Re:And people wonder why there's a market for Wind
on
Zack Brown Taking a Break
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most Linux admins don't read the linux-kernel archives.
I did. Specifically because I didn't want to subscribe to the lklm mailing list. I'm not a kernel developer, so there was no need for me to keep up with every person kicking in their $0.02 on some obscure issue. BUT I really appreciated the summaries because Zack gave a quick blurb of what was going on over there in kernelland. It allowed me to gauge matters like "when to move to a new kernel?". Or if there was a problem with a kernel feature, whether it was SATA, SCSI, or whatever.
Kerneltrap is a poor substitute. I will miss the summaries.
Its not over a year. Its been since November of last year.
But I can't really understand why its being posted here *now*. As other people mentioned, he put up his hiatus notice at least two weeks ago, after not having updated the website for 3 months. Apparently, no reader or Slashdot editor depends on Kernel Traffic summaries much. So, why is it news here?
First, Windows is no piece of cake. It has driver issues, driver issues, driver issues [...] At least with OSS, you have a fighting chance.
Next thing you'll tell me is my 75 year old mother and my sister should download and install gentoo, and that will give them the tools to address all their compatibility/configuration problems. (Can anyone else understand my exasperation with this idiot?)
she wants Linux back, because, I quote, "Linux is, umm.. more reliable, and easier, and I didn't ever have to reinstall stuff
Yippee, there's hope for one computer user on Earth. Are you one of these freaking math theory geeks that think if ONE instance can be proven, you can prove that for all instances on this planet???
I close with a repetition of the last sentences of my previous post.
The best avenue for desktop adoption is a commercial Linux distribution getting the clue, and producing that magic interface that works on all varieties of PC devices, and doesn't require user intervention or configuration.
Until then, stop fucking the skull of this dead horse.
Back in my days of my naive youth (1999-2000), I had my hopes that Linux would eventually overtake Windoze on the desktop. It was "almost" there.
But hobbyists are not the people who are going to do, "Hey, let me drop work on this neat feature that really interests me, that doesn't exist anywhere else, and instead work to dumb down the desktop interface in a manner that would be conducive to stupid users, and write my own device driver for X that the manufacturer is too cheap to do themselves." AND have it work for multiple versions of kernels/distributions. Which only goes to show, that even Linux zealots are fucking idiots that can't see the obvious when its staring them in their faces. So go to OSX or Jesus, and find more fertile environments to spread your religious ideology.
My hope was with the commercial distributors like Red Hat and SuSE. After all, they actually HAD a stake in getting Linux adopted on machines. They should see if they hired X developers to work on the interface, and determine a set of drivers to write around, EVENTUALLY they would produce a desktop that any USER would feel relatively comfortable working with.
But then, at some point, Red Hat said "There were a server software company, and they weren't going to invest money to improve the desktop for users". The funny thing is within a year they did a 180 on that message, after all the corporate businesses started yelling at them because THEY wanted to replace Windoze on the desktop, and they didn't NEED the desktop to be Windoze compatible; only useful enough for their company work environments. But the writing was on the wall; these corporate developers did not have the vision to see where they could be if they did x, y, & z. At that point, I just lost hope, and accepted the fact that I could enjoy linux, but I wouldn't be seeing it compete with Windoze or OSX anytime in the future.
Until you zealous assholes realize that Linux cannot possibly get traction on the desktop until USERS can pop in a disk, and have every MAJOR, DESIRABLE feature be available to them WITHOUT configuring a damn thing, Linux is not going to challenge Microsoft any time soon. That means a DISTRIBUTION is going to have every device driver for every device manufactured for PC computers on Earth, and will be able to recognize it, and have it operable within any machine, without a single config file to tweak. This exists for Microsoft because every manufacturer makes damn sure they have a device driver CONFIGURED to Microsoft's specifications for anything they produce. When you convert the world to an autocratic dictatorship, and can shoot people for using Microsoft, then you can go talk about making manufacturers develop device drivers for Linux, for all their kernel versions, for its multitude of distributions, and work in every situation, etc. etc. Until then, realize this Linux utopia is not coming about anytime soon.
Microsoft will never make the error of pricing themselves out of the market. I cannot hand off to my Mother or my siblings a linux box, and expect them to be able to cope with basic usage with my direct intervention. I can repair/reinstall their XP systems once every year to two years, and even that odious task ends up being less work than providing Linux user support for them.
The best avenue for desktop adoption is a commercial Linux distribution getting the clue, and producing that magic interface that works on all varieties of PC devices, and doesn't require user intervention or configuration. Until then, stop fucking the skull of this dead horse.
The most useful engineering investment would be for a space elevator. Its within technological reach, similar to the way a manned moon mission was in reach back in the '50's. Who gives a damn if it doesn't pay off after its operational? Neither did the World Trade Center Towers until the '90's.
Oh, and if I had a few dollars left for human sciences, but not to establish a moonbase or mars mission, I'd spend it on a sealed biodome, whether it be in the artic, sahara, or a mile underground. That would at least advance our understanding of a sustained ecological environment which would be needed for permanent space settlement. More dollars would be spent on robotic exploration of the moon purely for exploitable resources, whether its raw ore or H3. Once you can establish an economic rationale for extraterrestrial ventures, the big private corporations will invest the dollars to make a profit.
But the ISS, an new shuttle, or a new moon landing is merely a wasteful stunt. It does not advance science or space exploration. My suggestions would be more productive.
Make up your mind! Just by having humans there, we will make all kinds of informational discoveries which seem useless at the time, but which will lead to significant progress (of some kind.)
My mind is made up. My statements were direct responses to arguments. What I believe is significantly more nuanced than what I've said.
Simply put, I am heavily in favor of space science investment. The question is what to do when the American people are not willing to pony up the extra cent to pay for it all, or think it would be better spent on an interstate highway that doesn't connect major population centers resulting in significant economic benefit. In which case, the priority is to keep as much of the space probes and non-manned research that has perceived value.
I am an incredibly harsh critic of the shuttle and ISS, not because I am against manned exploration endeavors. Its because the shuttle and ISS are the biggest con jobs perpetrated on the American taxpayer. They expended 90% of the NASA budget, and they are useless in establishing a sustained human presence in space. There was almost nothing new learned on the ISS that wasn't learned on Skylab or Mir. The Shuttle can't go anywhere except LEO. It is a freaking engineering marvel, but its not the gov't job to produce useless Lambourghinis that do neat things.
