Checking bookmarks for viability is already out there. Its called spidering.
Oddly enough, those long gone sites are not really a problem. Out of my 3K bookmarks, I'd guess at least 95% are viable, and perhaps another 10% need to be relocated.
No, I want to automate the organizing, and perhaps an alternate interface to quickly retrieve the link. Transferring the bookmarks into a relational database probably would really help. Save a bookmark, add a few keywords at entry time, utterly retrievable.
Nah, I'm figuring I'm not the first person to come across the problem, and there's a plugin/utility I've never heard of that fits the bill. Also, perhaps in the discussion some new ideas would come about. I've toyed with the idea that perhaps the ideal bookmarking system would have a more point/click GUI interface. I use many many folders and subfolders to achieve the same effect. Then again, some UI genius or wild thinker has a concept that would never occur to me. And finally, it never hurts to bank some karma...;)
Google is inadequate bookmark repository. Many a time I have hit on a page searched by Google, and then three months later can remember there was a particularly good page, but then can't find it. Usually this occurs when I want to locate a particular factoid for a response. Specific keywords, page ranking, and Google index updates is going to affect the ability to find a specific page.
Are you a physicist that is sure that the climactic effects caused the asteroid impact wouldn't cause the starvation of 95% of the population?
In any case, at 0.015%, I think it would behoove humanity to try to avoid this possibility. Hell, trading companies shoot for 9.9999% guarantee of uptime and accuracy. And its only over money.
The wars happen when the impact location is published and couple hundred million people decide to change area code.
Actually, I seriously doubt that. With six years of time, I could see the world working to relocate all that people before the event. Unless its 296 million people in North America we're talking about...
The added incentive of having your name lauded pretty much until the end of history if you get 'er done should not be underestimated.
It shouldn't be overestimated either. It wouldn't be to the end of history. It would be to the end of its significance, basically a few centuries after man has left this star system. Hell, can you remember the names of the soldiers in the Charge of Light Brigade? How about the names of the 101st's KIAs at Bastogne? Names of the people who died while working on the Manhattan project?
A lot of people with the qualifications needed will be technical people who I posit have a higher occurance of agnosticism/atheism than non-technical equivalents. For types like that posthumous rememberance is the only kind of immortality they can count on.
Atheism/agnosticism is not the dominant philosophy among technical people. I'd argue its not even a significantly higher percentage (over 15% difference from the mean). Also, being an A/A does not mean you're stupid enough to value an extension in the conceptual knowledge of your existence. And how would you weed out the competent depressed suicidal people from the ones that could lose it at the wrong point? To me, the answer would be to recruit from the family types. But try $50 mil (EURO)/family.
99.98% chance I'd die
No, try 100% probability of dying. No return vehicle, not enough oxygen/food/water.
As I pointed out afterwards its not the formula that's going to tell you if it will collide with the Earth. But it occurred to me that there still is no need to determine composition. It should be possible to plot the course of the asteroid using another planet to triagulate the vector, and then derive its velocity. As long as it doesn't come within gravitational influence of another heavenly body in the next 30 years, it just may be able to figure out its likely course. Wonder why the astronomer didn't catch that?:/ (Perhaps the asteroid won't be visible long enough to compare its trajectory with another celestial body.)
Its a lot less likely than 0.042%. More like 0.015%. Yet, this is really troubling to me. Its not such a remote possibility at those odds. I'd still side with the house if the loss was only money, but... Or to look at it another way, you're more likely to have civilization wiped out than win the lottery...
The problem is more intractible than it looks. And your analysis of the analogy somewhat suspect.
There can be quite an acceleration of engineering improvements once you have the prototype in place. In the asteroid case, you would have to be able to design & implement a vehicle capable of getting the asteriod with time to spare (like a year), with a probable additional requirement of humans being able to survive the trip. (I'm having a problem believing you'll find enough qualified personnel to go on a suicide mission. Don't look at me, I prefer to figure out a way to survive an asteriod impact.)
Especially since you now are relying on a technology which has never been implemented in the manner you describe (nuclear pulse propulsion). Then you would need to be able to generate enough force to alter the trajectory of a heavenly body. Don't think a nuke is going to cut it. (See Armaggeddon.) Even shattering the asteroid is a technical event, since we yet have drilled a kilometer in a low-gravity vaccuum. I suspect it probably was easier to design a working a-bomb, since it was easier to do testing.
