You're looking at average distances between objects moving faster than you (or I) can imagine, being pushed/pulled by 4 different forces eminating from an unimaginable number of masses.
Gravity is pretty much the only one you have to consider, and really only the gravity from the mass of the Sun is needed to figure the orbits of Pluto or the Oort cloud objects to a fuckload better precision than Space.com provided.
Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding In all of the directions it can whiz; As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light you know, Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
Actually eleven million miles a minute is closer, but it wouldn't have fit the meter of the song as well.
Huh? An obvious example would be Warp Drive (wormholes are not FTL travel).
Look up Miguel Alcubierre. Whether his idea would actually work is questionable, but he is at least a reasonably respected scientist and not a crackpot or Trek writer.
Also as far as I know, there is no viable theory as to how to make a transporter work (quantum-level effects notwithstanding).
There was a Scientific American (I think) article a couple years back discussing some theories about how quantum teleportation might be feasible. Again, maybe or maybe not really possible, but at least within the realm of theoretical discussion.
Loki, I think you picked the wrong god to use for a nick. Judging by your excitement over the possible use of antimatter in weapons of mass destruction, perhaps Shiva would have been more appropriate.
Old school jet fuel [WWII] basically did that. Killed a lot of pilots, too.
But then, it killed a lot of enemy pilots, as well.
There weren't a lot of pilots who could have been killed by jet fuel in WWII, were there? Perhaps the more generic term 'aviation fuel' would have been more accurate?
Not to be picking at you, because I've done it myself - but if you walk away from a root console, the security of Wine is the least of your possible worries. I wish su had a timeout, where if you didn't use it for a couple minutes it would exit (only if it was at the shell prompt, obviously).
Incidentally, I don't think Wine is actually reading/etc/wine/config yet, but the current Mandrake packages (at least, possibly others) will copy the/etc/wine/config to ~/.wine/config if the user doesn't have a config already.
One time, I was hanging out with a friend, and he noted that he'd found a Susan B. Anthony silver dollar. I said, "You should sell it on eBay!" We laughed... then looked at he other, and he checked: sure enough, there were several Susan B. Anthony dollars on sale. One was bidding at over $3.
Susan B. Anthony dollars aren't silver - they're copper/nickel clad just like dimes and quarters. I think they are still circulating in some places, so I'm surprised that there are idiots bidding $3 for them. Don't a few cities with functional mass transit systems still use them as bus/subway fare?
I think my question would be, Why would someone ever do that? I mean, at least there's an/opt or/usr debate for Linux apps. It just seems overly excessive to me to allow 'Windows' access to the whole drive.
I agree, and I don't give Wine access to anything but a fake C drive, the floppy, the cd-rom,/home/(user), and a shared data directory to which all the users have access.
Everyone rips on Lindows for running users as root, I think if someone is distributing a Wine rpm with a root drive mapping, they should be flogged too.
In defense of whoever packages Wine like that (if anyone), it still won't allow a malicious Windows program to do anything a malicious user or Linux program couldn't do on its own. The Windows binary has only the privileges of the user running Wine.
Are binaries from 98 or 2K compatible with Windows CE (assuming CE is running on x86 architecture)?
Then again, most embedded Linux solutions, even if they're running on x86, don't use GNU libc because it's too bloated, so they become binary-incompatible with desktop distros. Probably WinCE has a similar incompatibility.
As far as the desktop goes, pretty much any distro will be binary compatible, just like Win 98 to Win XP. The few things that might not be compatible would probably be system utilities that depend on a particular kernel version or such. Most likely utilities on Windows with similar functionality would need upgrading for newer versions as well, since they tie more tightly to the innards of the kernel.
And how hyprocritical for you to think a rewrite of basic commands to avoid GNU is a bad thing.
I didn't say it would be a bad thing, just that it would be a pointless waste of effort. I'll agree that it was almost as pointless for FSF to rewrite the BSD stuff - but at least they did add in a few features along the way.
I wouldn't doubt it if by the time HURD ever does get developed, the FSF will drop support for Linux like a cheap whore. You don't think that'll happen?....we'll see...
Well, that would require HURD to be finished, and let's just say I'm not holding my breath for that. Keep in mind that the FSF could "drop support" for Linux, but their own license means they can't do jack to stop Linux developers from continuing to run, update, and improve their software.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Debian Desktop borrows Mandrake Control Center. After all, Mandrake uses the Debian menu system.
God let's hope not. I run Mandrake, but I hate MCC. It's unwieldy, unintuitive, unstable, and ugly.