To defend the shuttle and the ISS and try to keep in existence programs that do not produce useful science but steal money away from more productive ventures and hamper private enterprise HARMS overall space science, not enhances it!
Normally I would look positively at GWBs announced initiatives, and be more than happy to nuke the shuttle and ISS, but the problem is that it has come from a proven liar, or a man too stupid to distinguish science from theocracy. I think GWBs initiatives are bullshit, because America does not have the money to embark on that kind of endeavor, particularly since it can't afford its occupation expenses in Iraq. Its a BS line meant to look "visionary", while using it as an excuse to gut NASA. In a few years, its going to be screamingly apparent we won't have the money to establish a sustained presence on the moon, and whatever programs toward that end will die. Bush won't care, he'll be out of office at that point. The problem is whether the space sciences part of NASA will be gutted as well. Indications appear that it will.
If I'm gonna put taxdollars into NASA, I want it to do useful things like Hubble and space probes. Not scrap Hubble and the space probes in favor of keeping the ISS running for a few more years. Its called prioritization.
Even worse a substantial percentage of Americans still think that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
Oddly, I don't find this upsetting. Its much more disturbing to see four years ago, your local nimrod foaming at the mouth at how Iraq has WMD, and we got to invade them. Then to see them two years later looking at you as if you're mistaken; "We invaded Iraq was because Saddam was a bad man, and our national mission in life is to liberate oppressed people with oil fields." It is damn more unnerving to see that. And trust me, there are a legion of nimrods in this country. Some of them even serve in the US military. At least one general has spoken in public about how we are crusading against the raghead infidels.
Hunker down, make as much money as you can, don't speak up or assert your rights. If your real quiet they might leave you alone.
That's what my mother, the immigrant says. It kills me to think her life experiences in a police state pretty much is the best basis of fact. Myself, I am too infected with American culture. I keep thinking I have a duty to speak out and the 2nd amendment gives me the implied right to shoot at violators of the US Constitution. Haven't determined if there are targets that would make it worthwhile.
1) UN law is a myth. Law only has weight if it is enforceable. The agreement is only an understanding between nations and political sideshow. The UN cannot enforce anything without the big 5 in the security council willing to flex its muscle. That is why the US, Britain, (and a few token forces) are in Iraq "illegally". That is why Cargill can murder a hundred mineworking strikers with impunity. As soon as there are economically extractable energy sources located at the poles, there is going to be a radically changed revision of the Antartica treaties. The UN is merely a meeting place and public forum for nations. If you want to pretend differently, fine, be a child.
2)
Exploring a few hundred meters with very limited tools is what I call a waste of money.
That is why I consider you to be scientifically illiterate. Granted, I do not know enough about the research to determine if we got a good return on our dollar, but I could write a book on all sorts of informational discoveries which seemed useless at that time, that led to significant scientific and engineering progress. Its more than pushing a couple of rocks. The information is extrapolated and used to develop new questions and theories.
3)
how much has Sony spent to develop PS3 ?... over how many years ?
Sony is not an American run corporation. They are capable of investing multiple financial quarters in the belief it will pay off. But they are so freaking rich, they could afford to invest years in a game console that probably was a few million USD total. I do not believe a space program needs to show a profit within a quarter; I merely say that to illustrate the cost/benefit mentality of the typical publicly held corporation. They do not embark on decade-long projects to get a payoff. I am sorry if you're too intellectually limited to understand that.
4)
so you want to tell me that NASA (or ESA, or other state agencies) should continue to do what they do now ?
Hell no. I consider most of NASA a jobs program at this point. NASA actively retards the ability of private enterprise in space, much like food donation to Africa. I'm not as critical of the ESA, because I believe it came about because its members are too poor individually to embark on space programs. I am not aware of the ESA hampering commercial space ventures.
Wasting money on trying to find out if the universe is 13 or 14 billion years old instead of motivating the private rocket builders...
Again, this is why I consider you to be too stupid and uninformed to bother participating in these discussions. Its not about figuring the precise age of the universe, its about finding ways to confirm theories of our phyiscal universe, and use those new understandings to apply it to engineering problems and issues such as climatology here. You can't do that if can't confirm theories to the point where you can be confident about investment based on new understandings. Whether its cost effective research, that is a whole different ball of wax.
5) The whole freaking point of deorbiting Hubble was that there was a limited time window to commit to keeping the Hubble operational. Whether going back to Earth telescopes (and their limitations) is a better way to go, is a matter of conjecture.
Most of the costs came not from building the telescope, but from putting it into orbit and keeping it there.
No, most of the costs come from paying the scientist salaries that use it. As for cost of building the telescope, you still have to recreate a whole program to reengineer a new telescope, and pay to launch it into orbit. It still ends up cheaper to send a refurb mission every 5-10 years, rather than recreate a program, and launch a new telescope every 5-10 years.
China had just came through years and years war, including civil war, so to me it seems pretty obvious that would have had an experienced army available and ready to go.
Oh no, they had an ideally trained army to respond to "UN aggression". But supply was such a joke, they sent combatants that did not even have firearms or sufficient ammo. They picked them up from their fallen comrades during an offensive. It was the US that pioneered the modern logistics that has only 10% of its forces actually fighting. (Back then, it was probably more like 30%) The US still had the air and sealift left over from WWII. The Chinese, by contrast, were quite regional and inexpert in its logistic scope. Given the Korean terrain, supply lines were limited to choke points that could have readily been blown out of existence or interdicted. If the US put in a sustained effort, I doubt the Chinese could have kept its army armed and fed (South of the Yalu).
Another thing about the Chinese, what they sent to Korea was merely a "token" force, compared to what they were capable of mobilizing. That's what had the US military planners so intimidated. They didn't want to experience WWII level casualties like the Eastern Campaign during WWII. Back then, the US actually tried to plan for possible consequences, unlike in Iraq today.
I also agree it is difficult to predict the future, but historically military aggression generally earns a forceful response.
And for the record, I refer to US or UN aggression sardonically. As far as I'm concerned, it was N. Korea that started it, and the Chinese commenced war against UN forces (under a preemptive rationale). I don't have any problem with military aggression or forceful responses; only when the players aren't prepared for the consequences of their actions (general cluelessness).
