What I mean is that the problem can be simplified if you assume that everyone who goes to Mars is staying there for the rest of their life, with the understanding that a return trip will require a seperate vehicle which may not be available within their lifetime.
Then you only need to land, and don't need another launch vehicle and you don't need to send/collect fuel for a return trip.
If we are going to live on Mars, eventually someone is going to die on Mars, even if it is only of old age. We should only send people there who want to be there, and we should be prepared for the possiblity of accidential death. If this occurs, we should be prepared to continue colonizing Mars anyway, once we've addressed the safety issues, not letting our emotions get all clouded like they did with the shuttle. What I mean is that it should be understood that dispite everything we do to make it safe, with enough people on Mars, someone will eventually die of an accidential death, and we shouldn't be surprised when it happens.
Yes, of course we have to work our way up to a permanent habitat, but there is no reason we can't get started now. We can try to put an unoccupied habitat on Mars and monitor it for a while. We can simulate problems and see how well the structures deal with them. Once we are comfortible with things, we can send some people to live in some of the habitats we've set up.
And we can have backup habitats available, waiting to be used if trouble occurs in the occupied habitats.
In the short time it would take to stabalise Africa, the Earth isn't about to implode or spin off it's access [sic].
Starvation is a social problem, not a technological one. Throwing more money at it hasn't helped yet, and it won't help in the future. Growing more food hasn't helped yet, and won't help in the future.
The only way we are going to feed everyone is if we manage to create social structures in which that must happen. We haven't done so yet, and I don't see it happening in the near future.
Instead of paying people not to grow food, we could be allowing them to grow food and spending that money on shipping instead, getting the excess food where it needs to be. Fight that if you want, if you think you can get anything changed.
In the meantime, other people are interested in other things, and I see no reason some of us cannot persue space travel and the colonization of other planets. This doesn't mean that we don't care about starving people (or any other social ill of the week), it just means that we see something we think we can have a positive effect on.
Besides, learning to create a safe, self-sustaining environment may be one of the tools we need to solve the social problems you care so much about.
The social change required to feed everyone all at once is more likely to occur when it becomes suffeciently easy to provide food easily to everyone all at once, and to grow that food locally.
Learning to do that in a hostile world with less sunlight is certain to teach us things we can use here.
If each petition signer would contribute let's say US$10,000, they might be taken more seriously.
Given the chance, I would gladly allocate the majority of the taxes I pay to such a mission, for several years. I would rather my taxes went to such a program than to the military and countless pork barrel projects.
Unfortunetly, I don't get to make such decissions, but petitions are a perfectly valid way for a large group of people to express an interest in something like this.
I've got a 4-way Master View CS-104, and I'm quite happy with it. It's got both types of keyboard and mouse ports. I'm running video at 1600x1200x32@75 and it's crisp. It allows keyboard controlled switching with Ctrl-Shift-Alt #.
It would seem to be worth disputing the letter's claim of "... you have offered to sell unauthorized DVD copies...". I doubt that part is accurate, and I wonder if the letter has any validity without it.
Without a large user base, there will be nothing to stop the industry from making all hardware proprietary.
Perhaps you can tell me why Micro Channel is a historical footnote. It certainly isn't because of Linux.
Providing support for Linux is becoming SOP. The Linux share of the market would have to dwindle quite a bit before any companies decide to stop providing support once they's started doing so.
However, if Linux won't have a large user base, there will be no market forces that can force hardware manufacturers to open their hardware specs.
Why is it that this problem didn't keep Linus from getting started in the first place? Perhaps because it's not nearly as serious as you think at is.
Granted, a large userbase is required to insure that hardware manufactures provide Linux support from the moment they release new hardware, but there is nothing that will keep us from finding compatible hardware and running Linux on it.
The war, if you choose to think of it that way, is about making sure that even a clueless Linux newbie can easily installed brand new, high end, hardware and expect it to work.
