For some bloody, visceral shooting action, I'd suggest Soldat, which is very similar to Quake/Counter-Strike, except it's a 2D sidescroller. The chaos is immense, and it's easily one of the best side-scrolling 2D action games I've played. It supports multiplayer quite well, and is free (as in beer). It should run fine on your hardware, as well.
Perhaps you ought to read the article, and get a better understanding of English idiom, then. Dead on Arrival means that it's spectacularly bad, and a horrible failure. If the card didn't work at all, how would they have gotten the benchmarks, after all?
I was having similar problems with FreeBSD, regarding newer versions of ports, and portupgrade helps a lot in making this easy to handle. It's made managing things just so much easier. It's incredible, really.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's a given that Microsoft's track record in terms of standards compliance has been exceptionally poor relative to Mozilla and other similar efforts, but "MS HTML" is somewhat closer to w3c's standards at the present than they were previously.
Also, while IE is the most popular browser, it's not the only one, and a not insignificant proportion of the population uses Mozilla, Opera, and other browsers. Somewhat hypocritical of me, since I'm currently using IE on my Windows partition, as opposed to Mozilla on my FreeBSD partition, but on purely technical merits, IE isn't really the best browser, and the optimist in me is convinced that the greater portion of the online population will eventually go for the better solution. On the other hand, if they don't, why should we worry about it? The proletariat can do as they please. So long as "MS HTML" doesn't somehow become entirely proprietary, we retain the ability to access it, plus we get to view properly-rendered pages. Whee.
Don't forget, either, that Microsoft actually is a member of the w3c. Microsoft can be accused of many things, but blatantly violating one's own standards is a rather stupid thing to do.
Think about it. He's probably the most badass VG boss ever, and is actually not excessively difficult to dress up as (the hair is hard, and the sword is excessive, but his main clothing piece is a black trenchcoat... ).
Well. And my friends have agreed to covertly follow me and play "One-Winged Angel" quite loudly.
Ol' Sephy's theme music just makes everything so much better.
FreeBSD's ports system also automatically checks MD5 sums on downloaded files.
That being said, it certainly isn't inconceivable that the checksums themselves could be tampered with, but it is at the least a further layer of security.
pkg_add -r <port name> will install the latest version of the package of the specified port, if one is available.
In addition, portupgrade only recompiles packages that have a version change, and the ports in the ports library compile off of released versions of the source (i.e. version x.y,z_w), not from the CVS repositories --- if the only difference between a new release of some hideously large port (X or Mozilla, for instance; GNOME is actually a meta-port, or a collection of ports, none of which take particularly long to build, really) and the older release is a comment change, well... blame the developers, not the porters (:
In addition, especially for larger ports, most minor changes to the port (such as changing the locations of distribution files and whatnot) do not affect the PORTREVISION, so they will not be recompiled either.
Regarding portupgrade, there's no need to run it from/var/db/pkg, and it's suggested that you simply run portupgrade -ra to update everything.
This recompiles and reinstalls all ports for which the installed version is lower than that in the ports library.
You can also specify to portupgrade that it should only use packages, as well as various other options (man portupgrade for a more detailed account).
It's recommended, however, that you install and upgrade ports from source. With a properly configured/etc/make.conf, the code will be optimized specifically for your system and thus run faster, and the ports from CVS tend to be more up-to-date than corresponding packages.
I didn't mention centrifugal force because it had no relevance to debunking what the original poster stated. The original post gave a value of 'g' of 15.2 m/s^2 if the Earth rotated faster, corresponding to INCREASED gravity.
Of course, this has no grounding in fact, as gravitational force relates only to the masses of the objects in question and the distance separating them, and neither the mass of the Earth nor its radius has changed significantly enough to change the value of g to only one decimal place.
Presumably, the original poster was referencing the apparent force felt by objects on the Earth. Assuming the presumed increased centrifugal force to be significant, that would mean that g would instead be less than its current value --- the exact opposite of the larger value of g that the post gives.
Now then, if we wish to calculate the effect of centrifugal force... F_c = mv^2/r, so a_c = v^2/r, where v is the velocity, and r is the distance from the centre of the circle. v is proportional to 1/t, so using 86400 s and 84400 s, we get a change of less than 5% as a rough figure.
