It is insane to expect client-side vector space calculations (which you need for good 3d) EVERY time the page is viewed. VRML sucked because it expected this.
Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology, in the Jargon File. Of Course were supposed to find and fix bugs, but this is more a 'rate' thing. Its not like anyone designed linux and everything we ship in a distro from the ground up, this software evolved, and is still evolving.
Let me start with the "my views are mine, and do not represent my employer, blah, blah..."
Now, some very hard choices were made for this release, things like i18n support were desperately needed, and so we have a gcc snapshot as the complier. Somehow this makes us evil, whatever. People want 2.4.x asap, and It will likely land before the next release, so we linked against 2.4 headers, so that it can droped in later. Again, evil, I know, how could we even try to make upgrade easier?
Of course, an older gcc is provided as 'kgcc' so that you can compile your kernels.
Okay, what, exactly, do we ship from Red Hat? Why, we ship 2.5 GIGS worth of community developed software in Red Hat Linux 7. THe bugs we track, for the most part, for the OVERWHELMING part, are not in Red Hat written code, they are in community code. I say this with confidence, because most of the software is community code.
Let me ask you, how many times have you heard about a bug in 'screen'? The number is not small, and every one we know about goes into bugzilla, and gets closed when it is decided that either a) it is fixed, or b) we can't fix it. Now, screen is one of many hundreds of packages.
I am very upset with this style of journalism: "Red Hat 7 Infested With Bugs", honestly, is this a tabloid? Anyone who has ever used a bug tracking system KNOWS how this sort of thing goes, and most of those bugs are in everyone else's distros as well, the only differance is that people are shouting about our counting them. So ask yourself, what does it accomplish by posting a story with a title like this, knowing that CmdrTaco understands everything I've just said?
Chemical energy is much more efficient to TRANSPORT than is electric. Even if you get the sam eefficiency at a plant, you loose a lot of that getting it to your house...
I said it was the ONLY answer. People are constantly asking "hey, how can we make a computer do X?", and the answer is often "Well, you can't", and the reasons are often obscure and mathematical, but they aren't interested in that.
Far to many people are convinced that computers are 'magic', and thus can do anything, even solve NP complete probs in linear time. They can't.
Digital content cannot be secure in a system where it is decoded outside of it's player. So the network isn't ready for it. Big deal, no one said it was. But it will be. There is an upper limit to how much computational power/bandwidth is needed, and computer power is growing FAR faster than consumer population.
When will these people learn that the ONLY way to do 'Secure Content' is the way that Rocket eBook does?
You have a central db, it has keys, one for every consumer device. The consumer devices have the other half of their key pair in an eprom. The do not have any digital output. You encode the content for the player upon which it is to be played. It works. It is the only approach that could posibly work.
Why does 'prime time' exist, and why is it harder/racier than afternoon/morning shows?
Why are 'soaps' so hard?
Because advertisers say so. They say to a network, "this is who I think is watching at this time, and so I am willing to pay X to advertise", or "I do not want my product associated with Y, as I think these other people are watching, who wouldn't approve"
This doesn't make Apple evil (there are other things that make Apple evil...), just stupid. 'Normal' consumers don't read rumor sites, and don't care if they are inacurate, and so rumor inacuraces do not affect Apple's sales. 'Early Adopters' (read: Screaming Tech Monkeys) do read rumor sites, but do so with large amounts of salt, and know that their will be inaccuracies.
It's just bad PR on Apple's part, and probably wouldn't have happened if the Evangelist was still arround. (You know, the Apple run list that spread Apple rumors) Even so, it only annoys people who read apple rumor sites, who are apparently not a large enough part of the market for Apple to care about.
Translation: Now that they are popular, they're ditching their geeky date to the prom, to go with the football player.
What you do, is you sepearate the luminace chanel from the 2 color chanels, and you reduce the resolution of the color chanels to half that of the luminance. You keep them at the same depth, but there is 1/4 as much information there. And your eye can barely tell, as it distinguishes luminance resolution much easier than it distinguishes color resolution.