The Debian menu system sucks ass too. Great idea in theory, terrible in practice. The upshot of it is you can't use the desktop's own menu editor, or your changes get wiped out next time you install a package. Also, any software that isn't aware of the menu system can't put entries in your menu, or again they will be gone when you install a menu-aware package.
Gnome, KDE, and the other window managers/desktops need to get together and decide on a common location for menu files, desktop icons, and such, then there will be no need for Debian's menu package. Actually, the LSB would have been a great place to specify those things, but it fell way short on standardizing GUI's and such.
I want to wear "mouse gloves" and move windows around my walls that are covered in LCD screens. That's new and exciting.
Too bad you'll have to wait two years after mouse gloves are on the market before there's a Linux driver for them stable enough for the Debian developers to deem it worthy of inclusion into their distro.
Since it's likely that no one will mod up the AC stating the near-obvious, I'll second his comment. You should have a regular cron job backing up your/etc in case you (or the system) ever screw things up in there.
So what's the "core", I'd make it as simple as possible. It should be a simple filesystem structure, standard set of drivers, and the very minimal set of system commands (something less then 20 commands and perferribly NOT anything from FSF).
I assume you would want things like "ls" to be part of the core. The "ls" on my Linux box is (c) FSF. Are you saying someone should re-write "ls" just so we don't have FSF stuff in this "core" Linux? There's a saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face that seems appropriate here.
Besides, who is going to develop this "core"? It can't be Linus, he's busy enough with the kernel. I suppose we could use the BSD versions of all the basic commands, but if you wanted to run BSD, why didn't you just run BSD?
I agree that the basis of the system should be standardized (that's what LSB is for), but saying it shouldn't be GNU just so you don't have to hear Stallman ranting about GNU/Linux is a bit silly.
For the people saying "There's only one Windows"...
Linux "server" distro: Win 2K Enterprise Server Linux "corporate" distro: Win 2K Workstation or XP Professional Linux "home" distro: Win 98/ME or XP Home Linux "embedded": Win CE
Typically the reason some Wine installations create Z: mapped to / is because when Wine starts, it needs to be able to find your current directory and the windows executable you are running in a space that's mapped to a windows drive.
In other words, if I'm sitting at a prompt in the directory/usr/local/sasquatch and try "wine bigfoot.exe" to run the bigfoot.exe file, unless there's a Windows drive mapped that gives access to/usr/local/sasquatch I'm gonna get an error. Mapping a drive to / prevents the error.
Still, if you run wine as a non-root user, the windows processes shouldn't have access to anything to which your user doesn't have rights.
I'll bet that if they had tried really, really hard, they just might have been able to come up with a teensy weensy little bit of prior art.
I have prior art sitting on the magazine rack next to the toilet at home - it's a Victoria's Secret catalog. Okay, it's not on the web - but I think its existence would make "using text and graphics to sell on the web" fall into the category of "intuitively obvious".
It seems like compactness is the ultimate feature. But then why do so many people drive SUV's?
Ah, grasshopper, you come so close to the truth, yet so far away. It is not compactness that is the ultimate feature, it is price. He who has the most expensive toys becomes the envy of his friends, thus enhancing his self-esteem. Cell phones, laptops, and SUVs are status symbols - every American wants them because the sages of Madison Avenue tell them that these objects will bring happiness.
When I talk machines with my friends, flat-panel monitors arent usually mentioned, but 21-inch monitors are.
Among non-geeks (most of my friends) flat-panels are more highly admired, for their sleekness and "hi-tech" look.
Its not worth the $$. (You could buy a lot more ram for the difference)
Sure, but I have half a gig of RAM now, and I've never noticed my system starving for more. I do notice slight headaches and eyestrain after looking at my 17" CRT at home for more than an hour or so. I'm considering a flat-panel for that reason. If it saves me from needing eyeglasses or contacts, it'll nearly pay for itself.
Just pointing out that anecdotal evidence goes both ways. The analysts are probably just going off sales forecasts from manufacturers, though, so who knows how close they'll be?
Slashdot Mirror
You're looking at average distances between objects moving faster than you (or I) can imagine, being pushed/pulled by 4 different forces eminating from an unimaginable number of masses.
Gravity is pretty much the only one you have to consider, and really only the gravity from the mass of the Sun is needed to figure the orbits of Pluto or the Oort cloud objects to a fuckload better precision than Space.com provided.
Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
Actually eleven million miles a minute is closer, but it wouldn't have fit the meter of the song as well.