But I agree its not inconceivable to pull off a sucessful trajectory altering mission. But is it within the ability of a single nation like the U.S.? (Hello martial law.) Or do you think the most difficult trick would be surviving the war to establish a world gov't, and to wrap it up quickly enough to start working on the engineering problems. (Don't even try to suggest this could be done by UN committee.)
Nah, I think the bureaucratic roadblocks will be just as difficult as the engineering.
Sure its good. Presuming the theory of Natural Selection is properly applied, the organisms with the smart DNA will be able to realize the potential threat and devise a strategy to maximize its perpetuation. Or the DNA most likely to survive such an system event. Survival of the Fittest.
Granted, if the asteroid was able to exterminate ALL life, that could present a problem. But we're empirical evidence of the unlikeliness of such an event. In other words, yay DNA! Boo human civilization.
Nope, not even really applicable as a formula. Sure you'll find out what the force is, but you'll have to apply calculus in order to figure out what the trajectories will be, and then a slightly different formula (or computer simulation) to figure out if both bodies will intersect at a point and time.
Thank goodness I don't have to be a physicist to make a living. Its really bugging me that you knew a formula, and yet couldn't realize the problem with not knowing the asteriod's composition.
Everything is made of of elements, elements have different atomic masses. With out being able to determine the composition of the asteriod, and thus its mass, we can't figure out how much force is going to be generated by the earth's gravitation on the asteroid, and thus its eventual trajectory. That is of course even assumes the formula you have provided is correct, and applicable to a correct answer.
You could also allow a form of passing equipment from character to character: inheritance. New character would need to come from the original character's lineage, or a newb character that had some contact to the original. A will gets produced beforehand. You could even stick in amusing instances like other players contesting the will.
The character gets the boost from the item, but should still be limited by their newb characteristics. Also, the game should favor experience & acquired skills, and less on booty.
One of my favorite geek memories of childhood was listening to Radio Moscow on my shortwave radio. (I think I was 13 years old back then.) Initially, there was the childish visceral thrill of doing something "forbidden". (There was a COLD WAR ON, back then...) But really, the greatest aspect of the broadcasts were how the "Commies" were unintentionally being hilarious in some of their less defendable points of view. It would be like listening to Rush Limbaugh because you got bellylaughs from mocking his opinions. (But I personally don't find stupidity or his propaganda all that amusing...).
My most notable memory was how the Radio Moscow program was sponsoring an essay contest to win a free trip to the USSR. I don't remember the specifics, but they had the winner (American or Canadian) read it over the air. It was a foreign accented individual spieling communist ideology in a dead monotone right out of a bad Manchurian Candidate movie clone for like 15-20 minutes.
Basically, it could only be one of two possibilities. They could have been too broke or cheap to sponsor a real contest, and got it some academic ideologue to write it, and foreign embassy staff to read it. Mind you, you're not going to convince the audience there were loyal communists in the US if they speak in a slight foreign accent. The other possibility was that it actually was a North American, but hooboy, selecting a mumbling, monotonic guy out of a psychiatric ward would hardly encourage people to embrace communism.
Anyway, I found that post hilarious. The moderator is an obvious moron for labeling it a troll. I'm curious as to what traumatic brush with communists causes you to lash out in parody. (And *bang* is a nice touch.) Keep alive the Revolution, Comrade!
Standing up for Tridgell's character as an Anonymous Coward is quite pathetic. I can only say with F/OSS defenders like you, there is hope.
For the record, I have little venom towards Tridgell. I don't see what he did as ethical (and the ethical issue is not about reverse engineering in general). I prefer to beleive he did it in a fit of pique. As for keeping his mouth shut, I don't know what his lawyers told him, but it must have some significant legal downside. (financial, not criminal.) But I can't respect someone who claims to be fighting for programmer rights, by screwing over what programmers wish to chose, but chooses not to fight for principle when it risks litigation.
And note, no one attacks the specifics of my charges. But how like a F/OSS fanboy; he doesn't like what I say, but he can't refute it. He can only whine that I "shut up".
That's right, you don't know. YOu are just talking out of your ass.
