Debian already runs on OLPC, and Debian also already runs on ARM. Porting Debian to an ARM-based OLPC would be routine. Within a few months of the appearance of an ARM-based OLPC it would have official Debian support, with most of the tens of thousands of Debian packages supported.
As to closed-source OLPC software (if there is any): eh.
I doubt that there is a sharp boundary above which they can see everything clearly and below which all is invisible. More likely 10cm is the limit above which they are confident that they have detected and cataloged pretty much everything while below that things get increasingly iffy the smaller you go.
> It *will* happen, eventually. That satellite that was impacted recently had a lot > smaller cross-section than ISS does. I'm actually rather surprised that the ISS hasn't > been holed by something smaller yet.
The Air Force has neither the resources nor the mandate to precisely track and plot every object that has any significant chance of hitting any satellite but they do so for anything that looks like it might hit the ISS. They publish approximate orbital elements for everything over 4".
Each piece of junk is in a different orbit. Moving it all to one or a few orbits would require as much or more energy than launching the same amount of mass from Earth.
The chunks of debris would punch right through your gell, possibly blowing it to bits but losing very little energy. It would also be so small that you'd have burn up vast amounts of fuel moving it from one intercept orbit to another.
> God damn I hate it when English majors try to do physics.
Mr. Hollopeter, who proposed the water idea, is an aerospace engineer. I suspect that he knows a lot more physics than you do. And his idea does not involve "spraying water at satellites" or stopping anything dead in its tracks.
> What is the appropriate answer to the question "Does this dress make > me look fat?"?
"I can't possibly give a useful answer to that because to me you are so beautiful that you look good in anything. You'll have to ask someone who is not in love with you."
> It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out.
Of course there is. You can block all Google and DoubleClick cookies (search and news work fine with cookies blocked), or just stay away from Google altogether. Nothing requires you to use any Google services. You do so entirely for your own convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
Debian already runs on OLPC, and Debian also already runs on ARM. Porting Debian to an ARM-based OLPC would be routine. Within a few months of the appearance of an ARM-based OLPC it would have official Debian support, with most of the tens of thousands of Debian packages supported.
As to closed-source OLPC software (if there is any): eh.
> ...vendor...
Where did "vendors" come into this?
And Debian already has tens of thousands of packages running on ARM, as well as ten other architectures. An ARM-based OLPC would be a routine port.
> 2009 - the year the Linux world embraces 64bit.
ROFL. Debian has had at least one fully-supported 64 bit port since 1998.
I doubt that there is a sharp boundary above which they can see everything clearly and below which all is invisible. More likely 10cm is the limit above which they are confident that they have detected and cataloged pretty much everything while below that things get increasingly iffy the smaller you go.
> It *will* happen, eventually. That satellite that was impacted recently had a lot
> smaller cross-section than ISS does. I'm actually rather surprised that the ISS hasn't
> been holed by something smaller yet.
The Air Force has neither the resources nor the mandate to precisely track and plot every object that has any significant chance of hitting any satellite but they do so for anything that looks like it might hit the ISS. They publish approximate orbital elements for everything over 4".
You block all there cookies and all their ads. Trivial. Which is why claiming Google is doing something evil is nonsense.
It is not actionable if the clicker does not expect to profit by it.
Cleaning up all the junk in orbit suddenly becomes an "action item". But the Soyuz is a much smaller, much sturdier target.
That may very well be fair use (in the USA).
Both are limited by internal resistance. If it can discharge fast it can charge fast.
Each piece of junk is in a different orbit. Moving it all to one or a few orbits would require as much or more energy than launching the same amount of mass from Earth.
It does become ice. The ice promptly sublimates.
The chunks of debris would punch right through your gell, possibly blowing it to bits but losing very little energy. It would also be so small that you'd have burn up vast amounts of fuel moving it from one intercept orbit to another.
> God damn I hate it when English majors try to do physics.
Mr. Hollopeter, who proposed the water idea, is an aerospace engineer. I suspect that he knows a lot more physics than you do. And his idea does not involve "spraying water at satellites" or stopping anything dead in its tracks.
> What is the appropriate answer to the question "Does this dress make
> me look fat?"?
"I can't possibly give a useful answer to that because to me you are so beautiful that you look good in anything. You'll have to ask someone who is not in love with you."
You might want to Google the word "hyperbole".
Oh. Wait...
Maybe Altavista?
The problem with this theory in my case is that I block all ads and almost all cookies (including those from Google and DoubleClick).
> I think that puts them in direct competition with the US Government, no?
No. You can *ignore* Google should you so choose.
I would consider doing that as well, but there is one problem: I have never seen an ad I care about.
This "you" you speak of is a remarkably weak person. Might it be yourself?
> Except even if you opt out, Google just got that better at targeting you with ads.
No. I "opt out" by blocking all their cookies: they know nothing about me. And even if they "target" me with ads I never see them due to Privoxy.
> Call me a thief...
Why would anyone do that? You are doing nothing either illegal or immoral, and certainly not stealing anything.
> I doubt you have data to back up that only one in one billion cookies is useful.
I duuno. Considering that there are at least 100 million sites and many try to send me thousands of cookies...
> The remaining question for users is: Has someone yet developed a plugin to block google
> ads entirely?
Privoxy works for me. Blocks all ads, not just Google ones.
Why don't you just block DoubleClick cookies?
> It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out.
Of course there is. You can block all Google and DoubleClick cookies (search and news work fine with cookies blocked), or just stay away from Google altogether. Nothing requires you to use any Google services. You do so entirely for your own convenience.