Really, we know how to do GOOD video compression, we just don't have the space/time to do it with modern computers.
I mean, if you do the following, you'll get great encoding, but it is EXPENSIVE.
step 1: drop the color space resolution in half, the eye can't see it. (this is the first step in JPEGs)
step 2: Resample the image in time to 30fps (this is ideal)
step 3: resample the image in space to a hexagonal, instead of a rectangular grid, this spreads the corner distance problem.
step 4: resample at half the luminance resolution, compress, but cycle the resampling offset in time. Persistance of vision reconstructs the proper luminance map.
step 5: search the (much reduced by this point) 3d matrix for domain/range mapings (this is the fractal step, it takes much processor power) You probably need to select smallish block sizes for this in time, or it gets much harder. Of course, the bigger the chunk you encode at a time, the better the encoding ratio.
and to view it, just reverse steps 5 and 3.
Its kind of like strong AI, its easy to say 'search for domain/range mappings', and it's easy to write code to do it. It just takes more memory and processor time than we have available to give useful results.
I mean, CeBit is just a major technology Convention. its purpose in being is to keep tech companys aware of what each other are doing, and to hype up the media, so they can sell products to people that like gadgets, right?
And everyone knows that MP3s and related technology are'nt enjoyed by people that will spend rediculously large percentages of their personal income buying gadgets, right?
Its just a fad, and its a good thing that the MPAA and its friends are keeping the research going on 8-tracks, as thats where its at.
Are you implying that I would need stuff like that? Sug: Are you implying that I might require such algorithms?
Take that back you miserable bastard! Sug: Recind your aqusation, canard!
I have been on the Net for 13 years and know bloody well how to communicate with others. Sug: I have used the Internet for 13 years, and am well educated in proper etiquette.
I don't need a stupid "AI" program to tell ME how to write damn it! Sug: In the course of my corespondance, I do not find the assistance of an artificial intelligance neccesary.
You are of course an exception, huh? Sug: Do you fancy your own writing as deathless prose?
Thinking "Yeah, let me give those slashdotters a hint --- there is way to much flaming there" right? Sug: Perhaps you say to yourself, "I should help to educate these brigands in civilised discourse?"
Well let me tell you something: you suck! Sug: In such case, might I offer that, in this case, the teacher is not the elder of the student?
Just because there are stypid minors out there that loves to spew there guts over things at/. to make themselves look cool to their friends does not make all of us spammers. Sug: The presenace of the precoscious does not, in fact, demonstrate ignorance of the entire assembly.
SO THERE! Sug: I believe that my point is made.
And Hemos, you better find an app for reading/. submissions and writing article blurbs, because what you do today stinks and I am sure a program could do a better job!
In related matters, perhaps it is time for Hemos to retire, as this article has fallen well below the quality that we have come to know and expect from Slashdot.
Umm, does anyone else find it hillarious that "Metalica" has come to represent the 'Establishment' to the point were they sue those crazy rebels at HARVARD?
THis just forces everyone to lock down the OSs as tight as they always should have been. Of course, early adopters face exagerated risks, but they always have, in all technologies. Just because we cann't do it perfectly now, doesn't mean we should wait until we can. That would just mean that nothing ever gets released, and everyone moans about how slow everything is in improving.
How do you "Earn" broadband? If they can pay for it, whats the problem? That it isn't 'fair'? Well, the fibre providers have to pay for the bandwidth the are selling to the houses, so what is the problem?
The ecologists have been doing sperm/egg samples for quite some time on the endangered species. Check with some of the bigger zoos about it, they should be able to steer you in the right direction.
'kay, I'm gonna sit here and listen to my music and write a bit, so bear with, I'm going somewhere with this.
First, lets take the posit of this article as true, so to do that, I'll say -
Observation: A disproportiantetly large percentage of hackers and other techland creatures belive in 'magic', or something close enough to it that no one but them would argue the point.
