Automatix mangles Ubuntu horribly. If you want tinker with Automatix, use plain Debian. All of the things you've installed via Automatix are also CORRECTLY available via apt, with Synaptic providing a friendly GUI.
It sounds to me like PCC appeals to the OpenBSD project because it's simple, non-optimizing, and (hopefully) completely verifiable. There's no licensing problem related to using gcc to build *BSD systems. Seems like they just want a bare-bones compiler for the sake of sanity checking.
There are plenty of other open source C compilers already, though none that are "owned" by the OpenBSD foundation: TenDRA (BSD), Pathscale (LGPL/proprietary), LCC (MIT), Tiny C (LGPL).
I haven't read TFA yet (plan to ASAP), but I wanted to mention that PCC isn't the only show in town.
TenDRA is a mature, BSD licenced compiler originally developed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in the UK. Not sure about pkgsrc, but TenDRA is in FreeBSD's ports.
As for converting an entire operating system over to a non-gcc compiler... well, it's complicated. TenDRA is useful for sanity checking but currently cannot build the FreeBSD kernel, nor even the world. Intel's proprietary icc compiler, on the other hand, can build world just fine (kernel, not so much). Forget about using icc though, if you're a commercial customer ($$$) or if you have a gnu up your butt about free software.
I'd be interested to see how PCC compares vs. TenDRA.
Looks like Walt reviewed it from the point of view of someone who completely refuses to read, think for themselves, or even lift a finger to accomplish simple tasks.
That begs the question, why would such a person need or wish to use a computer in the first place? A respirator and feeding tube might be more appropriate.
Long ago in a galaxy far far away, Marshall Kirk McKusick wrote:
"You had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure you can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called 'copycenter,' which is 'take it down to the copy center and make as make as many copies as you want.' You want to go off and do proprietary things with it? Fine, you can do that. You want to keep it out in the Open Source domain? You're welcome to do that as well. In fact, in the end, Richard Stallman had to agree that we had a less restrictive license than he did, although it took pulling some teeth to get him to admit to that."
I prefer fries, but if someone asks me to pass the menu, I shouldn't cross out mashed potatoes before doing so.
Yes! That's the issue exactly (well, analogously). The original software permitted either license. Jiri removed all the BSD bits, including the copyrights of the other contributors. Jiri's kernal submission is an attempt at an exclusively GPL fork. This fork is indistinguishable in name from the original BSD-licensed code. IMHO, if you're going to fork something, at least give it a different name so that you can tell the difference.
There are now, effectively, two different branches: The BSD branch, from which future changes may be freely merged to the GPL-only branch; and the potentially illicit GPL-only branch. Changes submitted directly to the GPL-only branch are doomed to be stuck there forevermore, per the restrictions of the GPL. How are developers to know which branch is which when they have the same name? Furthermore, this fork will balkanize future development, forcing developers to choose whether they wish to submit patches only to the GPL fork, or to both (by way of submitting first to the BSD branch).
Fundamentally, the problem seems to be that you can't logically have something be *both* GPL and BSD. Draw a Venn diagram. The GPL forbids free reuse in source or binary form. BSD forbids ripping out the copyright notice of the contributors.
There's no way in hell they'd share classified IMINT with Barney Fife. Nobody in the FBI, DHS or INS holds TS-SCI/TK clearance.
Even military commanders in the field get an interpretation
Indeed. Replace "military commanders" with "law enforcement agents". Any permissible evidence would have to be downgraded to the point that it was unclassified, or FOUO at the very least. Considering where the *good* IMINT comes from, it would take a very cold day in a hot place before that happened.
If law enforcement has an ax to grind with you right now, what's stopping them from shadowing you wherever you go in public? What's to stop an agent from recording video of you every time you leave your house? The only things stopping them are resources and priorities. Nothing else protects you in public. Piss somebody off badly enough, and they just might decide to stalk you. Such are the risks of being human.
Sounds like you are proposing that law enforcement should need a warrant merely to take pictures in public? Wow, now who's the fascist?
Usually I'm a huge privacy & security zealot, but the sharing of remote sensing data doesn't bother me. Here's why: Public photography is legal.
Remote sensing data (i.e. visual imagery, radar, infrared, SIGINT, gravity measurements, spectroscopy, whever else you can think of...) are the types of data that anyone can freely collect on their own however they please. How, you might ask? Walk outside. Snap a picture with the camera in your cell phone. Turn on a radio. Measure the surface temperature of a house with a thermal imaging camera. Now take all that data and share it with people. Or sell it. No problem. It's all legal, because public photography is protected.