Now, calculating a_c, we use the Earth's rotational velocity and the radius for v and r. At the equator, these are approximately 460 m/s and 6378.1 km, respectively. Using the formula for a_c, we obtain a figure of approximately 0.03 m/s^2 at the equator, and values that decrease the further we get from the equation. A 5% change on 0.03 m/s^2 gives us less than 0.002 m/s^2, which is hardly even detectable without highly sensitive instruments!
The estimated change in centrifugal force at the equator from 100 MYA is less than 0.02% of g --- which is hardly even noticeable!
First, your figure of "100 million years" seems to have been completely fabricated. Care to back that up?
Your number for day length of 100 MYA is also rather off. Day length change is approximately 2 milliseconds per century, meaning that even 100 MYA, the day could not have been more than 2000 seconds (considerably less than 6 hours) shorter than it is currently. The actual day length was actually longer than what these quick calculations indicate, given changing rates, but your numbers are completely out of the ballpark.
In addition, your very concept of gravity seems to be off. Gravity is the attraction of two bodies with definite mass, and is equal to G_c*m_1/d^2. Rotational speed doesn't affect gravity at all -- only mass does.
Heck, you even contradict yourself, not to mention practically all scientific knowledge we have. A weaker gravitational force means a lower gravitational acceleration constant, which is rather inconsistent with your figure of 15.2 m/s^2, which is rather more than the 9.8 m/s^2 we have now!
Mmm... note that the article also mentions examples of infants placed on transparent surfaces expecting to fall, even if they themselves have had no experience of actually falling.
In addition, the astronauts in the study had not managed to fully adapt even at the end of the time period, and were also able to readapt to Earth-normal gravity rather more quickly than to the zero-g environment.
There's also an interesting analysis on LinuxToday of theKompany's tactics and how they allegedly intentionally damage Free Software. Although I wouldn't take all the accusations at face value, there's certainly something worrying about the claims.
What, I shouldn't take all the accusations at face value just because they've been debunked as being completely wrong in a reply?
200 MB is given as the capacity for the flexCD 80, which is the same size as "mini-CDs". IIRC, that's also the capacity of normal "mini-CDs".
Normal CD-ROMs are about 12 cm in diameter, corresponding to the flexCD 120 instead. Data capacity for the flexCD 120 isn't listed, but we can safely assume that it's equivilent to that of an ordinary CD-ROM.
Ah, but you see... I _don't_ use Linux. I use FreeBSD, and that trick is marked _quite_ clearly in the FreeBSD handbook in the fonts subsection of the X section.
<evangelism> I haven't had any problems with finding FreeBSD documentation, actually. Practically everything is on the FreeBSD website or one of its mailing lists, so I don't experience problems here.
On the other hand, I get to build everything from source, so I need to do everything for hours upon hours anyway! (: </evangelism>
You're continuing to misinterpret the article. The statement was that, for normal galaxies, the spiral arms trail the direction of rotation. That is, if the galaxy itself is rotating "clockwise", the spiral arms trail behind in a "counterclockwise" fashion.
However, in this case, the spiral arms lead in FRONT of the galaxy's rotation. That is, if the galaxy is rotating "clockwise", the arms stretch forward in the "clockwise" direction; if the galaxy is rotating ccw, the arms also stretch forward ccw!
The actual direction of rotation of the galaxy is irrelevant, the unexpected fact was the orientation of the spiral arms of the galaxy relative to the galaxy itself. Even in the event of an overlay, the rotation of the spiral arms in the unexpected direction could still be clearly observed.
In your given case, with two galaxies possessing "normal" behaviour, the arms on both galaxies would trail in the direction of the rotation. If they were spinning in opposite directions, then which arm belonged to which galaxy would be entirely evident through the direction in which the spiral arms were rotating.
Your objections, then, are entirely groundless.
But I suppose we can just blame the editors for the vague title.
Slashdot Mirror
For some bloody, visceral shooting action, I'd suggest Soldat, which is very similar to Quake/Counter-Strike, except it's a 2D sidescroller. The chaos is immense, and it's easily one of the best side-scrolling 2D action games I've played. It supports multiplayer quite well, and is free (as in beer). It should run fine on your hardware, as well.
Perhaps you ought to read the article, and get a better understanding of English idiom, then. Dead on Arrival means that it's spectacularly bad, and a horrible failure. If the card didn't work at all, how would they have gotten the benchmarks, after all?
I was having similar problems with FreeBSD, regarding newer versions of ports, and portupgrade helps a lot in making this easy to handle. It's made managing things just so much easier. It's incredible, really.