AS ARE YOU. YOU cannot PROVE the client would NOT cause TRANSACTION error.
If a random client written by a random person can mess up your repository why would you use such a product? Is bitkeeper so insecure that any script kiddie can corrup your repository?
If it were my choice, no. But its not MY choice. Torvalds may feel your characterization is technically FALSE. After all, since both parties have to agree to conduct the transaction, it may not be technically feasible for a "hacker" to trash the repository with his "hacked" client.
So nobody fucked up your tractor. You took your tractor back because somebody did something that could have fucked up your tractor. Is that right?
Again, if it were my tractor, I would not permit some hick to be taking it apart to satify his edification. Back to reality, if McVoy felt he should be concerned about the F/OSS client screwing up the metadata, then he had a RIGHT to address the issue, even if it meant revoking the license. Again, he may be a jackoff, but that's not the issue.
that's why Linus was wrong to use it in the first place.
Linus felt the tool greatly aided his ability to manage kernel updates, that he could trust McVoy to ensure the quality of the product. He had no reason to think other people would try to sabotage his agreement with McVoy. YOU, and any F/OSS zealot DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE LINUS' CHOICE IN TOOLS! He's not wrong, YOU ARE, you Stalinist.
'And he is entitled to do anything conformant to law that would prevent a person from reverse-engineering his product."
By law he is not entitled to do anything to prevent a person from reverse engineering his product. For the hundredth time it's perfectly legal.
That is a lie. A vendor is permitted to choose to whom he sells his product to, or whether he offers it for free. He can also pursue a legal action against Tridge for unauthorized access to McVoy's BitMover server. That can be legally interpreted as "hacking", and there are laws which prohibit that. McVoy can also negotiate with Tridge's employer to fire him for violating the agreement between OSDF and McVoy. (OSDF chose not to do so, but that didn't mean McVoy did not have the legal right to try it.) I will be the first to concede there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that McVoy could get a favorable legal ruling in any tactic he chose to pursue. But there is no law (in the US) that prevents McVoy from pursuing a legal action that is unlikely to win. Tridge's legal bills would have to come out of his own wallet. There's no law that protects Tridge from lawsuit bills even though Tridge has a legal right to reverse engineer.
For the hundredth time it's perfectly legal.
You f**king moron. I have NEVER ASSERTED that Tridgell did NOT have a legal RIGHT to reverse engineer a product! And as I've pointed out, there is NO LAW that PREVENTS McVoy from ACTING in a manner to prevent Tridgell from reverse engineering, PROVIDED it DOES not violate the LAW! I've already outlined some actions McVoy to prevent Tridgell from reverse engineering. They are perfectly legal! McVoy would NOT be legally permitted to shoot Tridgell in order to prevent him from reverse engineering, or hacking into Tridge's computer and trashing his work, etc. etc. etc.
"I'm not defending the "asshole" McVoy."
Yes you are.
No, I am not. I am defending his right to do whatever he is legally permitted to do and whatever legal rights he has over his products. Not because I'm on the "asshole's" side. Because if fairness and the law cannot b
How did he screw linus over? He had a perfectly legal right to do what he was doing, it was his CHOICE.
He had a legal right. He also can chose NOT to pursue what he is legally permitted to do. Just because its legal to do something, does not make it a GOOD thing to do. Tridgell did not need clairvoyance in this situation. McVoy had alway threatened to do something like this, and Linus, McVoy, and OSDF had been in discussion with Tridgell to desist in this activity.
Once again who got screwed over and how? The only people who got screwed over were the kernel developers?
Larry screwed them over by taking their license away.
Larry had the right to take away the license, and furthermore, Larry has a legal right to ACT to protect HIS franchise.
By your own admission Tridge was not working on a competing product.
Now YOU are the one who is LYING. I did not say Tridge was not working on a competing product. I said that Tridge's work on reverse-engineering would NOT RESULT in a REPLACEMENT to BK/BM. No one has to PROVE HARM came to Larry. Larry might be a idiot for thinking he needs to address things that way. But then again, you may be an idiot for thinking Tridge was right to sabotage the agreement Torvalds had with McVoy, merely because he could. Its called perspective.