If you can control what people know, you control what they beleive, and thus how they act. Right to the point where they're not even aware that they're being played.
The Iraq Invasion is a wonderful demonstration of the US Ministry of Truth. There are people in the US currently running around thinking the US invaded Iraq to "liberate" the people, not go after WMD which wasn't there.
You 1st worlders can't see it firsthand, it is so scary to watch.
I find it surprising just how far off reality the intelligence community can be. I am not sure why this is. So much money is spent, yet the best answers they can come up with are still so often just plain wrong.
What do you mean "far off reality"? Two week before the Chinese attack, that WAS the reality.
Yes, it was an incorrect prediction from supposedly competent analysts, but that's why its called prognostication, not future fact. (I'd have to research the document myself to determine if it was a poor analysis.) The Chicom gov't had only been in power for a few years, and military campaigns still need logistics to mount sustained campaigns. There wasn't any minimally informed reason to think the Chinese were going to intervene in Korea AGAINST the frigging US military machine. Any border activity could be explained by reinforcing defenses against the imminent arrival of UN troops.
I still don't really understand why the US didn't roll up the Chinese counterattack. I understand part of the reason was that Truman was too scared to hit China where it hurt. But the facts on the ground was that the UN forces had tons of artillery (and good logistics) and could have just wiped out hill after hill until there were no more Chinese
"volunteers". You can only survive that kind of onslaught with "prepared" defenses, not what the Chinese had. Blow up the bridges on the Yalu, the Chinese can't supply its forces. China didn't have (operable) nukes at that time. The only reason I can guess is that like Vietnam, the US didn't want to commit more money and blood to "liberate" Korea, and that the HUMINT was SO poor, they found it impossible to determine the extent of the Chinese commitment.
While I love cryptome, they are no guarantee there will be a repository of information that is reclassified. It only takes a warrant from OHS to remove the documents. If not a warrant, then a black ops hacker, or even a wet team.
Well, yah. They're not sure when they'll get the Shuttle back up and running. Thus, the date (y'know, that little header at the top) is under review.
Call me a conspiracist, but I suspect there are more problems than just getting a launch date for the Shuttle. When the ISS was originally planned, they were counting on a lot more Shuttle launches per year than what will be available when the Shuttle launches resume. (2 launches a year is reasonable, right?) Somebody deep in the bowels of NASA must have been cranking out the calculator figuring out how much of the ISS labs can be lifted with other rockets, because there will be a limited number of trips that the Shuttle will be able to do it. Yeah, just dedicate the Shuttle to ISS components, but that means other payloads that pay NASA money will be lost. Its going to be messier than it appears.
Sure they could. But who's gonna attach them?
Mission specialists that came up on Soyuz and (potentially) Arianne rockets.
You seem to be fixated on the garbage.
I was under the impression that the garbage problem was why ISS was practically shutdown. The Shuttle was the "only" way to move garbage off the ISS back to Earth. The situation was analogous to a organism not being able to take a dump; it would eventually kill it. You can't toss it out the airlock, because it becomes orbital debris (although who cares about a few hundred plastic MRE trays). The sci-literate understand why you can't shoot it at the sun or the moon.
Otherwise, some ISS component could have been launched off a Russian rocket, and a crew in a separate rocket could have be sent the following launch cycle to attach it. My understanding of why the ISS was limited to two people was the garbage problem, or else we could have had a third ISS crewmember doing the useful microgravity experiments you talk about. (The other two was needed to keep the ISS running.)
Hmmm, the Russians used Progress to dump Mir trash? Dayam, I'm either a chump, or some aspect of the ISS trash needed the Shuttle to handle. Its gonna make me sick to think the only reason a third crewmember wasn't on ISS was that the US/ESA didn't want to pay to put him up there...
In any case, my vision for the ISS would be that it would be complete, heavily funded by entities other than the US, and supplied by rockets which would allow the Shuttle to be decommissioned. Some silly reason (other than module payload) seemed to require a working Shuttle.
Why keep sending toys to LEO, or to Pluto for that matter, when an important part of the cost is the fee for the ride, while the same money could be spent to develop cheaper launch systems and get better toys there later, at a fraction of the cost. Are the fake color images the Hubble sends back so important ? My guess is that cheaper lifts for telecom or weather satellites would be much more useful. I don't see why discovering that Titan is a confusing world and resembles Earth but it's nor really the same is important, while you cannot send there gear that would send back more that foggy pictures and very a approximate atmosphere composition ? Why keep the Mars rowers rolling on Mars, when the same money and the same people could develop and test robotic rovers on the hills nearby or on the Moon? NASA and USA needed to prove that they can do this ?
Collecting scientific data from other planets is valuable because what is discovered there can be applied to what happens on Earth. Environmental science is really in its nascient stages. Obtaining data from other planets allows us to discover aspects of climatology, atmospheric composition, etc. that we cannot recreate here, and then use that data to more accurately understand how our planetary environmental systems work. The rovers are used to discover new geologic information about Mars, and bump into anything of interest that we weren't currently aware of that we may want to check out in a future Mars mission. It is information that cannot be obtained with a telescope.
As for Hubble, its the only telescope that is working beyond the Earth's atmosphere. It currently is the only source of unique data which then can be extrapolated. That will still be the case even when JWST goes up, because JWST is optimized for different wavelengths. Granted, there are telescopes on Earth that may be collecting imagery just as useful as Hubble. Astronomy will not fall apart with the shutdown of the Hubble. But Hubble is unique, and can only point to one part of the universe (or solar system) at a time. It will be fully booked for use even after the JWST goes online.
Think of space sciences a a giant territory of gold mines of information. You can't get to it without surveying it. Worse, some valuables are only available in a limited time window. If you can't point a Hubble at it, that information is lost indefinitely. The compelling aspect of a Pluto probe is that it is closest to the Sun in its 119(?) year orbit. If we do it now, it will be the shortest wait (10 years?) to get there. There is no way to put fuel on a Pluto probe and blast it to Pluto and expect it to get there at a reasonable interval. Such a probe relies on planets like Jupiter, Saturn, & Uranus to give it an acceleration boost from is gravitation. Its like the probe will have to rely on "trade winds" in order to get to Pluto at a reasonable time. If we wait over 10 years from optimal launch window, it may be another 40 years before the planets will be in the right place to try to use them again.