Now, we must look for the reason. But not really, because in social anomalies, there are usually/several/ reasons, not one. So even if A reason does not seem sufficient to explain the observation, it does not mean that it is the only contributing factor. So the following are the primary factors that I propose to account for the observation.
0) The RPG Integral:
Many have already suggested that the effects of Role Playing Games, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. So I wont go into detail, But it is a factor. It gives the mind something to chew on, so that when an expresion is needed, it may be used as a source. D&D doesn't make people crazy, but some crazy people have been exposed to D&D, and thus think that 'Feather Fall' will work. Same for religeons. And smart people like complex games, and games don't come more complex than D&D with all its expansions, so we get a large exposure base.
1) The Clark Equation:
Some people (not all people, but some) really like to make things happen. They get a kick from it. I'm one, Clark was another. Magic just seems the logical end of the curve, I point, it happens. Think about how many people you know that are going to LOVE good voice/gesture recognition as computre intarfaces. Thinks how many of those wish the real world worked like that. Xyzzy, anyone?
2) The Gonzo Factor:
Now, what if you are already weird? Well, if you are (and I am), normal social taboos don't apply very strongly to you ('cause society is already "punishing" you, what more can they do?), so you end up thinking about/trying many more things. This is why you see large (compared to the normal population) numbers of people aware that they are homosexuals in EVERY 'weird' group. If you are already a bixer/dancer/actor, there is not nearly as much pain in realizing that you are gay, so more of them do. The same things apply to religeons. If no one talks to you in high school already, maybe getting naked and freaky on the solstice doesn't seem as a likely to bring negative repercusions, so you "shop arround" as it were.
3) The I-Wanna-Be-Gonzo Coefficient:
Wanna-Bes, every group has them, and hackers are not an exception. If all the other guys whorship THor, and you don't really care, you might try it just to get along. ANd then the religion's got you hooked, as most of them are based upon social groups anyway, and there you go.
4) The Bicycle Exponent:
This is a weird one. You cannot (well, you can, but its the common example, and you should already know that, so hush) simultaneously ride a bicycle, and think about the muscle movements necessary to ride a bicycle. This is an example of a (rather large an interseting) class of actions which can be done, but cannot always be explained by the person doing them. Why? Well, cognitive studies shows us that there is a WHOLE lot more capacity "under the surface" of the mind than the conscious mind can ever get hold of (walking is HARD, yall), and all the true geniuses/artists/etc GO with that, and learn to toss problems to there undermind, problems that come back with answers that are obviously correct, but the peson is completely unable to explain how they did it (even to themselves). This makes some people look for answers (which is silly, as the answers is right there, your undermind/is/ bigger/smarter than your upper mind) and some of those answers they find in mysticism. Many aspects of Hacking go into this dark place, which is of course why many people (including me) do it. It feels cool to 'talk' to a you that aint you, or something like that.
But finally, I think most just worship at the church of "Wouldn't It Be Pretty To Think So?", and I challenge anyone to tell me that the various magic, magik, majick, etc. religeons arent pretty.
::To set the record straight, I personally am a meta-agnostic, as I dont think the question 'Is there a God' can have a meaningful answer from inside the system, so I don't bother asking it; as opposed to agnostics who wonder about it, or atheists who belive that there is no God (which they cannot prove, which is my point.)
Have fun flamming me to death on this one, if you want.
The material that most pencils are made of is still, basically, wood. But it is wood ground to a powder, and then rebonded with a polymer into the desired shape. It saves an immense amout of wood, as the polymer is a thermoplastic! and thus the wood goo can be reworked (and you dont throw away the scraps of the distribution process.
Translation: Heat a modern pencil, Tie it into knots. It works.
I'd like to start this by saying that I am NOT speaking for Red Hat in this, but for myself.
I started working at Red Hat about 2 months ago, and I can say that since I have been here, I've been continually impressed by the extent to which everyone works to make sure everything works. No one EVER talks about steering development 'backwards', as its damn hard enough keeping it going forwards.