I don't think that's necessarily true. It's a given that Microsoft's track record in terms of standards compliance has been exceptionally poor relative to Mozilla and other similar efforts, but "MS HTML" is somewhat closer to w3c's standards at the present than they were previously.
Also, while IE is the most popular browser, it's not the only one, and a not insignificant proportion of the population uses Mozilla, Opera, and other browsers. Somewhat hypocritical of me, since I'm currently using IE on my Windows partition, as opposed to Mozilla on my FreeBSD partition, but on purely technical merits, IE isn't really the best browser, and the optimist in me is convinced that the greater portion of the online population will eventually go for the better solution. On the other hand, if they don't, why should we worry about it? The proletariat can do as they please. So long as "MS HTML" doesn't somehow become entirely proprietary, we retain the ability to access it, plus we get to view properly-rendered pages. Whee.
Don't forget, either, that Microsoft actually is a member of the w3c. Microsoft can be accused of many things, but blatantly violating one's own standards is a rather stupid thing to do.
Sephiroth.
Think about it. He's probably the most badass VG boss ever, and is actually not excessively difficult to dress up as (the hair is hard, and the sword is excessive, but his main clothing piece is a black trenchcoat... ).
Well. And my friends have agreed to covertly follow me and play "One-Winged Angel" quite loudly.
Ol' Sephy's theme music just makes everything so much better.
*evil laughter*
FreeBSD's ports system also automatically checks MD5 sums on downloaded files.
That being said, it certainly isn't inconceivable that the checksums themselves could be tampered with, but it is at the least a further layer of security.
Actually, the reason there were only x comments on the first story was because it wasn't posted on the front page, only in the science section.
Of course... it just has to be a sufficiently long line of JS.
Given that it's in response to UID 3443, I don't exactly see your point.
OpenOffice actually does this (on Windows, anyway... the FreeBSD port is broken at the moment, and I don't use Linux).
The appropriate scroll arrow(s) is/are marked as "disabled" when one has scrolled to the maximum extent in one or more directions.
So...
$20/month * 12 months/year = $240/year
$15/month * 12 months/year + $40/year = $220/year
I'm sure Salon would be more than happy to cut you a pricing deal that makes you pay an extra $20/year.
pkg_add -r <port name> will install the latest version of the package of the specified port, if one is available.
In addition, portupgrade only recompiles packages that have a version change, and the ports in the ports library compile off of released versions of the source (i.e. version x.y,z_w), not from the CVS repositories --- if the only difference between a new release of some hideously large port (X or Mozilla, for instance; GNOME is actually a meta-port, or a collection of ports, none of which take particularly long to build, really) and the older release is a comment change, well... blame the developers, not the porters (:
In addition, especially for larger ports, most minor changes to the port (such as changing the locations of distribution files and whatnot) do not affect the PORTREVISION, so they will not be recompiled either.
Regarding portupgrade, there's no need to run it from /var/db/pkg, and it's suggested that you simply run portupgrade -ra to update everything.
/etc/make.conf, the code will be optimized specifically for your system and thus run faster, and the ports from CVS tend to be more up-to-date than corresponding packages.
This recompiles and reinstalls all ports for which the installed version is lower than that in the ports library.
You can also specify to portupgrade that it should only use packages, as well as various other options (man portupgrade for a more detailed account).
It's recommended, however, that you install and upgrade ports from source. With a properly configured
I didn't mention centrifugal force because it had no relevance to debunking what the original poster stated. The original post gave a value of 'g' of 15.2 m/s^2 if the Earth rotated faster, corresponding to INCREASED gravity.
Of course, this has no grounding in fact, as gravitational force relates only to the masses of the objects in question and the distance separating them, and neither the mass of the Earth nor its radius has changed significantly enough to change the value of g to only one decimal place.
Presumably, the original poster was referencing the apparent force felt by objects on the Earth. Assuming the presumed increased centrifugal force to be significant, that would mean that g would instead be less than its current value --- the exact opposite of the larger value of g that the post gives.
Now then, if we wish to calculate the effect of centrifugal force... F_c = mv^2/r, so a_c = v^2/r, where v is the velocity, and r is the distance from the centre of the circle. v is proportional to 1/t, so using 86400 s and 84400 s, we get a change of less than 5% as a rough figure.