Why not instead just open the Moon for commercial exploitation
Because a corporation would have to build the equivalent of a space program in order to even check out what is exploitable on the Moon. It is currently way too costly for any company to attempt in one fiscal quarter. That is what governments are for. To suck taxpayer dollars to do research no company would attempt.
Why not announce that from 2010 NASA will buy rides from those that were able to launch heavy objects to LEO or GEO a couple of times on their own expenses and stop launching it's own vehicles.
I am SO in favor of nuking most of NASA to do this. Actually, NASA does this now, paying to hitch rides off of other nations rocke
The problems with hubble are mostly political.
Regardless of the actual chance of something going wrong, all that congress cares about is that if they send a shuttle to Hubble and something breaks,
I don't think politics is the biggest deal in this case. There never was a crew survival/recovery plan for the shuttle if there was a mishap on a Hubble mission, and there have been already two missions completed under those conditions. All they need to do is require astronaut participants to volunteer for the mission, and I'm pretty certain they'd easily be able to field a full crew. Then they get the media to hype at how its such an incredibly dangerous mission, they would only launch a crew of volunteers. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a sucessful mission, and NASA and the crew look like heroes. Hell, we send hundreds of people into coal mines and ocean platforms every day, and we don't seem to agonize whether they may die in a mishap.
The problem is the Bush administration committed to an Iraq invasion, and botched the occupation. The costs for Iraq are going to skyrocket into the trillions, and the US taxpayer is going to hold the bag. Bushco scrambling for money is partly the reason why the levee renovation wasn't completed in NO. The aerospace industry wants another white elephant project like a mission to Mars or a moonbase. Iraq is sucking the available tax dollars for pork. The problem with Hubble is that its not an incredible tax hole, and only astronomers want to keep the thing operational. Bushco is going to LOOT NASA into nonexistence. Forget the CEV, moon missions, and Mars. Its just a big bullshit line Bush yammered about last year to look like a "visionary" president, and screw around with the NASA budget. Science missions, Hubble, ISS? Strip their budget dollars; it now has to go to McDonnell/Douglass (or whomever) to put into the "Mars mission". When the US economy crashes, they'll just kill those flashy new programs, and Bush will be out of office at that point.
If you send a shuttle up to ISS and something goes wrong, the crew can stay in ISS and use ISS as a base to make repairs
Am I the only one who sees what a retarded rationalization that is? Shuttle missions to the ISS are not significantly safer missions. Just because there are options if there is a problem with the Shuttle, its not like the Shuttle has significantly better likelihood of a sucessful mission. The ISS wouldn't have helped in either of the previous Shuttle disasters.
2) The ISS is not going to be completed. It costs too much for too little science. The USSR was supposed to defray costs, not abandon their fiscal support. Everyone else sees they would be pumping in a lot of money into the ISS infrastructure that expects the US to help finance. And here we are talking about decommissioning the shuttle program with only two working shuttles to 2010, and no certain replacement. The scientific potential of the ISS is extremely minimal for significant cost, and its not going to be much help for the "return to the moon" or "mission to Mars" programs the US, Russia, and China are suddenly talking about. The writing is on the wall. ISS costs are not sustainable. Its going to be abandoned.
3) Even if they wanted to complete the ISS, the payloads could be delivered with rockets. On the other hand, for some reason, garbage disposal seems to be a big deal, and the only thing the garbage scow Endeavor and Intrepid seem to be important for the ISS. I'm surprised the ISS partners aren't designing payload delivery systems to move the garbage back to Earth. If they were, I'd more readily believe the ISS was a viable program.
1) The JWST is not set to launch until 2013. Without maintenance, the Hubble dies in 2008. A lot of budget cuts can occur between then. Why not keep whats up there still working?
2) The JWST has a different ocular design than the Hubble. Even though arguably that the JWST is more valuable to cutting edge space scientists and cosmologists, there are images the JWST will not be able to get with the quality of the Hubble.
3) The Mars robots were only supposed to last 6 months. Two years later, they are still chugging around, presumably doing useful information collecting for geologists, etc. The point is why junk something that is unique and useful (and would still be in demand if and when the JWST goes online) so that the money can be used to porkbarrel some useless move by a disgraced politician?
4) Upgrading Hubble will not break the USG budget. Just cover the 0.02 cost. Kill the bridge funding to that island in Alaska. Build one less interstate. Hubble represents something that nearly doesn't exist in NASA. A productive scientific venture. Most everything else is a makework program for the shuttle or the ISS. The ISS basically floats in LEO, holds 2 techs who have nearly no time to run scientific experiments of any significance.
but what is it going to do to NASA's ability to launch missions if it only has two shuttles?
Nothing. At this point, having three shuttles probably merely just increases the risks of cutting corners in order to meet launch schedules. Face it, the only significant mission of the US space shuttle program is the same as the TV show Quark; haul garbage from the ISS. To paraphrase a the quote made at the K7 bar in "Trouble with Tribbles". "The Space Shuttle should not be hauling garbage, it should be hauled AS garbage". I will take that back if NASA actually implements a mission to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. (Me bitter? What makes you think that...?)
The strategy is a little more sophisticated than you appear to believe. Currently, the bottom line is Microsoft loses money on the hardware. Every time they sell Xbox 360, they take a loss. They recoup the loss when Xbox owners buy their game software.
Microsoft cannot afford a casual game buyer. A parent that buys an Xbox and then purchases one software title means Microsoft bleeds red. (A guy who buys the Xbox and pirates the software is worse.) They are "gaming" their production numbers so that the guy who actually buys an Xbox is more a bit more rabid enough to be more likely to buy software titles.
Why not jack up the price of each Xbox? Because they've cracked out their mini-max programs and figured that at a certain price, it will discourage parents from purchasing the xbox based on the initial cost investment. Lets say those parents make up 80% of the purchasing market. They're not going to raise the purchase price of the box by $50, and chase off 80% of their purchasers.
Does it mean they will lose maximal potential market buy introducing early scarcity? Yes. But these guys do this for their living. They better know what they're doing. Too bad for the "poverty" stricken console gamer junkie.
If the causal link was as concrete as you described, people would already be cured of schitzophrenia with a treatment of anti-parasitic and anti-inflamatory drugs. Its just not the case, at present. (And as an aside, Haldol is out of vogue as an antipsychotic medication. Way too strong negative side-effects. Chlorpromazine and Zyprexa are more the flavors of the month. (Not sure if they have strong anti-parasitic medicative effects).)