Now, the 2.4.0 kernel is a BIG deal, it is a big change, and it will save the world, clean your laundry, get you dates, clear up your acne, etc, etc. But it is not finnished. Period. There is more to do on it, and while work continues on it, some code is backported/from it/ to the 2.2.x series, so that it doesn't fall too far behind.
But should Red Hat wait until 2.4? How about KDE 2.0, or Gnome 2.0, or Gimp 2.0, or Jargon 3.0? How long do you wait, for what? They can't, they have to make sure that the software that they put the stamp on is as uptodate as it reasonably can be, while simultaneously being as stable, and as compatible.
And how can you seriously believe that Red Hat is purposely steering development to slow the advent of the 2.4 kernel? Did you see the Slashdot article about Tux? That is a 2.4 kernel based webserver, something that is VERY cool, and it'd be great for Red Hat if it worked out of the box. But it doesn't, cause 2.4 is not finnished.
If you really have issues with the speed of the development cycle of 2.4, help the kernel developers.
With this technology, I could play QIII with Earth Shaking Subsonics and blood curdling explosions, and A) Not wear headphones while B) not disturbing my co-workers.
Last year a friend of mine and I entered this, having looked at the first years contest, we thought, "Hey, we can do that!" Unfortunately, the second year's contest was, um, HARDER! We didn't finnish, but we did get a LOT better with the memory alocation after that experience. Wish I had time to do this this year.
Slashdot Mirror
It is insane to expect client-side vector space calculations (which you need for good 3d) EVERY time the page is viewed. VRML sucked because it expected this.
The format needs to be a binary one.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Its hosing link posts, take the extra space out, and the previous link will work.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology, in the Jargon File. Of Course were supposed to find and fix bugs, but this is more a 'rate' thing. Its not like anyone designed linux and everything we ship in a distro from the ground up, this software evolved, and is still evolving.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Let me start with the "my views are mine, and do not represent my employer, blah, blah..."
Now, some very hard choices were made for this release, things like i18n support were desperately needed, and so we have a gcc snapshot as the complier. Somehow this makes us evil, whatever. People want 2.4.x asap, and It will likely land before the next release, so we linked against 2.4 headers, so that it can droped in later. Again, evil, I know, how could we even try to make upgrade easier?
Of course, an older gcc is provided as 'kgcc' so that you can compile your kernels.
Okay, what, exactly, do we ship from Red Hat? Why, we ship 2.5 GIGS worth of community developed software in Red Hat Linux 7. THe bugs we track, for the most part, for the OVERWHELMING part, are not in Red Hat written code, they are in community code. I say this with confidence, because most of the software is community code.
Let me ask you, how many times have you heard about a bug in 'screen'? The number is not small, and every one we know about goes into bugzilla, and gets closed when it is decided that either a) it is fixed, or b) we can't fix it. Now, screen is one of many hundreds of packages.
I am very upset with this style of journalism: "Red Hat 7 Infested With Bugs", honestly, is this a tabloid? Anyone who has ever used a bug tracking system KNOWS how this sort of thing goes, and most of those bugs are in everyone else's distros as well, the only differance is that people are shouting about our counting them. So ask yourself, what does it accomplish by posting a story with a title like this, knowing that CmdrTaco understands everything I've just said?
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Chemical energy is much more efficient to TRANSPORT than is electric. Even if you get the sam eefficiency at a plant, you loose a lot of that getting it to your house...
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
I said it was the ONLY answer. People are constantly asking "hey, how can we make a computer do X?", and the answer is often "Well, you can't", and the reasons are often obscure and mathematical, but they aren't interested in that.
Far to many people are convinced that computers are 'magic', and thus can do anything, even solve NP complete probs in linear time. They can't.
Digital content cannot be secure in a system where it is decoded outside of it's player. So the network isn't ready for it. Big deal, no one said it was. But it will be. There is an upper limit to how much computational power/bandwidth is needed, and computer power is growing FAR faster than consumer population.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
When will these people learn that the ONLY way to do 'Secure Content' is the way that Rocket eBook does?