By YOUR own admission, the end result is that the kernel developers got screwed over. They would NOT have been screwed over if Tridge did not continue his reverse engineering efforts. Tridge may have had the legal RIGHT to do so, but he did NOT HAVE to pursue his course of action. He did not have an alternative tool for Torvalds, he acted only to satify his curiosity, and CHOSE to screw over the developers that preferred to use BK/BM.
Translation: Because we claim he owes us, and now he has to conduct himself according to our ideology.
(You just conveniently forget he actually wrote the damn thing, released the kernel with a GPL license, and you guys would be countable on two hands, unshowered in a basement bickering with each other if he hadn't.)
With that rationale, why not demand Bill Gates promote OSS? They're popular, prominent, and way of life is based on the work of people who promote OSS. After all, you've paid for a PC at some point in your life.
If bitkeeper is so lame that a client can mess up the tree then I am glad linux is no longer dependent on it. According to your description anybody can corrupt yourcode base by writing a client.
The repositories are not centralized. You can run a sanity check to see if an individual repository is correct, but you would have to run a sanity check on every repository in relation to each other. If the client has some responsibilities in that transaction, then an open source client could possibly corrupt that transaction. I don't know, the whole product is proprietary. That may be an argument for not using a proprietary product, but there are people who chose to use a proprietary product provided it works and the VENDOR is responsible for proper function. I don't see you quitting your job because your employer forces you to use proprietary Microsoft products at your job. Or dropping linux during the three years BK/BM was in use. (Or justify lying and misrepresenting people to further your ideology. That isn't directed at you, killjoe.)
Show me where somebody fucked up bitkeeper. Go ahead, I dare you. This is a straw men argument you came up with but it's completely detached from reality.
Go ahead show me where bitkeeper was broken by tridge did.
I cannot. There hasn't been enough opportunity to let Tridge's client screw up BK/BM. That does not prove that Tridgell's client wouldn't screwup the BK/BM metadata. The "danger" still stands, as does the analogy.
"To bring it into intellectual property mindset, McVoy feels he has a right to conceal the methods and format of his proprietary product. He may be a jerk, but he has that right"
Yes he is a jerk (I would use asshole myself) but he does not have that right. Reverse engineering is legal in the US.
My apologies for being unclear. I meant McVoy has the right to be a jerk, and the right to withdraw free use of his product and his support. And he is entitled to do anything conformant to law that would prevent a person from reverse-engineering his product.
I don't believe you. I find it very hard that somebody would try so hard to try and defend an asshole for fun or idealism.
I'm not defending the "asshole" McVoy. I am defending Torvalds, whom I don't think is an asshole or has conducted himself improperly. More important, I'm attacking the F/OSS cabal, because I don't believe its okay to lie and misrepresent individuals, and I don't want those parasites to get their way. This may make my point of view clearer.
Tridge always had a choice. He could have chosen to develop an alternative to McVoy's product. Tridge could have chosen to show discretion, and not screw over Torvalds (and the other maintainers) on his choice of SCM tool.
He did not make those choices. He chose instead to reverse-engineer a client, which would not result in the alternative to McVoy's product. But he did succeed in making it untenable for Torvalds to continue using the tool of his choice.
How come Linus isn't for that?
I don't know anyone who's in favor of getting screwed over by someone else.
No, the vendor yanked the tool after he could not get Tridgell to desist on his reverse-engineering efforts.
Why should he? What right does he have to tell others what to do, when he doesn't have the fortitude to live up to what he offered previously?
Why should he stop? Because Tridgell did not do it to produce an alternative to BK/BM. Its a futile gesture, except to make Linus' agreement with McVoy untenable. Tridgell is basically denying Torvalds' use of his tool because he thinks he has a right to tell Torvalds what tool he can use. I can say Tridgell has the right to reverse-engineer. I can also call him a piss-ant for screwing over Torvalds, since Tridgell was not producing a viable alternative to McVoy's product. And yes, McVoy is a stupid prick for not making the tool available to Torvalds gratis. It doesn't absolve Tridgell of his culpability in the matter.
And both of those are different for than just taking your ball, and going home because you don't like what the other kids are saying.
And what kind of loser doormat are you that you would let the other kids diss you when you are letting them use YOUR ball? McVoy took away his ball because he wasn't willing to bend over while people "stole" his "intellectual property". He might be a tool for thinking that way, but he certain has the right to take it away.