It simply talks about the concept, and says "Papers presented at the International Electron Devices Meeting... give important clues about where electronics technology will be three-to-five years from now."
But nothing in the article says that anything in this particular paper will be implimented any time soon.
Seems to me that the same arguements apply here. If he were to modify the archive, he would give up content nuetrality. Seems like a good reason not to. Worst case would seem to be that he might eventually be ordered by a court to change the archive, but then he could still claim content nuetrality, and a court would seem to be hard pressed to apply any fines when he points out the bind and claims good will.
And what is done with these constituent atoms? This material has to be taken care of somehow, it doesn't just magically disappear with a sprinkling of "nanites".
While we're on the subject of magic, suppose they break the atoms into their constituent protons, nuetrons and electrons, then reassemble them in clumps with 79 of each.
Gah, return in the subject field should not post the comment...
Suppose you make a query that you know will result in an empty result, then store the value. You could then try to compare to that value to see if you've got an empty result.
Looks like the choices are petition for a Linux version, or borrowing a Windows or Macintosh machine.
That would seem to be a difficult battle.
I just called the Product Information and Sales line. After I explained my question and the fact that Linux is an operating system, and waited while someone went to ask to the supervisor, I was informed that Linux is not a supported platform and 3com currently has no intentions of supporting Linux.
Once I managed to get the supervisor on the phone, she was able to tell me that the PalmOS 3.3 version is not yet available, and she had looked at the web site earlier today. Pointing out that I had already downloaded the MS-Windows and Macintosh versions 20 minutes ago was insufficent to persuade her. She explained that those are upgrades to the desktops, not the PalmOS, and the 3.3 upgrade to the PalmOS would be available soon, "once they finish making it".
Just publish the damn thing, the sooner the better.
Patents can be overturned if it can be shown that the core idea was published before the patent application was filed. If you have anything you want to share, publish it.
This may allow someone in the future to site your work in order to overturn a patent.
(US Congress does that all the time, it makes it a bitch to cross reference things sometimes.. Instead of amending the code, they amend the original enacting legislation, which automatically amends the code!)
It seems that this should be construed as a form of ex post facto law.
You do not want outside contractors changing the configuration file (for whatever reason) so you simply place a read-only ACL on the configuration file itself for this one user. Problem solved.
That solution SUCKS!
It requires that you add a read-only ACL for every contractor, and the solution fails the first time you forget to add such an ACL.
With unix groups, you give write privleges to a dev-conf group, chgrp the file and you're done. You don't have to go back and add something every time you add a contractor, your security doesn't get fucked up if you forget a step.
For example, find a rule that can be used to tranlate "at" in the following sentences: Bob stands at the window. Bob stands at the watercooler.
I'm not sure that it's important to find such a rule. It seems to me that the high order bits are the idea of Bob standing near the window|watercooler. If you intend to convey that he then looks through the window, or that he hangs out around the watercooler talking to someone, that's a seperate sentence, and his facing wasn't all that important.
It is unreasonable to expect any sort of translation system to work perfectly without some attention from the people using it. Knowing that you you are trying ton convey information, you can make your statements more clear, and use modles of speach which are more likely to convey the information you want to sent.
The only things that get moderated up in here are unabashed linux plugs (regardless of whether they hold any insight).
That's completely false.
Every day I expicitly verify that some 10 randomly selected moderations were fair. Many days I find 10 fair moderations. Only occasionally do I find one I thing was unfair.
Anyway, the comments that are moderated up include many viewpoints, many of which don't mention Linux at all. There are even some comments that get moderated up which point out faults with Linux.
But then, if you were involved with/., you'd know that. In case it wasn't already clear, you are welcome to get an account here and participate in the meta-moderation. You could even attach a username to the things you say.
When I make a move or change a view I want see the update immediately. I don't want to wait 10 seconds as the hard drive thrashes, the sound skips and the screen freezes.