It does give one hope that within our lifetimes, that schitzophrenia can be treated with effective medication.
it is a liberal hatred of men and women. They try to make men act more feminine, and try to make women act more masculine
Then why not do the conservative thing and institute a draft for Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you could transfer out women soldiers from the Iraq warzone. Frankly, I think women are better off in a position where they can fight for themselves, rather than count on you conservatives to protect them.
IMHO, there are too many political interests that absolutely hate that because it leads to a stable family system, and that leads to less dependence on welfare, public freebies, and government programs
The Conservatives own the Executive branch, and both houses of the American Legislature for over 10 years. What have they done to encourage more women to go back to child rearing? Are they putting more money to trackdown deadbeat dads? Are they increasing enforcement of "Orders of Protection" and wife/child beating? How stable is a family when it only has one income earner, and can't afford to pay bills, and save for college and retirement? Are you raising the minimum wage? Enforcing illegal immigration laws? Looks to me like political interests absolutely hate anything that leads to stable family systems, and for the past 10 years, its been Republicans hating it.
The same is true for the military, the no women in combat rule has been OBE, overtaken by events.
No, the "no women in combat" rule is discarded due to the incompetence and callous disregard of Bush and Rumsfeldt. They didn't get enough boots into Iraq after the invasion to secure the areas where the supply trains ran. And if they instituted a draft, they could get enough male asses into Iraq to transfer the female soldiers away from the IED zones.
Slashdot Mirror
I did. Specifically because I didn't want to subscribe to the lklm mailing list. I'm not a kernel developer, so there was no need for me to keep up with every person kicking in their $0.02 on some obscure issue. BUT I really appreciated the summaries because Zack gave a quick blurb of what was going on over there in kernelland. It allowed me to gauge matters like "when to move to a new kernel?". Or if there was a problem with a kernel feature, whether it was SATA, SCSI, or whatever.
Kerneltrap is a poor substitute. I will miss the summaries.
Its not over a year. Its been since November of last year.
But I can't really understand why its being posted here *now*. As other people mentioned, he put up his hiatus notice at least two weeks ago, after not having updated the website for 3 months. Apparently, no reader or Slashdot editor depends on Kernel Traffic summaries much. So, why is it news here?
Next thing you'll tell me is my 75 year old mother and my sister should download and install gentoo, and that will give them the tools to address all their compatibility/configuration problems. (Can anyone else understand my exasperation with this idiot?)
Yippee, there's hope for one computer user on Earth. Are you one of these freaking math theory geeks that think if ONE instance can be proven, you can prove that for all instances on this planet???
I close with a repetition of the last sentences of my previous post.
Back in my days of my naive youth (1999-2000), I had my hopes that Linux would eventually overtake Windoze on the desktop. It was "almost" there.
But hobbyists are not the people who are going to do, "Hey, let me drop work on this neat feature that really interests me, that doesn't exist anywhere else, and instead work to dumb down the desktop interface in a manner that would be conducive to stupid users, and write my own device driver for X that the manufacturer is too cheap to do themselves." AND have it work for multiple versions of kernels/distributions. Which only goes to show, that even Linux zealots are fucking idiots that can't see the obvious when its staring them in their faces. So go to OSX or Jesus, and find more fertile environments to spread your religious ideology.
My hope was with the commercial distributors like Red Hat and SuSE. After all, they actually HAD a stake in getting Linux adopted on machines. They should see if they hired X developers to work on the interface, and determine a set of drivers to write around, EVENTUALLY they would produce a desktop that any USER would feel relatively comfortable working with.
But then, at some point, Red Hat said "There were a server software company, and they weren't going to invest money to improve the desktop for users". The funny thing is within a year they did a 180 on that message, after all the corporate businesses started yelling at them because THEY wanted to replace Windoze on the desktop, and they didn't NEED the desktop to be Windoze compatible; only useful enough for their company work environments. But the writing was on the wall; these corporate developers did not have the vision to see where they could be if they did x, y, & z. At that point, I just lost hope, and accepted the fact that I could enjoy linux, but I wouldn't be seeing it compete with Windoze or OSX anytime in the future.
Until you zealous assholes realize that Linux cannot possibly get traction on the desktop until USERS can pop in a disk, and have every MAJOR, DESIRABLE feature be available to them WITHOUT configuring a damn thing, Linux is not going to challenge Microsoft any time soon. That means a DISTRIBUTION is going to have every device driver for every device manufactured for PC computers on Earth, and will be able to recognize it, and have it operable within any machine, without a single config file to tweak. This exists for Microsoft because every manufacturer makes damn sure they have a device driver CONFIGURED to Microsoft's specifications for anything they produce. When you convert the world to an autocratic dictatorship, and can shoot people for using Microsoft, then you can go talk about making manufacturers develop device drivers for Linux, for all their kernel versions, for its multitude of distributions, and work in every situation, etc. etc. Until then, realize this Linux utopia is not coming about anytime soon.
Microsoft will never make the error of pricing themselves out of the market. I cannot hand off to my Mother or my siblings a linux box, and expect them to be able to cope with basic usage with my direct intervention. I can repair/reinstall their XP systems once every year to two years, and even that odious task ends up being less work than providing Linux user support for them.
The best avenue for desktop adoption is a commercial Linux distribution getting the clue, and producing that magic interface that works on all varieties of PC devices, and doesn't require user intervention or configuration. Until then, stop fucking the skull of this dead horse.
Damn, I keep forgetting stuff.
The most useful engineering investment would be for a space elevator. Its within technological reach, similar to the way a manned moon mission was in reach back in the '50's. Who gives a damn if it doesn't pay off after its operational? Neither did the World Trade Center Towers until the '90's.
Oh, and if I had a few dollars left for human sciences, but not to establish a moonbase or mars mission, I'd spend it on a sealed biodome, whether it be in the artic, sahara, or a mile underground. That would at least advance our understanding of a sustained ecological environment which would be needed for permanent space settlement. More dollars would be spent on robotic exploration of the moon purely for exploitable resources, whether its raw ore or H3. Once you can establish an economic rationale for extraterrestrial ventures, the big private corporations will invest the dollars to make a profit.
But the ISS, an new shuttle, or a new moon landing is merely a wasteful stunt. It does not advance science or space exploration. My suggestions would be more productive.