You have a central db, it has keys, one for every consumer device. The consumer devices have the other half of their key pair in an eprom. The do not have any digital output. You encode the content for the player upon which it is to be played. It works. It is the only approach that could posibly work.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Honestly.
...), just stupid. 'Normal' consumers don't read rumor sites, and don't care if they are inacurate, and so rumor inacuraces do not affect Apple's sales. 'Early Adopters' (read: Screaming Tech Monkeys) do read rumor sites, but do so with large amounts of salt, and know that their will be inaccuracies.
Why does 'prime time' exist, and why is it harder/racier than afternoon/morning shows?
Why are 'soaps' so hard?
Because advertisers say so. They say to a network, "this is who I think is watching at this time, and so I am willing to pay X to advertise", or "I do not want my product associated with Y, as I think these other people are watching, who wouldn't approve"
This doesn't make Apple evil (there are other things that make Apple evil
It's just bad PR on Apple's part, and probably wouldn't have happened if the Evangelist was still arround. (You know, the Apple run list that spread Apple rumors) Even so, it only annoys people who read apple rumor sites, who are apparently not a large enough part of the market for Apple to care about.
Translation: Now that they are popular, they're ditching their geeky date to the prom, to go with the football player.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Half the color /resolution/, not the space.
What you do, is you sepearate the luminace chanel from the 2 color chanels, and you reduce the resolution of the color chanels to half that of the luminance. You keep them at the same depth, but there is 1/4 as much information there. And your eye can barely tell, as it distinguishes luminance resolution much easier than it distinguishes color resolution.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Really, we know how to do GOOD video compression, we just don't have the space/time to do it with modern computers.
I mean, if you do the following, you'll get great encoding, but it is EXPENSIVE.
step 1: drop the color space resolution in half, the eye can't see it. (this is the first step in JPEGs)
step 2: Resample the image in time to 30fps (this is ideal)
step 3: resample the image in space to a hexagonal, instead of a rectangular grid, this spreads the corner distance problem.
step 4: resample at half the luminance resolution, compress, but cycle the resampling offset in time. Persistance of vision reconstructs the proper luminance map.
step 5: search the (much reduced by this point) 3d matrix for domain/range mapings (this is the fractal step, it takes much processor power) You probably need to select smallish block sizes for this in time, or it gets much harder. Of course, the bigger the chunk you encode at a time, the better the encoding ratio.
and to view it, just reverse steps 5 and 3.
Its kind of like strong AI, its easy to say 'search for domain/range mappings', and it's easy to write code to do it. It just takes more memory and processor time than we have available to give useful results.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
I mean, CeBit is just a major technology Convention. its purpose in being is to keep tech companys aware of what each other are doing, and to hype up the media, so they can sell products to people that like gadgets, right?
And everyone knows that MP3s and related technology are'nt enjoyed by people that will spend rediculously large percentages of their personal income buying gadgets, right?
Its just a fad, and its a good thing that the MPAA and its friends are keeping the research going on 8-tracks, as thats where its at.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
__BEGIN AUTOMATED EDITOR BLOCK__
Are you implying that I would need stuff like that?
Sug: Are you implying that I might require such algorithms?
Take that back you miserable bastard!
Sug: Recind your aqusation, canard!
I have been on the Net for 13 years and know bloody well how to communicate with others.
Sug: I have used the Internet for 13 years, and am well educated in proper etiquette.
I don't need a stupid "AI" program to tell ME how to write damn it!
Sug: In the course of my corespondance, I do not find the assistance of an artificial intelligance neccesary.
You are of course an exception, huh?
Sug: Do you fancy your own writing as deathless prose?
Thinking "Yeah, let me give those slashdotters a hint --- there is way to much flaming there" right?
Sug: Perhaps you say to yourself, "I should help to educate these brigands in civilised discourse?"