I had this problem too, particularly when my system was already IO contrained on the hard drive because I was playing MP3s and ripping/encoding from a CD, all with IDE devices.
I solved this problem by creating a large (160 megs) ramdisk and copying the graphics/pictures directory to the ramdisk.
Once I'd done that, I could play MP3, rip/encode, and pan around CivCTP quickly. It made a huge difference in game play.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you only need to land, and don't need another launch vehicle and you don't need to send/collect fuel for a return trip.
If we are going to live on Mars, eventually someone is going to die on Mars, even if it is only of old age. We should only send people there who want to be there, and we should be prepared for the possiblity of accidential death. If this occurs, we should be prepared to continue colonizing Mars anyway, once we've addressed the safety issues, not letting our emotions get all clouded like they did with the shuttle. What I mean is that it should be understood that dispite everything we do to make it safe, with enough people on Mars, someone will eventually die of an accidential death, and we shouldn't be surprised when it happens.
Yes, of course we have to work our way up to a permanent habitat, but there is no reason we can't get started now. We can try to put an unoccupied habitat on Mars and monitor it for a while. We can simulate problems and see how well the structures deal with them. Once we are comfortible with things, we can send some people to live in some of the habitats we've set up.
And we can have backup habitats available, waiting to be used if trouble occurs in the occupied habitats.
Starvation is a social problem, not a technological one. Throwing more money at it hasn't helped yet, and it won't help in the future. Growing more food hasn't helped yet, and won't help in the future.
The only way we are going to feed everyone is if we manage to create social structures in which that must happen. We haven't done so yet, and I don't see it happening in the near future.
Instead of paying people not to grow food, we could be allowing them to grow food and spending that money on shipping instead, getting the excess food where it needs to be. Fight that if you want, if you think you can get anything changed.
In the meantime, other people are interested in other things, and I see no reason some of us cannot persue space travel and the colonization of other planets. This doesn't mean that we don't care about starving people (or any other social ill of the week), it just means that we see something we think we can have a positive effect on.
Besides, learning to create a safe, self-sustaining environment may be one of the tools we need to solve the social problems you care so much about.
The social change required to feed everyone all at once is more likely to occur when it becomes suffeciently easy to provide food easily to everyone all at once, and to grow that food locally.
Learning to do that in a hostile world with less sunlight is certain to teach us things we can use here.
Given the chance, I would gladly allocate the majority of the taxes I pay to such a mission, for several years. I would rather my taxes went to such a program than to the military and countless pork barrel projects.
Unfortunetly, I don't get to make such decissions, but petitions are a perfectly valid way for a large group of people to express an interest in something like this.
On the other hand, sending people to Mars or the Moon with the intention of leaving them there, now that's interesting.
I've got a 4-way Master View CS-104, and I'm quite happy with it. It's got both types of keyboard and mouse ports. I'm running video at 1600x1200x32@75 and it's crisp. It allows keyboard controlled switching with Ctrl-Shift-Alt #.
The letter includes referances to United States Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 106 and 1201.
Here's a link to Cornell's copy of Title 17: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode /17/index.html.
Unfortunately, some of the links inside, including 1201, don't work.
It would seem to be worth disputing the letter's claim of "... you have offered to sell unauthorized DVD copies ...". I doubt that part is accurate, and I wonder if the letter has any validity without it.
and
http://larr.unm.edu/~owen/mirror/
http://larr.unm.edu/~owen/mirror/
http://larr.unm.edu/~owen/mirror/
If I can get a copy I'll mirror it on two machines.
Perhaps you can tell me why Micro Channel is a historical footnote. It certainly isn't because of Linux.
Providing support for Linux is becoming SOP. The Linux share of the market would have to dwindle quite a bit before any companies decide to stop providing support once they's started doing so.
However, if Linux won't have a large user base, there will be no market forces that can force hardware manufacturers to open their hardware specs.
Why is it that this problem didn't keep Linus from getting started in the first place? Perhaps because it's not nearly as serious as you think at is.