Open source is many different things, to many different people.
Yes, and your opinion on what constitutes open source holds no more weight than mine or Torvalds. It does not give Perens, you, or anyone the moral absolution to lie and misrepresent people.
To some of us it's a movement akin to the civil rights movement. If that makes us zealots then so be it.
So its okay to lie and misrepresent someone who doesn't agree with your position, because its "a movement"? The only difference between you and Osama then is that I assume you don't think its its okay to kill people over one's civil rights.
Bad anology, nobody is taking anything apart. Tridge is simply observing how the tractor works so he can try and build one himself.
The instant Tridge submits a change to the software tree, he risks introducing transactional corruption. McVoy is willing to track down bugs with his product. Not track down bugs submitted by a 3rd party.
By the way why is taking back your tractor because somebody wants to make another one like is ethical or moral in any philosophical framework?
The tractor is my property. If someone is f**king it up, then I shouldn't be forced to accept damage to it. To bring it into intellectual property mindset, McVoy feels he has a right to conceal the methods and format of his proprietary product. He may be a jerk, but he has that right.
At the zealot is working for a higher ideal
So was Osama bin Laden. That is the problem.
the shill is trying to make money
Except I have no vested interest in Bitkeeper's product. I do not own stock, I do not make money in anyway related to the product, or the Linux kernel for that matter. I am hardly a shill.
I don't think anyone is arguing that he doesn't have that right.
Then don't accuse me of being a proprietary crap zealot when I defend that right.
Instead the proprietary vendor has just yanked the tool without any forwarning, and caused a disruption to the project.
No, the vendor yanked the tool after he could not get Tridgell to desist on his reverse-engineering efforts. The disruption was triggered Tridgell trying to reverse-engineer the client. Tridgell had the "right" to reverse engineer the product, but he did not offer an alternative to the BK/BM product. He is partly to blame for the disruption.
This is the "I told you so" part of the process.
There is a difference between saying "I told you so", and saying you're an idiot for making a choice in tool. (Here is the difference.)
Are you really claiming there are no free software RCS? You need to get out more. Inferiority of course is subjective.
Many zealots have conceded that BK/BM offered features that couldn't be found in any other product. If an FS RCS, like CVS, offered those features, Linus would not be writing his own kludge (GIT). People like you may think ARCH is an acceptable alternative, but some people do not want to wait a whole day to commit merges into a source tree.
How about because HE is NOT the developer. He does perform some development but there are over 200 active developers working on the kernel who choose NOT to use this tool.
His contributions can be found in the changlog entries. Liar.
Those other developers have chosen NOT to use the tool.
And guess what? Linus's choice didn't stop them! So Linus is EVIL for not bending to the wishes of the herd about how THEY think Linus should do HIS work?
That the vendor can withdraw the right to use at any random moment he feels the need.
And guess what? HE DID! More important, so what!?!? We still have the source code and the changeset data!
Perhaps you proprietary crap zealots need to learn that some people do NOT want to depend on the continued goodwill of a profit driven vendor.
I am not a proprietary crap zealot. I am not a supporter of McVoy. I merely recognise McVoy's RIGHT to choose the conditions upon which provides his proprietary software and his RIGHT to retract his offerings. What a horribly, unreasonable person I am for defending property rights! Some people need to learn that the will of a group of people is not grounds to dictate how other people choose to conduct their business.
Last year, I had to see my preferred political candidate for president lose the race all because he made the fatal mistake of expressing enthusiam during a political speech in Iowa. Boy, he was an idiot for doing that. Not like that great thinker GW Bush, and all the brilliant things he's said. Or that superior thinker, John Kerry, who knew never to express an opinion on anything other than he's a better candidate than GWB. Or fight back hard when slandered by a bunch of political operators like the "Swift Boat Veterans".
The lesson to be learned here is that anyone can be portrayed to look like an idiot. It doesn't mean they are. More important, one must closely observe what the pack of jackals say. Then you have to be able to discern the untruths and misreprentations. Then realize what are the consequences.