Should it be wrong to take the same kind of measurements from a vehicle in low earth orbit? Hell no. You can jump in an airplane and take pictures of your home town, complete with interesting aerial views of your neighbor's backyard. It's legal. You can share, sell or license those pics however you like. Public photography is protected.
Upper stage RCS is capable of trimming vehicle attitude even while the first stage is present, but it's not enough to fight the first stage TVC. Despite that, first stage TVC malfunction is *not* necessarily an abort condition; the real driver is angular rates.
Suppose the TVC fails in a neutral position, you can keep flying as long as the rocket stays pointed into the wind and on course. If the first stage only has a short time left to burn, and you haven't exceeded your angular limits or gone off course, you can just hang in there until first stage sep without having to abort.
OTOH if the fist stage TVC fails hardover, angular rates will build very quickly. US-RCS can't overpower the vehicle to keep it flying straight. In this case the launch abort system fires, Orion separates rapidly, then range safety disables the malfunctioning booster.
As for S-IC, it had two-axis gimbaled outer engines and a fixed inner engine. The outer engines could move +/- 6 degrees on both axes. Loss of a single outboard F-1 was a loss of mission (LOM) condition until shortly before the the end of the first stage burn. Single outboard F-1 out was an *immediate* crew abort condition at two critical times: 1. Loss during a 10 second window around MAXQ would exceed maximum allowable dynamic pressure. The vehicle would break up before the remaining engines could compensate. 2. Losing an outboard engine immediately after liftoff could result in hitting the tower, especially if it was engine 1 or 2.
Just to compare, Ares-V's first stage RS-68 engines are currently planned to be single axis gimbaled. It's hopefully simpler, lighter, stronger and more reliable. Compared to S-IC's four gimbaled nozzles with 2 DOF each, Ares-V will have four 1 DOF nozzles (outboard RS-68's) and two 2 DOF nozzles (the solids).
Ares I uses the same thrust vectoring control (TVC) as a standard shuttle SRB: a nozzle that gimbals on two axes. Additionally, the first stage roll control system (RoCS) uses hydrazine monopropellant thrusters. The upper stage also has a gimballing nozzle as well as a 3-axis RCS.
If you consider all the engines on the Ares V first stage, it's sort of tripropellant. Solid propellant motors burning in parallel with the RS-68's initially, then the solids are jettisoned and the core vehicle continues on just LOX/LH2. The Ares V ascent profile plans for the RS-68's to throttle down to 60% through max-Q. In effect the work distribution is skewed a bit towards riding on the solids down low, and LOX/LH2 up high. I'm not entirely sure how Delta IV mediums do it, but I suppose they may throttle back a bit as well when configured with strap ons. It's a tradeoff between gravity drag and atmospheric drag.
I think Rob Carr was arguing with your claim that electromagnetic radiation with frequencies outside the visible spectrum are not photons. Radio, microwave, infrared, ultraviolet, visible, x-ray and gamma ray are *all* "photons".
If we're going to be pedantic about the narrow Greek definitions, maybe we should call it a mikrokimatagraph:p
Parent's opinion is both informative and reasonable. I've wondered myself whether In-Q-Tel had their hands in Google from the beginning. If I were Larry or Sergey, I'd have certainly approached them for venture capital back in the early days, to get started.
In law enforcement, you don't destroy private property unless (1) lives are at risk or (2) a violent criminal is liable to escape. Nobody was even home. Nobody was in danger. There was no crime in the act of being committed when the arrived. Thus, the agents should have taken a moment to enter the house professionally.
Just to follow up w/o all the vitriol... I agree with your post too, if that makes any sense.
For the most part I do believe Bush's junta are a bunch of demons. Warmongering does not sit well with me. However, I *am* a rocket scientist and from my admittedly biased point of view, the US has a very nice advantage in terms of space technology. I won't quote any objectivist bullshit here (Rand was a dumb ho anyway) but the blunt fact is, the US has a good thing going and it'd be silly to give it up.
Personally, I'd rather our military walked softly and carried a big stick, but perhaps Bush's grandstanding will incite the other guys to spend themselves into oblivion. It worked for Reagan vs. Gorbachev in the 80's, but I'm skeptical.
Slashdot Mirror
Automatix mangles Ubuntu horribly. If you want tinker with Automatix, use plain Debian.
All of the things you've installed via Automatix are also CORRECTLY available via apt, with Synaptic providing a friendly GUI.