Well let me tell you something: you suck!
Sug: In such case, might I offer that, in this case, the teacher is not the elder of the student?
Just because there are stypid minors out there that loves to spew there guts over things at /. to make themselves look cool to their friends does not make all of us spammers.
Sug: The presenace of the precoscious does not, in fact, demonstrate ignorance of the entire assembly.
SO THERE!
Sug: I believe that my point is made.
And Hemos, you better find an app for reading /. submissions and writing article blurbs, because what you do today stinks and I am sure a program could do a better job!
In related matters, perhaps it is time for Hemos to retire, as this article has fallen well below the quality that we have come to know and expect from Slashdot.
__END AUTOMATED EDITOR BLOCK__
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Umm, does anyone else find it hillarious that "Metalica" has come to represent the 'Establishment' to the point were they sue those crazy rebels at HARVARD?
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
This would be ugly, but get the ACLU involved, make it nice an legal, and create an obviously insane restricion, /but keep it legal!/
:)
Then 'sue' a group of 'violators'. I think its called a test case. You could probably go pretty far with this if you had some solid legal help.
and it would kill the DMCA
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
How this sort of thing ocillates based upon if the manfacturers are aimed at the corporate desktop or the home user this month? It's really annoying.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
it should have these wrapping the bit about the potato...
<silly distro bashing>
...
</silly distro bashing>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
THis just forces everyone to lock down the OSs as tight as they always should have been. Of course, early adopters face exagerated risks, but they always have, in all technologies. Just because we cann't do it perfectly now, doesn't mean we should wait until we can. That would just mean that nothing ever gets released, and everyone moans about how slow everything is in improving.
:)
like certain potatoes that one could mention...
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
How do you "Earn" broadband? If they can pay for it, whats the problem? That it isn't 'fair'? Well, the fibre providers have to pay for the bandwidth the are selling to the houses, so what is the problem?
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Seriously. Its easier to put the power/reset switch on the back, and have the floppy/cdrom special mounted to come out the back.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
The ecologists have been doing sperm/egg samples for quite some time on the endangered species. Check with some of the bigger zoos about it, they should be able to steer you in the right direction.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
'kay, I'm gonna sit here and listen to my music and write a bit, so bear with, I'm going somewhere with this.
/several/ reasons, not one. So even if A reason does not seem sufficient to explain the observation, it does not mean that it is the only contributing factor. So the following are the primary factors that I propose to account for the observation.
/is/ bigger/smarter than your upper mind) and some of those answers they find in mysticism. Many aspects of Hacking go into this dark place, which is of course why many people (including me) do it. It feels cool to 'talk' to a you that aint you, or something like that.
First, lets take the posit of this article as true, so to do that, I'll say -
Observation: A disproportiantetly large percentage of hackers and other techland creatures belive in 'magic', or something close enough to it that no one but them would argue the point.
Now, we must look for the reason. But not really, because in social anomalies, there are usually
0) The RPG Integral:
Many have already suggested that the effects of Role Playing Games, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. So I wont go into detail, But it is a factor. It gives the mind something to chew on, so that when an expresion is needed, it may be used as a source. D&D doesn't make people crazy, but some crazy people have been exposed to D&D, and thus think that 'Feather Fall' will work. Same for religeons. And smart people like complex games, and games don't come more complex than D&D with all its expansions, so we get a large exposure base.
1) The Clark Equation:
Some people (not all people, but some) really like to make things happen. They get a kick from it. I'm one, Clark was another. Magic just seems the logical end of the curve, I point, it happens. Think about how many people you know that are going to LOVE good voice/gesture recognition as computre intarfaces. Thinks how many of those wish the real world worked like that. Xyzzy, anyone?