Realize that F/OSS is a philosophy. It stops being a philosophy and starts being an ideology when its proponent try to coerce their views on people with a different philosophy. Much like how people think the U.S. must conform to a Fundamentalist Christian value set. (After all, is it wrong to value life? Or the gov't showing respect to the Christian God? Aren't public schools denying religion by not permitting a Christian prayer in class? Or teaching something we don't believe because its relies on scientific research and methodology for its arguments?)
The key thing here is observe the positions that F/OSS zealots take, and the tactics they employ.
Torvalds was wrong for adopting a proprietary tool and "making" developers use it.
The problem here was that quite a few, if not the majority, of developers did not want to use BK and chose not to use BK. It did not prevent them from making contributions to kernel development. So how did Torvalds compel developers, against their will, to adopt a tool?
This proprietary tool would abscond the software and the changeset data!
But as Torvalds points out here, its baseless. But gee, it sounds real scary, doesn't it. And who cares if its claptrap? So many Slashdotters think its the reason why Torvalds was an idiot to adopt a proprietary tool!
Why, according to Torvalds, is exploring proprietary Microsoft protocols good, while exploring proprietary Bitmover protocols is bad? This does not compute.
That's because F/OSS zealots Orlowski and Perens prefer to misrepresent Torvalds' position. Torvalds does not attack reverse-engineering, he attacks Tridgell for messing up his agreement with McVoy WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE.
Perens:It seems to me hypocritical. I can't tell Linus Torvalds what to say. But it's Andrew Tridgell who is literally not allowed to reply, here, and Linus is being very severely unfair."
Tridgell is not "literally not allowed to reply". He will not lose his job if he replies. Tridgell merely does not have the character to publicly defend his beliefs if it will result a (miniscule) risk to his financial wellbeing. (But he's more than happy to dismiss McVoy's concerns towards his financial wellbeing when he conducts his reverse-engineering activities.)
But perhaps Perens is right. Linus is being severely unfair, the way people are being unfair about commenting on Scott Pedersen during his trial, and Michael Jackson during his trial. This world is ridden with filthy, unethical people. Oh wait, Tridgell is not actually under indictment. I guess Torvalds should respect Tridgell's reputation and desire to protect his financial welfare after Tridgell screwed Torvalds' deal with McVoy, and gladly suffer the glaring misrepresentations made by Perens and his ilk. (See Swift Boat Veterans.) Oh yes, the hypocrisy!
Slashdot Mirror
You really have nailed my psyche & dilemna. :P
;)
Checking bookmarks for viability is already out there. Its called spidering.
Oddly enough, those long gone sites are not really a problem. Out of my 3K bookmarks, I'd guess at least 95% are viable, and perhaps another 10% need to be relocated.
No, I want to automate the organizing, and perhaps an alternate interface to quickly retrieve the link. Transferring the bookmarks into a relational database probably would really help. Save a bookmark, add a few keywords at entry time, utterly retrievable.
Nah, I'm figuring I'm not the first person to come across the problem, and there's a plugin/utility I've never heard of that fits the bill. Also, perhaps in the discussion some new ideas would come about. I've toyed with the idea that perhaps the ideal bookmarking system would have a more point/click GUI interface. I use many many folders and subfolders to achieve the same effect. Then again, some UI genius or wild thinker has a concept that would never occur to me. And finally, it never hurts to bank some karma...
Google is inadequate bookmark repository. Many a time I have hit on a page searched by Google, and then three months later can remember there was a particularly good page, but then can't find it.
Usually this occurs when I want to locate a particular factoid for a response. Specific keywords, page ranking, and Google index updates is going to affect the ability to find a specific page.
Are you a physicist that is sure that the climactic effects caused the asteroid impact wouldn't cause the starvation of 95% of the population?
In any case, at 0.015%, I think it would behoove humanity to try to avoid this possibility. Hell, trading companies shoot for 9.9999% guarantee of uptime and accuracy. And its only over money.
Actually, I seriously doubt that. With six years of time, I could see the world working to relocate all that people before the event. Unless its 296 million people in North America we're talking about...
It shouldn't be overestimated either. It wouldn't be to the end of history. It would be to the end of its significance, basically a few centuries after man has left this star system. Hell, can you remember the names of the soldiers in the Charge of Light Brigade? How about the names of the 101st's KIAs at Bastogne? Names of the people who died while working on the Manhattan project?