My mind is made up. My statements were direct responses to arguments. What I believe is significantly more nuanced than what I've said.
Simply put, I am heavily in favor of space science investment. The question is what to do when the American people are not willing to pony up the extra cent to pay for it all, or think it would be better spent on an interstate highway that doesn't connect major population centers resulting in significant economic benefit. In which case, the priority is to keep as much of the space probes and non-manned research that has perceived value.
I am an incredibly harsh critic of the shuttle and ISS, not because I am against manned exploration endeavors. Its because the shuttle and ISS are the biggest con jobs perpetrated on the American taxpayer. They expended 90% of the NASA budget, and they are useless in establishing a sustained human presence in space. There was almost nothing new learned on the ISS that wasn't learned on Skylab or Mir. The Shuttle can't go anywhere except LEO. It is a freaking engineering marvel, but its not the gov't job to produce useless Lambourghinis that do neat things.
To defend the shuttle and the ISS and try to keep in existence programs that do not produce useful science but steal money away from more productive ventures and hamper private enterprise HARMS overall space science, not enhances it!
Normally I would look positively at GWBs announced initiatives, and be more than happy to nuke the shuttle and ISS, but the problem is that it has come from a proven liar, or a man too stupid to distinguish science from theocracy. I think GWBs initiatives are bullshit, because America does not have the money to embark on that kind of endeavor, particularly since it can't afford its occupation expenses in Iraq. Its a BS line meant to look "visionary", while using it as an excuse to gut NASA. In a few years, its going to be screamingly apparent we won't have the money to establish a sustained presence on the moon, and whatever programs toward that end will die. Bush won't care, he'll be out of office at that point. The problem is whether the space sciences part of NASA will be gutted as well. Indications appear that it will.
If I'm gonna put taxdollars into NASA, I want it to do useful things like Hubble and space probes. Not scrap Hubble and the space probes in favor of keeping the ISS running for a few more years. Its called prioritization.
Its the only thing that gives credence to policy that totalitarianism and communism needs to be fought at all costs.
My problem is when its practiced by my country, and they keep implying its morally acceptable when we do it.
Oddly, I don't find this upsetting. Its much more disturbing to see four years ago, your local nimrod foaming at the mouth at how Iraq has WMD, and we got to invade them. Then to see them two years later looking at you as if you're mistaken; "We invaded Iraq was because Saddam was a bad man, and our national mission in life is to liberate oppressed people with oil fields." It is damn more unnerving to see that. And trust me, there are a legion of nimrods in this country. Some of them even serve in the US military. At least one general has spoken in public about how we are crusading against the raghead infidels.
That's what my mother, the immigrant says. It kills me to think her life experiences in a police state pretty much is the best basis of fact. Myself, I am too infected with American culture. I keep thinking I have a duty to speak out and the 2nd amendment gives me the implied right to shoot at violators of the US Constitution. Haven't determined if there are targets that would make it worthwhile.
1) UN law is a myth. Law only has weight if it is enforceable. The agreement is only an understanding between nations and political sideshow. The UN cannot enforce anything without the big 5 in the security council willing to flex its muscle. That is why the US, Britain, (and a few token forces) are in Iraq "illegally". That is why Cargill can murder a hundred mineworking strikers with impunity. As soon as there are economically extractable energy sources located at the poles, there is going to be a radically changed revision of the Antartica treaties. The UN is merely a meeting place and public forum for nations. If you want to pretend differently, fine, be a child.
2)
That is why I consider you to be scientifically illiterate. Granted, I do not know enough about the research to determine if we got a good return on our dollar, but I could write a book on all sorts of informational discoveries which seemed useless at that time, that led to significant scientific and engineering progress. Its more than pushing a couple of rocks. The information is extrapolated and used to develop new questions and theories.
3)
Sony is not an American run corporation. They are capable of investing multiple financial quarters in the belief it will pay off. But they are so freaking rich, they could afford to invest years in a game console that probably was a few million USD total. I do not believe a space program needs to show a profit within a quarter; I merely say that to illustrate the cost/benefit mentality of the typical publicly held corporation. They do not embark on decade-long projects to get a payoff. I am sorry if you're too intellectually limited to understand that.
4)
Hell no. I consider most of NASA a jobs program at this point. NASA actively retards the ability of private enterprise in space, much like food donation to Africa. I'm not as critical of the ESA, because I believe it came about because its members are too poor individually to embark on space programs. I am not aware of the ESA hampering commercial space ventures.
Again, this is why I consider you to be too stupid and uninformed to bother participating in these discussions. Its not about figuring the precise age of the universe, its about finding ways to confirm theories of our phyiscal universe, and use those new understandings to apply it to engineering problems and issues such as climatology here. You can't do that if can't confirm theories to the point where you can be confident about investment based on new understandings. Whether its cost effective research, that is a whole different ball of wax.
5) The whole freaking point of deorbiting Hubble was that there was a limited time window to commit to keeping the Hubble operational. Whether going back to Earth telescopes (and their limitations) is a better way to go, is a matter of conjecture.
No, most of the costs come from paying the scientist salaries that use it. As for cost of building the telescope, you still have to recreate a whole program to reengineer a new telescope, and pay to launch it into orbit. It still ends up cheaper to send a refurb mission every 5-10 years, rather than recreate a program, and launch a new telescope every 5-10 years.
6) Again, scientifi
Oh no, they had an ideally trained army to respond to "UN aggression". But supply was such a joke, they sent combatants that did not even have firearms or sufficient ammo. They picked them up from their fallen comrades during an offensive. It was the US that pioneered the modern logistics that has only 10% of its forces actually fighting. (Back then, it was probably more like 30%) The US still had the air and sealift left over from WWII. The Chinese, by contrast, were quite regional and inexpert in its logistic scope. Given the Korean terrain, supply lines were limited to choke points that could have readily been blown out of existence or interdicted. If the US put in a sustained effort, I doubt the Chinese could have kept its army armed and fed (South of the Yalu).
Another thing about the Chinese, what they sent to Korea was merely a "token" force, compared to what they were capable of mobilizing. That's what had the US military planners so intimidated. They didn't want to experience WWII level casualties like the Eastern Campaign during WWII. Back then, the US actually tried to plan for possible consequences, unlike in Iraq today.