Huh? An obvious example would be Warp Drive (wormholes are not FTL travel).
Look up Miguel Alcubierre. Whether his idea would actually work is questionable, but he is at least a reasonably respected scientist and not a crackpot or Trek writer.
Also as far as I know, there is no viable theory as to how to make a transporter work (quantum-level effects notwithstanding).
There was a Scientific American (I think) article a couple years back discussing some theories about how quantum teleportation might be feasible. Again, maybe or maybe not really possible, but at least within the realm of theoretical discussion.
Loki, I think you picked the wrong god to use for a nick. Judging by your excitement over the possible use of antimatter in weapons of mass destruction, perhaps Shiva would have been more appropriate.
Old school jet fuel [WWII] basically did that. Killed a lot of pilots, too.
But then, it killed a lot of enemy pilots, as well.
There weren't a lot of pilots who could have been killed by jet fuel in WWII, were there? Perhaps the more generic term 'aviation fuel' would have been more accurate?
Would eating an anti-burrito make you constipated? 'Cuz a regular burrito certainly coes the opposite....
Not to be picking at you, because I've done it myself - but if you walk away from a root console, the security of Wine is the least of your possible worries. I wish su had a timeout, where if you didn't use it for a couple minutes it would exit (only if it was at the shell prompt, obviously).
/etc/wine/config yet, but the current Mandrake packages (at least, possibly others) will copy the /etc/wine/config to ~/.wine/config if the user doesn't have a config already.
Incidentally, I don't think Wine is actually reading
Of course they are not. Windows CE runs on ARM and when was the last time you saw Windows 98/2000 running on arm ?
Isn't the XBox WinCE on x86?
One time, I was hanging out with a friend, and he noted that he'd found a Susan B. Anthony silver dollar. I said, "You should sell it on eBay!" We laughed ... then looked at he other, and he checked: sure enough, there were several Susan B. Anthony dollars on sale. One was bidding at over $3.
Susan B. Anthony dollars aren't silver - they're copper/nickel clad just like dimes and quarters. I think they are still circulating in some places, so I'm surprised that there are idiots bidding $3 for them. Don't a few cities with functional mass transit systems still use them as bus/subway fare?
I think my question would be, Why would someone ever do that? I mean, at least there's an /opt or /usr debate for Linux apps. It just seems overly excessive to me to allow 'Windows' access to the whole drive.
/home/(user), and a shared data directory to which all the users have access.
I agree, and I don't give Wine access to anything but a fake C drive, the floppy, the cd-rom,
Everyone rips on Lindows for running users as root, I think if someone is distributing a Wine rpm with a root drive mapping, they should be flogged too.
In defense of whoever packages Wine like that (if anyone), it still won't allow a malicious Windows program to do anything a malicious user or Linux program couldn't do on its own. The Windows binary has only the privileges of the user running Wine.
Are binaries from 98 or 2K compatible with Windows CE (assuming CE is running on x86 architecture)?
Then again, most embedded Linux solutions, even if they're running on x86, don't use GNU libc because it's too bloated, so they become binary-incompatible with desktop distros. Probably WinCE has a similar incompatibility.
As far as the desktop goes, pretty much any distro will be binary compatible, just like Win 98 to Win XP. The few things that might not be compatible would probably be system utilities that depend on a particular kernel version or such. Most likely utilities on Windows with similar functionality would need upgrading for newer versions as well, since they tie more tightly to the innards of the kernel.
And how hyprocritical for you to think a rewrite of basic commands to avoid GNU is a bad thing.
I didn't say it would be a bad thing, just that it would be a pointless waste of effort. I'll agree that it was almost as pointless for FSF to rewrite the BSD stuff - but at least they did add in a few features along the way.
I wouldn't doubt it if by the time HURD ever does get developed, the FSF will drop support for Linux like a cheap whore. You don't think that'll happen?....we'll see...
Well, that would require HURD to be finished, and let's just say I'm not holding my breath for that. Keep in mind that the FSF could "drop support" for Linux, but their own license means they can't do jack to stop Linux developers from continuing to run, update, and improve their software.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Debian Desktop borrows Mandrake Control Center. After all, Mandrake uses the Debian menu system.
God let's hope not. I run Mandrake, but I hate MCC. It's unwieldy, unintuitive, unstable, and ugly.