Granted, a large userbase is required to insure that hardware manufactures provide Linux support from the moment they release new hardware, but there is nothing that will keep us from finding compatible hardware and running Linux on it.
The war, if you choose to think of it that way, is about making sure that even a clueless Linux newbie can easily installed brand new, high end, hardware and expect it to work.
But nothing in the article says that anything in this particular paper will be implimented any time soon.
Seems to me that the same arguements apply here. If he were to modify the archive, he would give up content nuetrality. Seems like a good reason not to. Worst case would seem to be that he might eventually be ordered by a court to change the archive, but then he could still claim content nuetrality, and a court would seem to be hard pressed to apply any fines when he points out the bind and claims good will.
192.168.255.5 ad.doubleclick.net
Of course, if they disallow the opt-out, I'm still out, and I like that.
While we're on the subject of magic, suppose they break the atoms into their constituent protons, nuetrons and electrons, then reassemble them in clumps with 79 of each.
Suppose you make a query that you know will result in an empty result, then store the value. You could then try to compare to that value to see if you've got an empty result.
That would seem to be a difficult battle.
I just called the Product Information and Sales line. After I explained my question and the fact that Linux is an operating system, and waited while someone went to ask to the supervisor, I was informed that Linux is not a supported platform and 3com currently has no intentions of supporting Linux.
Once I managed to get the supervisor on the phone, she was able to tell me that the PalmOS 3.3 version is not yet available, and she had looked at the web site earlier today. Pointing out that I had already downloaded the MS-Windows and Macintosh versions 20 minutes ago was insufficent to persuade her. She explained that those are upgrades to the desktops, not the PalmOS, and the 3.3 upgrade to the PalmOS would be available soon, "once they finish making it".
Go figure.
Patents can be overturned if it can be shown that the core idea was published before the patent application was filed. If you have anything you want to share, publish it.
This may allow someone in the future to site your work in order to overturn a patent.
It seems that this should be construed as a form of ex post facto law.
Or am I missing something?
That solution SUCKS!
It requires that you add a read-only ACL for every contractor, and the solution fails the first time you forget to add such an ACL.
With unix groups, you give write privleges to a dev-conf group, chgrp the file and you're done. You don't have to go back and add something every time you add a contractor, your security doesn't get fucked up if you forget a step.
Bob stands at the window.
Bob stands at the watercooler.
I'm not sure that it's important to find such a rule. It seems to me that the high order bits are the idea of Bob standing near the window|watercooler. If you intend to convey that he then looks through the window, or that he hangs out around the watercooler talking to someone, that's a seperate sentence, and his facing wasn't all that important.
It is unreasonable to expect any sort of translation system to work perfectly without some attention from the people using it. Knowing that you you are trying ton convey information, you can make your statements more clear, and use modles of speach which are more likely to convey the information you want to sent.
So you're suggesting some sort of Security through meta-obscurity?
I'd always figured you fit more closely in a 'speculative fiction' category.
What do you think of the recent technological changes? Where do you think we're likely to go from here?
That's completely false.
Every day I expicitly verify that some 10 randomly selected moderations were fair. Many days I find 10 fair moderations. Only occasionally do I find one I thing was unfair.
Anyway, the comments that are moderated up include many viewpoints, many of which don't mention Linux at all. There are even some comments that get moderated up which point out faults with Linux.
But then, if you were involved with /., you'd know that. In case it wasn't already clear, you are welcome to get an account here and participate in the meta-moderation. You could even attach a username to the things you say.
I had this problem too, particularly when my system was already IO contrained on the hard drive because I was playing MP3s and ripping/encoding from a CD, all with IDE devices.
I solved this problem by creating a large (160 megs) ramdisk and copying the graphics/pictures directory to the ramdisk.
Once I'd done that, I could play MP3, rip/encode, and pan around CivCTP quickly. It made a huge difference in game play.