Atheism/agnosticism is not the dominant philosophy among technical people. I'd argue its not even a significantly higher percentage (over 15% difference from the mean). Also, being an A/A does not mean you're stupid enough to value an extension in the conceptual knowledge of your existence. And how would you weed out the competent depressed suicidal people from the ones that could lose it at the wrong point? To me, the answer would be to recruit from the family types. But try $50 mil (EURO)/family.
No, try 100% probability of dying. No return vehicle, not enough oxygen/food/water.
Nice catch on the reduction.
As I pointed out afterwards its not the formula that's going to tell you if it will collide with the Earth. But it occurred to me that there still is no need to determine composition. It should be possible to plot the course of the asteroid using another planet to triagulate the vector, and then derive its velocity. As long as it doesn't come within gravitational influence of another heavenly body in the next 30 years, it just may be able to figure out its likely course. Wonder why the astronomer didn't catch that? :/ (Perhaps the asteroid won't be visible long enough to compare its trajectory with another celestial body.)
Its a lot less likely than 0.042%. More like 0.015%. Yet, this is really troubling to me. Its not such a remote possibility at those odds. I'd still side with the house if the loss was only money, but... Or to look at it another way, you're more likely to have civilization wiped out than win the lottery...
The problem is more intractible than it looks. And your analysis of the analogy somewhat suspect.
There can be quite an acceleration of engineering improvements once you have the prototype in place. In the asteroid case, you would have to be able to design & implement a vehicle capable of getting the asteriod with time to spare (like a year), with a probable additional requirement of humans being able to survive the trip. (I'm having a problem believing you'll find enough qualified personnel to go on a suicide mission. Don't look at me, I prefer to figure out a way to survive an asteriod impact.) Especially since you now are relying on a technology which has never been implemented in the manner you describe (nuclear pulse propulsion). Then you would need to be able to generate enough force to alter the trajectory of a heavenly body. Don't think a nuke is going to cut it. (See Armaggeddon.) Even shattering the asteroid is a technical event, since we yet have drilled a kilometer in a low-gravity vaccuum. I suspect it probably was easier to design a working a-bomb, since it was easier to do testing.
But I agree its not inconceivable to pull off a sucessful trajectory altering mission. But is it within the ability of a single nation like the U.S.? (Hello martial law.) Or do you think the most difficult trick would be surviving the war to establish a world gov't, and to wrap it up quickly enough to start working on the engineering problems. (Don't even try to suggest this could be done by UN committee.)
Nah, I think the bureaucratic roadblocks will be just as difficult as the engineering.
Sure its good. Presuming the theory of Natural Selection is properly applied, the organisms with the smart DNA will be able to realize the potential threat and devise a strategy to maximize its perpetuation. Or the DNA most likely to survive such an system event. Survival of the Fittest.
Granted, if the asteroid was able to exterminate ALL life, that could present a problem. But we're empirical evidence of the unlikeliness of such an event. In other words, yay DNA! Boo human civilization.
Nope, not even really applicable as a formula. Sure you'll find out what the force is, but you'll have to apply calculus in order to figure out what the trajectories will be, and then a slightly different formula (or computer simulation) to figure out if both bodies will intersect at a point and time.
Thank goodness I don't have to be a physicist to make a living. Its really bugging me that you knew a formula, and yet couldn't realize the problem with not knowing the asteriod's composition.
Mass. (I'm presuming one of those m's is mass.)
Everything is made of of elements, elements have different atomic masses. With out being able to determine the composition of the asteriod, and thus its mass, we can't figure out how much force is going to be generated by the earth's gravitation on the asteroid, and thus its eventual trajectory. That is of course even assumes the formula you have provided is correct, and applicable to a correct answer.
You could also allow a form of passing equipment from character to character: inheritance. New character would need to come from the original character's lineage, or a newb character that had some contact to the original. A will gets produced beforehand. You could even stick in amusing instances like other players contesting the will.
The character gets the boost from the item, but should still be limited by their newb characteristics. Also, the game should favor experience & acquired skills, and less on booty.