Now, calculating a_c, we use the Earth's rotational velocity and the radius for v and r. At the equator, these are approximately 460 m/s and 6378.1 km, respectively. Using the formula for a_c, we obtain a figure of approximately 0.03 m/s^2 at the equator, and values that decrease the further we get from the equation. A 5% change on 0.03 m/s^2 gives us less than 0.002 m/s^2, which is hardly even detectable without highly sensitive instruments!
The estimated change in centrifugal force at the equator from 100 MYA is less than 0.02% of g --- which is hardly even noticeable!
Indeed, what a ridiculous post.
First, your figure of "100 million years" seems to have been completely fabricated. Care to back that up?
Your number for day length of 100 MYA is also rather off. Day length change is approximately 2 milliseconds per century, meaning that even 100 MYA, the day could not have been more than 2000 seconds (considerably less than 6 hours) shorter than it is currently. The actual day length was actually longer than what these quick calculations indicate, given changing rates, but your numbers are completely out of the ballpark.
In addition, your very concept of gravity seems to be off. Gravity is the attraction of two bodies with definite mass, and is equal to G_c*m_1/d^2. Rotational speed doesn't affect gravity at all -- only mass does.
Heck, you even contradict yourself, not to mention practically all scientific knowledge we have. A weaker gravitational force means a lower gravitational acceleration constant, which is rather inconsistent with your figure of 15.2 m/s^2, which is rather more than the 9.8 m/s^2 we have now!
Mmm... note that the article also mentions examples of infants placed on transparent surfaces expecting to fall, even if they themselves have had no experience of actually falling.
In addition, the astronauts in the study had not managed to fully adapt even at the end of the time period, and were also able to readapt to Earth-normal gravity rather more quickly than to the zero-g environment.
There's also an interesting analysis on LinuxToday of theKompany's tactics and how they allegedly intentionally damage Free Software. Although I wouldn't take all the accusations at face value, there's certainly something worrying about the claims.
What, I shouldn't take all the accusations at face value just because they've been debunked as being completely wrong in a reply?
Such skeptics we have here... tsk tsk.
200 MB is given as the capacity for the flexCD 80, which is the same size as "mini-CDs". IIRC, that's also the capacity of normal "mini-CDs".
Normal CD-ROMs are about 12 cm in diameter, corresponding to the flexCD 120 instead. Data capacity for the flexCD 120 isn't listed, but we can safely assume that it's equivilent to that of an ordinary CD-ROM.
The article claims that the probability of impact is 0.001
The site, however, gives an impact probability of 1.0e-5, which is 0.00001.
I take it someone failed to read the article carefully before submitting.
You seem to be rather mistaken.
The Xft hack is for X, not GNOME.
Ah, but you see... I _don't_ use Linux. I use FreeBSD, and that trick is marked _quite_ clearly in the FreeBSD handbook in the fonts subsection of the X section.
<evangelism>
I haven't had any problems with finding FreeBSD documentation, actually. Practically everything is on the FreeBSD website or one of its mailing lists, so I don't experience problems here.
On the other hand, I get to build everything from source, so I need to do everything for hours upon hours anyway! (:
</evangelism>
XFree86 4 supports sub-pixel anti-aliasing (aka ClearType). You just need to put match edit rgba=rgb; in XftConfig.
Check the icon. The story is marked as 'space', not 'science'. You'll want to turn that category on as well if you want to see stories as this.
Off-topic, I know, but oh well.
Is that counting the "*BSD is dying trolls", or not? (:
You're continuing to misinterpret the article. The statement was that, for normal galaxies, the spiral arms trail the direction of rotation. That is, if the galaxy itself is rotating "clockwise", the spiral arms trail behind in a "counterclockwise" fashion.
However, in this case, the spiral arms lead in FRONT of the galaxy's rotation. That is, if the galaxy is rotating "clockwise", the arms stretch forward in the "clockwise" direction; if the galaxy is rotating ccw, the arms also stretch forward ccw!
The actual direction of rotation of the galaxy is irrelevant, the unexpected fact was the orientation of the spiral arms of the galaxy relative to the galaxy itself. Even in the event of an overlay, the rotation of the spiral arms in the unexpected direction could still be clearly observed.
In your given case, with two galaxies possessing "normal" behaviour, the arms on both galaxies would trail in the direction of the rotation. If they were spinning in opposite directions, then which arm belonged to which galaxy would be entirely evident through the direction in which the spiral arms were rotating.
Your objections, then, are entirely groundless.
But I suppose we can just blame the editors for the vague title.