It sounds to me like PCC appeals to the OpenBSD project because it's simple, non-optimizing, and (hopefully) completely verifiable. There's no licensing problem related to using gcc to build *BSD systems. Seems like they just want a bare-bones compiler for the sake of sanity checking.
There are plenty of other open source C compilers already, though none that are "owned" by the OpenBSD foundation: TenDRA (BSD), Pathscale (LGPL/proprietary), LCC (MIT), Tiny C (LGPL).
I haven't read TFA yet (plan to ASAP), but I wanted to mention that PCC isn't the only show in town.
TenDRA is a mature, BSD licenced compiler originally developed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in the UK. Not sure about pkgsrc, but TenDRA is in FreeBSD's ports.
As for converting an entire operating system over to a non-gcc compiler... well, it's complicated. TenDRA is useful for sanity checking but currently cannot build the FreeBSD kernel, nor even the world. Intel's proprietary icc compiler, on the other hand, can build world just fine (kernel, not so much). Forget about using icc though, if you're a commercial customer ($$$) or if you have a gnu up your butt about free software.
I'd be interested to see how PCC compares vs. TenDRA.
Looks like Walt reviewed it from the point of view of someone who completely refuses to read, think for themselves, or even lift a finger to accomplish simple tasks.
That begs the question, why would such a person need or wish to use a computer in the first place? A respirator and feeding tube might be more appropriate.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
"I fart in your general direction!"
Imagine a beowulf cluster of 200,000 elliptical galaxies. Latency between nodes could be a bit problematic...
It's been posted before, but if this sort of thing interests you, get over to Galaxy Zoo and help them classify galaxies.
I prefer fries, but if someone asks me to pass the menu, I shouldn't cross out mashed potatoes before doing so.
Yes! That's the issue exactly (well, analogously). The original software permitted either license. Jiri removed all the BSD bits, including the copyrights of the other contributors. Jiri's kernal submission is an attempt at an exclusively GPL fork. This fork is indistinguishable in name from the original BSD-licensed code. IMHO, if you're going to fork something, at least give it a different name so that you can tell the difference.
There are now, effectively, two different branches: The BSD branch, from which future changes may be freely merged to the GPL-only branch; and the potentially illicit GPL-only branch. Changes submitted directly to the GPL-only branch are doomed to be stuck there forevermore, per the restrictions of the GPL. How are developers to know which branch is which when they have the same name? Furthermore, this fork will balkanize future development, forcing developers to choose whether they wish to submit patches only to the GPL fork, or to both (by way of submitting first to the BSD branch).
Fundamentally, the problem seems to be that you can't logically have something be *both* GPL and BSD. Draw a Venn diagram. The GPL forbids free reuse in source or binary form. BSD forbids ripping out the copyright notice of the contributors.
Hmm, that's still a tough decision: would you rather have ALS and get to use a cool gadget, or, as TFA says, have AIDS and communicate normally? :p
There's no way in hell they'd share classified IMINT with Barney Fife. Nobody in the FBI, DHS or INS holds TS-SCI/TK clearance.
Even military commanders in the field get an interpretation
Indeed. Replace "military commanders" with "law enforcement agents". Any permissible evidence would have to be downgraded to the point that it was unclassified, or FOUO at the very least. Considering where the *good* IMINT comes from, it would take a very cold day in a hot place before that happened.
If law enforcement has an ax to grind with you right now, what's stopping them from shadowing you wherever you go in public? What's to stop an agent from recording video of you every time you leave your house? The only things stopping them are resources and priorities. Nothing else protects you in public. Piss somebody off badly enough, and they just might decide to stalk you. Such are the risks of being human.
Sounds like you are proposing that law enforcement should need a warrant merely to take pictures in public? Wow, now who's the fascist?
Usually I'm a huge privacy & security zealot, but the sharing of remote sensing data doesn't bother me. Here's why: Public photography is legal.
Remote sensing data (i.e. visual imagery, radar, infrared, SIGINT, gravity measurements, spectroscopy, whever else you can think of...) are the types of data that anyone can freely collect on their own however they please. How, you might ask? Walk outside. Snap a picture with the camera in your cell phone. Turn on a radio. Measure the surface temperature of a house with a thermal imaging camera. Now take all that data and share it with people. Or sell it. No problem. It's all legal, because public photography is protected.
Should it be wrong to take the same kind of measurements from a vehicle in low earth orbit? Hell no. You can jump in an airplane and take pictures of your home town, complete with interesting aerial views of your neighbor's backyard. It's legal. You can share, sell or license those pics however you like. Public photography is protected.