And for the record, I refer to US or UN aggression sardonically. As far as I'm concerned, it was N. Korea that started it, and the Chinese commenced war against UN forces (under a preemptive rationale). I don't have any problem with military aggression or forceful responses; only when the players aren't prepared for the consequences of their actions (general cluelessness).
If you can control what people know, you control what they beleive, and thus how they act. Right to the point where they're not even aware that they're being played.
The Iraq Invasion is a wonderful demonstration of the US Ministry of Truth. There are people in the US currently running around thinking the US invaded Iraq to "liberate" the people, not go after WMD which wasn't there.
You 1st worlders can't see it firsthand, it is so scary to watch.
What do you mean "far off reality"? Two week before the Chinese attack, that WAS the reality.
Yes, it was an incorrect prediction from supposedly competent analysts, but that's why its called prognostication, not future fact. (I'd have to research the document myself to determine if it was a poor analysis.) The Chicom gov't had only been in power for a few years, and military campaigns still need logistics to mount sustained campaigns. There wasn't any minimally informed reason to think the Chinese were going to intervene in Korea AGAINST the frigging US military machine. Any border activity could be explained by reinforcing defenses against the imminent arrival of UN troops.
I still don't really understand why the US didn't roll up the Chinese counterattack. I understand part of the reason was that Truman was too scared to hit China where it hurt. But the facts on the ground was that the UN forces had tons of artillery (and good logistics) and could have just wiped out hill after hill until there were no more Chinese "volunteers". You can only survive that kind of onslaught with "prepared" defenses, not what the Chinese had. Blow up the bridges on the Yalu, the Chinese can't supply its forces. China didn't have (operable) nukes at that time. The only reason I can guess is that like Vietnam, the US didn't want to commit more money and blood to "liberate" Korea, and that the HUMINT was SO poor, they found it impossible to determine the extent of the Chinese commitment.
While I love cryptome, they are no guarantee there will be a repository of information that is reclassified. It only takes a warrant from OHS to remove the documents. If not a warrant, then a black ops hacker, or even a wet team.
Call me a conspiracist, but I suspect there are more problems than just getting a launch date for the Shuttle. When the ISS was originally planned, they were counting on a lot more Shuttle launches per year than what will be available when the Shuttle launches resume. (2 launches a year is reasonable, right?) Somebody deep in the bowels of NASA must have been cranking out the calculator figuring out how much of the ISS labs can be lifted with other rockets, because there will be a limited number of trips that the Shuttle will be able to do it. Yeah, just dedicate the Shuttle to ISS components, but that means other payloads that pay NASA money will be lost. Its going to be messier than it appears.
Mission specialists that came up on Soyuz and (potentially) Arianne rockets.
I was under the impression that the garbage problem was why ISS was practically shutdown. The Shuttle was the "only" way to move garbage off the ISS back to Earth. The situation was analogous to a organism not being able to take a dump; it would eventually kill it. You can't toss it out the airlock, because it becomes orbital debris (although who cares about a few hundred plastic MRE trays). The sci-literate understand why you can't shoot it at the sun or the moon.
Otherwise, some ISS component could have been launched off a Russian rocket, and a crew in a separate rocket could have be sent the following launch cycle to attach it. My understanding of why the ISS was limited to two people was the garbage problem, or else we could have had a third ISS crewmember doing the useful microgravity experiments you talk about. (The other two was needed to keep the ISS running.)
Hmmm, the Russians used Progress to dump Mir trash? Dayam, I'm either a chump, or some aspect of the ISS trash needed the Shuttle to handle. Its gonna make me sick to think the only reason a third crewmember wasn't on ISS was that the US/ESA didn't want to pay to put him up there...
In any case, my vision for the ISS would be that it would be complete, heavily funded by entities other than the US, and supplied by rockets which would allow the Shuttle to be decommissioned. Some silly reason (other than module payload) seemed to require a working Shuttle.
Its because you're scientifically illiterate.
Collecting scientific data from other planets is valuable because what is discovered there can be applied to what happens on Earth. Environmental science is really in its nascient stages. Obtaining data from other planets allows us to discover aspects of climatology, atmospheric composition, etc. that we cannot recreate here, and then use that data to more accurately understand how our planetary environmental systems work. The rovers are used to discover new geologic information about Mars, and bump into anything of interest that we weren't currently aware of that we may want to check out in a future Mars mission. It is information that cannot be obtained with a telescope.
As for Hubble, its the only telescope that is working beyond the Earth's atmosphere. It currently is the only source of unique data which then can be extrapolated. That will still be the case even when JWST goes up, because JWST is optimized for different wavelengths. Granted, there are telescopes on Earth that may be collecting imagery just as useful as Hubble. Astronomy will not fall apart with the shutdown of the Hubble. But Hubble is unique, and can only point to one part of the universe (or solar system) at a time. It will be fully booked for use even after the JWST goes online.
Think of space sciences a a giant territory of gold mines of information. You can't get to it without surveying it. Worse, some valuables are only available in a limited time window. If you can't point a Hubble at it, that information is lost indefinitely. The compelling aspect of a Pluto probe is that it is closest to the Sun in its 119(?) year orbit. If we do it now, it will be the shortest wait (10 years?) to get there. There is no way to put fuel on a Pluto probe and blast it to Pluto and expect it to get there at a reasonable interval. Such a probe relies on planets like Jupiter, Saturn, & Uranus to give it an acceleration boost from is gravitation. Its like the probe will have to rely on "trade winds" in order to get to Pluto at a reasonable time. If we wait over 10 years from optimal launch window, it may be another 40 years before the planets will be in the right place to try to use them again.
Because a corporation would have to build the equivalent of a space program in order to even check out what is exploitable on the Moon. It is currently way too costly for any company to attempt in one fiscal quarter. That is what governments are for. To suck taxpayer dollars to do research no company would attempt.
I am SO in favor of nuking most of NASA to do this. Actually, NASA does this now, paying to hitch rides off of other nations rocke
I don't think politics is the biggest deal in this case. There never was a crew survival/recovery plan for the shuttle if there was a mishap on a Hubble mission, and there have been already two missions completed under those conditions. All they need to do is require astronaut participants to volunteer for the mission, and I'm pretty certain they'd easily be able to field a full crew. Then they get the media to hype at how its such an incredibly dangerous mission, they would only launch a crew of volunteers. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a sucessful mission, and NASA and the crew look like heroes. Hell, we send hundreds of people into coal mines and ocean platforms every day, and we don't seem to agonize whether they may die in a mishap.
