. Then the attack success rate would plummet to 20% from the 70% it seems to be at these days.
One year would be even better. 365 glorious days to decide whether or not to patch! That would be great.
Yes, I can confirm this. I am currently in the process of helping Abacha's widow, Miriam, extricate the sum of $12,000,000 from Nigeria for a $1M cut. And get this - all I had to do is wire her $2,000 for legal expenses! Bwahahahah!
I am her special friend in god, I am.
Now that Microsoft are feeling the pinch of competition
Too bad a large segment of that competition is made up of their own operating systems.
The only trouble Vista ever had was that XP worked well enough for everybody and didn't offer any incentives to upgrade.
But it's not like Apple is taking over the world any time soon.
Thank you :)
Anybody else think The 13th Warrior (based on his Eaters of The Dead) is actually a good film?
I liked it. Still do. I think it's unappreciated.
Somebody kill me...
I do wonder what behavior they consider bannable.
That's the problem right there. There are trolls and there are trolls, but this type of thing is so subjective that it shouldn't be tied to the ability to play a game you paid money for.
The key is how disruptive the DRM becomes. If it doesn't affect Average Joe Windows then you're right, all the nerd bitching in the world won't make a difference.
But if normal people start complaining about it (I think it's SecureROM?) then it's game over, because it gets to the mainstream media.
Admittedly I'm not going to bankrupt EA all on my own, and I suspect that a great many people who blather on here and elsewhere about DRM and "boycott EA" ultimately do buy their games anyway.
But it's always satisfying to complain <g>
I noticed this yesterday. Is it new? Well, I don't know if that Weird Al video is up there, but they have a few good oldies I hadn't seen in a while.
Of course the "Most Watched" on there seems to be a Britney Spears fluff piece and the "Most Rated" is RickRoll, but whatever.
It's really not an issue that a company will ban you for disruptive behavior on forums they control, or online because you're behaving like a 12-year old with Tourette's. But banning you from online play because you got into an argument in the forums and some admin decided he didn't like your tone is something else entirely. That's especially true for games whose main draw is online play, like COD4 for example.
Fo'shure I'm looking forward to shelling out my hard-earned money (especially in this wonderful economy) for EA titles in the future after seeing this.
I enjoyed EA games in the past. Being a military buff I especially enjoyed their flight simulators. They were mostly stable and fun to play. I cringed when they bought out Westwood because I thought they were going to screw up the C&C franchise, but (mostly) they didn't.
But being banned from online play because I let out a "fuck" on their forums? Or for any reason whatsoever unrelated to behavior within the game? Never mind the insane DRM on their latest output.
Fuck that. No more EA games for me. I'm getting old anyway. Time to switch to online Scrabble or something. Flash DigDug and Galaga FTW.
And by "much" I mean muck, of course. I'm hucked on fonicks.
A kill switch in any type of consumer device owned by the consumer is bad, no matter what platitudes are used to justify it.
If people trust Google more than Apple that's fine, just don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's OK for either of them to much around with a device I paid good money for and therefore is my property, including whatever happens to be installed on it.
It doesn't matter what the so-called reason is, period.
Kill switches are for ICBMs and evil terminator robots, not cell phones.
Packages
The package system is impressive (and one of the few things that Linux didn't just jack from Unix), but the current model where the repositories are controlled by a single entity is never going to work once Linux hits the mainstream. And I think it will be a huge vector for compromising machines when Joe Windows gets an email with instructions on how to add a URL using the Yum UI... once you entered the root password, it'll be game over. However, the system will be a great advantage at the corporate level (not that corporations don't already have something like that for their desktop Windows, but still). None of that detracts from the technical value of the package model, though.
$SHELL shell
That was absolutely true. No question about it. Until Powershell.
UI consistency
That's true... except that it assumes you are using the K* or G* versions of apps for everything, which in my experience is hardly ever the case. And all those companies that start writing cook software for Linux are going to have a hard time figuring out whether to use Qt or GTK to write them. I've never thought this was an advantage, honestly. Besides, the UI consistency that really matters are ultimately major UI locations and metaphors, and window decorations. Those are not KDE or GNOME-specific.
Since you're a developer I was hoping for some more developer-specific things. COM+/IIS/MSMQ for example. Unified shell. Namespaces. Common UI widget model. Locking primitives. Threading. Profiling. The service control manager. Network pipes. ACLs. ActiveDirectory. The sort of thing where (IMO) Windows blows Linux out of the water. And areas where Windows tends to suck, areas where Linux is superior, of course (IPC is a *huge* advantage in Linux and it's so easy, or the level of control over how the kernel works, etc), and things about Linux that also suck. There are enough of all those.
The GPs point that Linux is "light years ahead" of Windows is, frankly, bullshit. It's easy to throw that into a post because it will play well with the peanut gallery. Quite another to actually defend it.