Upper stage RCS is capable of trimming vehicle attitude even while the first stage is present, but it's not enough to fight the first stage TVC. Despite that, first stage TVC malfunction is *not* necessarily an abort condition; the real driver is angular rates.
Suppose the TVC fails in a neutral position, you can keep flying as long as the rocket stays pointed into the wind and on course. If the first stage only has a short time left to burn, and you haven't exceeded your angular limits or gone off course, you can just hang in there until first stage sep without having to abort.
OTOH if the fist stage TVC fails hardover, angular rates will build very quickly. US-RCS can't overpower the vehicle to keep it flying straight. In this case the launch abort system fires, Orion separates rapidly, then range safety disables the malfunctioning booster.
As for S-IC, it had two-axis gimbaled outer engines and a fixed inner engine. The outer engines could move +/- 6 degrees on both axes. Loss of a single outboard F-1 was a loss of mission (LOM) condition until shortly before the the end of the first stage burn. Single outboard F-1 out was an *immediate* crew abort condition at two critical times:
1. Loss during a 10 second window around MAXQ would exceed maximum allowable dynamic pressure. The vehicle would break up before the remaining engines could compensate.
2. Losing an outboard engine immediately after liftoff could result in hitting the tower, especially if it was engine 1 or 2.
Just to compare, Ares-V's first stage RS-68 engines are currently planned to be single axis gimbaled. It's hopefully simpler, lighter, stronger and more reliable. Compared to S-IC's four gimbaled nozzles with 2 DOF each, Ares-V will have four 1 DOF nozzles (outboard RS-68's) and two 2 DOF nozzles (the solids).
That's easy enough to fix with a Firefox plugin: http://www.customizegoogle.com/
Ares I uses the same thrust vectoring control (TVC) as a standard shuttle SRB: a nozzle that gimbals on two axes. Additionally, the first stage roll control system (RoCS) uses hydrazine monopropellant thrusters. The upper stage also has a gimballing nozzle as well as a 3-axis RCS.
If you consider all the engines on the Ares V first stage, it's sort of tripropellant. Solid propellant motors burning in parallel with the RS-68's initially, then the solids are jettisoned and the core vehicle continues on just LOX/LH2. The Ares V ascent profile plans for the RS-68's to throttle down to 60% through max-Q. In effect the work distribution is skewed a bit towards riding on the solids down low, and LOX/LH2 up high. I'm not entirely sure how Delta IV mediums do it, but I suppose they may throttle back a bit as well when configured with strap ons. It's a tradeoff between gravity drag and atmospheric drag.
You are protected.
I think Rob Carr was arguing with your claim that electromagnetic radiation with frequencies outside the visible spectrum are not photons. Radio, microwave, infrared, ultraviolet, visible, x-ray and gamma ray are *all* "photons".
:p
If we're going to be pedantic about the narrow Greek definitions, maybe we should call it a mikrokimatagraph
Parent's opinion is both informative and reasonable. I've wondered myself whether In-Q-Tel had their hands in Google from the beginning. If I were Larry or Sergey, I'd have certainly approached them for venture capital back in the early days, to get started.
In all likelihood, Google is part of Echelon.
I was surprised to read that the FBI broke the window in his front door to get in. Doesn't the FBI know about lock bumping? http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/24/the-lockdown-lo cked-but-not-secure-part-i/
In law enforcement, you don't destroy private property unless (1) lives are at risk or (2) a violent criminal is liable to escape. Nobody was even home. Nobody was in danger. There was no crime in the act of being committed when the arrived. Thus, the agents should have taken a moment to enter the house professionally.
Just to follow up w/o all the vitriol... I agree with your post too, if that makes any sense.
For the most part I do believe Bush's junta are a bunch of demons. Warmongering does not sit well with me. However, I *am* a rocket scientist and from my admittedly biased point of view, the US has a very nice advantage in terms of space technology. I won't quote any objectivist bullshit here (Rand was a dumb ho anyway) but the blunt fact is, the US has a good thing going and it'd be silly to give it up.
Personally, I'd rather our military walked softly and carried a big stick, but perhaps Bush's grandstanding will incite the other guys to spend themselves into oblivion. It worked for Reagan vs. Gorbachev in the 80's, but I'm skeptical.
spending more time on thinking up space-weapons to defend their sattelites than on science
So by your logic, space technology is not science. Furthermore, since when was it a bad idea to cause one's enemies to squander their resources?