2) The Gonzo Factor:
Now, what if you are already weird? Well, if you are (and I am), normal social taboos don't apply very strongly to you ('cause society is already "punishing" you, what more can they do?), so you end up thinking about/trying many more things. This is why you see large (compared to the normal population) numbers of people aware that they are homosexuals in EVERY 'weird' group. If you are already a bixer/dancer/actor, there is not nearly as much pain in realizing that you are gay, so more of them do. The same things apply to religeons. If no one talks to you in high school already, maybe getting naked and freaky on the solstice doesn't seem as a likely to bring negative repercusions, so you "shop arround" as it were.
3) The I-Wanna-Be-Gonzo Coefficient:
Wanna-Bes, every group has them, and hackers are not an exception. If all the other guys whorship THor, and you don't really care, you might try it just to get along. ANd then the religion's got you hooked, as most of them are based upon social groups anyway, and there you go.
4) The Bicycle Exponent:
This is a weird one. You cannot (well, you can, but its the common example, and you should already know that, so hush) simultaneously ride a bicycle, and think about the muscle movements necessary to ride a bicycle. This is an example of a (rather large an interseting) class of actions which can be done, but cannot always be explained by the person doing them. Why? Well, cognitive studies shows us that there is a WHOLE lot more capacity "under the surface" of the mind than the conscious mind can ever get hold of (walking is HARD, yall), and all the true geniuses/artists/etc GO with that, and learn to toss problems to there undermind, problems that come back with answers that are obviously correct, but the peson is completely unable to explain how they did it (even to themselves). This makes some people look for answers (which is silly, as the answers is right there, your undermind
But finally, I think most just worship at the church of "Wouldn't It Be Pretty To Think So?", and I challenge anyone to tell me that the various magic, magik, majick, etc. religeons arent pretty.
::To set the record straight, I personally am a meta-agnostic, as I dont think the question 'Is there a God' can have a meaningful answer from inside the system, so I don't bother asking it; as opposed to agnostics who wonder about it, or atheists who belive that there is no God (which they cannot prove, which is my point.)
Have fun flamming me to death on this one, if you want.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
The material that most pencils are made of is still, basically, wood. But it is wood ground to a powder, and then rebonded with a polymer into the desired shape. It saves an immense amout of wood, as the polymer is a thermoplastic! and thus the wood goo can be reworked (and you dont throw away the scraps of the distribution process.
Translation: Heat a modern pencil, Tie it into knots. It works.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
I'd like to start this by saying that I am NOT speaking for Red Hat in this, but for myself.
/from it/ to the 2.2.x series, so that it doesn't fall too far behind.
I started working at Red Hat about 2 months ago, and I can say that since I have been here, I've been continually impressed by the extent to which everyone works to make sure everything works. No one EVER talks about steering development 'backwards', as its damn hard enough keeping it going forwards.
Now, the 2.4.0 kernel is a BIG deal, it is a big change, and it will save the world, clean your laundry, get you dates, clear up your acne, etc, etc. But it is not finnished. Period. There is more to do on it, and while work continues on it, some code is backported
But should Red Hat wait until 2.4? How about KDE 2.0, or Gnome 2.0, or Gimp 2.0, or Jargon 3.0? How long do you wait, for what? They can't, they have to make sure that the software that they put the stamp on is as uptodate as it reasonably can be, while simultaneously being as stable, and as compatible.
And how can you seriously believe that Red Hat is purposely steering development to slow the advent of the 2.4 kernel? Did you see the Slashdot article about Tux? That is a 2.4 kernel based webserver, something that is VERY cool, and it'd be great for Red Hat if it worked out of the box. But it doesn't, cause 2.4 is not finnished.
If you really have issues with the speed of the development cycle of 2.4, help the kernel developers.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
With this technology, I could play QIII with Earth Shaking Subsonics and blood curdling explosions, and A) Not wear headphones while B) not disturbing my co-workers.
Yay!
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Last year a friend of mine and I entered this, having looked at the first years contest, we thought, "Hey, we can do that!" Unfortunately, the second year's contest was, um, HARDER! We didn't finnish, but we did get a LOT better with the memory alocation after that experience. Wish I had time to do this this year.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>