The Debian menu system sucks ass too. Great idea in theory, terrible in practice. The upshot of it is you can't use the desktop's own menu editor, or your changes get wiped out next time you install a package. Also, any software that isn't aware of the menu system can't put entries in your menu, or again they will be gone when you install a menu-aware package.
Gnome, KDE, and the other window managers/desktops need to get together and decide on a common location for menu files, desktop icons, and such, then there will be no need for Debian's menu package. Actually, the LSB would have been a great place to specify those things, but it fell way short on standardizing GUI's and such.
I want to wear "mouse gloves" and move windows around my walls that are covered in LCD screens. That's new and exciting.
Too bad you'll have to wait two years after mouse gloves are on the market before there's a Linux driver for them stable enough for the Debian developers to deem it worthy of inclusion into their distro.
backup your /etc
/etc in case you (or the system) ever screw things up in there.
Since it's likely that no one will mod up the AC stating the near-obvious, I'll second his comment. You should have a regular cron job backing up your
Okay, you've opened it up now. Someone mentioned Gnome, you mentioned underpants, so you asked for it.
I feel dirty after posting that.
So what's the "core", I'd make it as simple as possible. It should be a simple filesystem structure, standard set of drivers, and the very minimal set of system commands (something less then 20 commands and perferribly NOT anything from FSF).
I assume you would want things like "ls" to be part of the core. The "ls" on my Linux box is (c) FSF. Are you saying someone should re-write "ls" just so we don't have FSF stuff in this "core" Linux? There's a saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face that seems appropriate here.
Besides, who is going to develop this "core"? It can't be Linus, he's busy enough with the kernel. I suppose we could use the BSD versions of all the basic commands, but if you wanted to run BSD, why didn't you just run BSD?
I agree that the basis of the system should be standardized (that's what LSB is for), but saying it shouldn't be GNU just so you don't have to hear Stallman ranting about GNU/Linux is a bit silly.
For the people saying "There's only one Windows"...
Linux "server" distro: Win 2K Enterprise Server
Linux "corporate" distro: Win 2K Workstation or XP Professional
Linux "home" distro: Win 98/ME or XP Home
Linux "embedded": Win CE
Typically the reason some Wine installations create Z: mapped to / is because when Wine starts, it needs to be able to find your current directory and the windows executable you are running in a space that's mapped to a windows drive.
/usr/local/sasquatch and try "wine bigfoot.exe" to run the bigfoot.exe file, unless there's a Windows drive mapped that gives access to /usr/local/sasquatch I'm gonna get an error. Mapping a drive to / prevents the error.
In other words, if I'm sitting at a prompt in the directory
Still, if you run wine as a non-root user, the windows processes shouldn't have access to anything to which your user doesn't have rights.
I'll read through the original two posts that /. posted on this story, and repeat all the high ranking comments. Man oh man, I'll be famous.
I've patented that idea, so don't make me sue anyone.
Hah! I don't fear your patent, there's plenty of prior art!
I'll bet that if they had tried really, really hard, they just might have been able to come up with a teensy weensy little bit of prior art.
I have prior art sitting on the magazine rack next to the toilet at home - it's a Victoria's Secret catalog. Okay, it's not on the web - but I think its existence would make "using text and graphics to sell on the web" fall into the category of "intuitively obvious".
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that lead is heavy, and heavy things cost more to get into space?
It seems like compactness is the ultimate feature. But then why do so many people drive SUV's?
Ah, grasshopper, you come so close to the truth, yet so far away. It is not compactness that is the ultimate feature, it is price. He who has the most expensive toys becomes the envy of his friends, thus enhancing his self-esteem. Cell phones, laptops, and SUVs are status symbols - every American wants them because the sages of Madison Avenue tell them that these objects will bring happiness.
Walk around in the real world and they are far from universal, but in media-land EVERYBODY has one.
That's because everyone in media-land is rich and attractive, and we all want to be just like them.
When I talk machines with my friends, flat-panel monitors arent usually mentioned, but 21-inch monitors are.
Among non-geeks (most of my friends) flat-panels are more highly admired, for their sleekness and "hi-tech" look.
Its not worth the $$. (You could buy a lot more ram for the difference)
Sure, but I have half a gig of RAM now, and I've never noticed my system starving for more. I do notice slight headaches and eyestrain after looking at my 17" CRT at home for more than an hour or so. I'm considering a flat-panel for that reason. If it saves me from needing eyeglasses or contacts, it'll nearly pay for itself.
Just pointing out that anecdotal evidence goes both ways. The analysts are probably just going off sales forecasts from manufacturers, though, so who knows how close they'll be?