The problem is the Bush administration committed to an Iraq invasion, and botched the occupation. The costs for Iraq are going to skyrocket into the trillions, and the US taxpayer is going to hold the bag. Bushco scrambling for money is partly the reason why the levee renovation wasn't completed in NO. The aerospace industry wants another white elephant project like a mission to Mars or a moonbase. Iraq is sucking the available tax dollars for pork. The problem with Hubble is that its not an incredible tax hole, and only astronomers want to keep the thing operational. Bushco is going to LOOT NASA into nonexistence. Forget the CEV, moon missions, and Mars. Its just a big bullshit line Bush yammered about last year to look like a "visionary" president, and screw around with the NASA budget. Science missions, Hubble, ISS? Strip their budget dollars; it now has to go to McDonnell/Douglass (or whomever) to put into the "Mars mission". When the US economy crashes, they'll just kill those flashy new programs, and Bush will be out of office at that point.
Am I the only one who sees what a retarded rationalization that is? Shuttle missions to the ISS are not significantly safer missions. Just because there are options if there is a problem with the Shuttle, its not like the Shuttle has significantly better likelihood of a sucessful mission. The ISS wouldn't have helped in either of the previous Shuttle disasters.
1) Note every mission is labeled "under review".
2) The ISS is not going to be completed. It costs too much for too little science. The USSR was supposed to defray costs, not abandon their fiscal support. Everyone else sees they would be pumping in a lot of money into the ISS infrastructure that expects the US to help finance. And here we are talking about decommissioning the shuttle program with only two working shuttles to 2010, and no certain replacement. The scientific potential of the ISS is extremely minimal for significant cost, and its not going to be much help for the "return to the moon" or "mission to Mars" programs the US, Russia, and China are suddenly talking about. The writing is on the wall. ISS costs are not sustainable. Its going to be abandoned.
3) Even if they wanted to complete the ISS, the payloads could be delivered with rockets. On the other hand, for some reason, garbage disposal seems to be a big deal, and the only thing the garbage scow Endeavor and Intrepid seem to be important for the ISS. I'm surprised the ISS partners aren't designing payload delivery systems to move the garbage back to Earth. If they were, I'd more readily believe the ISS was a viable program.
1) The JWST is not set to launch until 2013. Without maintenance, the Hubble dies in 2008. A lot of budget cuts can occur between then. Why not keep whats up there still working?
2) The JWST has a different ocular design than the Hubble. Even though arguably that the JWST is more valuable to cutting edge space scientists and cosmologists, there are images the JWST will not be able to get with the quality of the Hubble.
3) The Mars robots were only supposed to last 6 months. Two years later, they are still chugging around, presumably doing useful information collecting for geologists, etc. The point is why junk something that is unique and useful (and would still be in demand if and when the JWST goes online) so that the money can be used to porkbarrel some useless move by a disgraced politician?
4) Upgrading Hubble will not break the USG budget. Just cover the 0.02 cost. Kill the bridge funding to that island in Alaska. Build one less interstate. Hubble represents something that nearly doesn't exist in NASA. A productive scientific venture. Most everything else is a makework program for the shuttle or the ISS. The ISS basically floats in LEO, holds 2 techs who have nearly no time to run scientific experiments of any significance.
Nothing. At this point, having three shuttles probably merely just increases the risks of cutting corners in order to meet launch schedules. Face it, the only significant mission of the US space shuttle program is the same as the TV show Quark; haul garbage from the ISS. To paraphrase a the quote made at the K7 bar in "Trouble with Tribbles". "The Space Shuttle should not be hauling garbage, it should be hauled AS garbage". I will take that back if NASA actually implements a mission to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. (Me bitter? What makes you think that...?)
The strategy is a little more sophisticated than you appear to believe. Currently, the bottom line is Microsoft loses money on the hardware. Every time they sell Xbox 360, they take a loss. They recoup the loss when Xbox owners buy their game software.
Microsoft cannot afford a casual game buyer. A parent that buys an Xbox and then purchases one software title means Microsoft bleeds red. (A guy who buys the Xbox and pirates the software is worse.) They are "gaming" their production numbers so that the guy who actually buys an Xbox is more a bit more rabid enough to be more likely to buy software titles.
Why not jack up the price of each Xbox? Because they've cracked out their mini-max programs and figured that at a certain price, it will discourage parents from purchasing the xbox based on the initial cost investment. Lets say those parents make up 80% of the purchasing market. They're not going to raise the purchase price of the box by $50, and chase off 80% of their purchasers.
Does it mean they will lose maximal potential market buy introducing early scarcity? Yes. But these guys do this for their living. They better know what they're doing. Too bad for the "poverty" stricken console gamer junkie.
If the causal link was as concrete as you described, people would already be cured of schitzophrenia with a treatment of anti-parasitic and anti-inflamatory drugs. Its just not the case, at present. (And as an aside, Haldol is out of vogue as an antipsychotic medication. Way too strong negative side-effects. Chlorpromazine and Zyprexa are more the flavors of the month. (Not sure if they have strong anti-parasitic medicative effects).)
It does give one hope that within our lifetimes, that schitzophrenia can be treated with effective medication.
[Invokes Godwin's Law]
Then why not do the conservative thing and institute a draft for Iraq and Afghanistan? Then you could transfer out women soldiers from the Iraq warzone. Frankly, I think women are better off in a position where they can fight for themselves, rather than count on you conservatives to protect them.
The Conservatives own the Executive branch, and both houses of the American Legislature for over 10 years. What have they done to encourage more women to go back to child rearing? Are they putting more money to trackdown deadbeat dads? Are they increasing enforcement of "Orders of Protection" and wife/child beating? How stable is a family when it only has one income earner, and can't afford to pay bills, and save for college and retirement? Are you raising the minimum wage? Enforcing illegal immigration laws? Looks to me like political interests absolutely hate anything that leads to stable family systems, and for the past 10 years, its been Republicans hating it.
No, the "no women in combat" rule is discarded due to the incompetence and callous disregard of Bush and Rumsfeldt. They didn't get enough boots into Iraq after the invasion to secure the areas where the supply trains ran. And if they instituted a draft, they could get enough male asses into Iraq to transfer the female soldiers away from the IED zones.