One of my favorite geek memories of childhood was listening to Radio Moscow on my shortwave radio. (I think I was 13 years old back then.) Initially, there was the childish visceral thrill of doing something "forbidden". (There was a COLD WAR ON, back then...) But really, the greatest aspect of the broadcasts were how the "Commies" were unintentionally being hilarious in some of their less defendable points of view. It would be like listening to Rush Limbaugh because you got bellylaughs from mocking his opinions. (But I personally don't find stupidity or his propaganda all that amusing...).
My most notable memory was how the Radio Moscow program was sponsoring an essay contest to win a free trip to the USSR. I don't remember the specifics, but they had the winner (American or Canadian) read it over the air. It was a foreign accented individual spieling communist ideology in a dead monotone right out of a bad Manchurian Candidate movie clone for like 15-20 minutes.
Basically, it could only be one of two possibilities. They could have been too broke or cheap to sponsor a real contest, and got it some academic ideologue to write it, and foreign embassy staff to read it. Mind you, you're not going to convince the audience there were loyal communists in the US if they speak in a slight foreign accent. The other possibility was that it actually was a North American, but hooboy, selecting a mumbling, monotonic guy out of a psychiatric ward would hardly encourage people to embrace communism.
Anyway, I found that post hilarious. The moderator is an obvious moron for labeling it a troll. I'm curious as to what traumatic brush with communists causes you to lash out in parody. (And *bang* is a nice touch.) Keep alive the Revolution, Comrade!
Standing up for Tridgell's character as an Anonymous Coward is quite pathetic. I can only say with F/OSS defenders like you, there is hope.
For the record, I have little venom towards Tridgell. I don't see what he did as ethical (and the ethical issue is not about reverse engineering in general). I prefer to beleive he did it in a fit of pique. As for keeping his mouth shut, I don't know what his lawyers told him, but it must have some significant legal downside. (financial, not criminal.) But I can't respect someone who claims to be fighting for programmer rights, by screwing over what programmers wish to chose, but chooses not to fight for principle when it risks litigation.
And note, no one attacks the specifics of my charges. But how like a F/OSS fanboy; he doesn't like what I say, but he can't refute it. He can only whine that I "shut up".
AS ARE YOU. YOU cannot PROVE the client would NOT cause TRANSACTION error.
If it were my choice, no. But its not MY choice. Torvalds may feel your characterization is technically FALSE. After all, since both parties have to agree to conduct the transaction, it may not be technically feasible for a "hacker" to trash the repository with his "hacked" client.
Again, if it were my tractor, I would not permit some hick to be taking it apart to satify his edification. Back to reality, if McVoy felt he should be concerned about the F/OSS client screwing up the metadata, then he had a RIGHT to address the issue, even if it meant revoking the license. Again, he may be a jackoff, but that's not the issue.
Linus felt the tool greatly aided his ability to manage kernel updates, that he could trust McVoy to ensure the quality of the product. He had no reason to think other people would try to sabotage his agreement with McVoy. YOU, and any F/OSS zealot DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE LINUS' CHOICE IN TOOLS! He's not wrong, YOU ARE, you Stalinist.
That is a lie. A vendor is permitted to choose to whom he sells his product to, or whether he offers it for free. He can also pursue a legal action against Tridge for unauthorized access to McVoy's BitMover server. That can be legally interpreted as "hacking", and there are laws which prohibit that. McVoy can also negotiate with Tridge's employer to fire him for violating the agreement between OSDF and McVoy. (OSDF chose not to do so, but that didn't mean McVoy did not have the legal right to try it.) I will be the first to concede there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that McVoy could get a favorable legal ruling in any tactic he chose to pursue. But there is no law (in the US) that prevents McVoy from pursuing a legal action that is unlikely to win. Tridge's legal bills would have to come out of his own wallet. There's no law that protects Tridge from lawsuit bills even though Tridge has a legal right to reverse engineer.
You f**king moron. I have NEVER ASSERTED that Tridgell did NOT have a legal RIGHT to reverse engineer a product! And as I've pointed out, there is NO LAW that PREVENTS McVoy from ACTING in a manner to prevent Tridgell from reverse engineering, PROVIDED it DOES not violate the LAW! I've already outlined some actions McVoy to prevent Tridgell from reverse engineering. They are perfectly legal! McVoy would NOT be legally permitted to shoot Tridgell in order to prevent him from reverse engineering, or hacking into Tridge's computer and trashing his work, etc. etc. etc.
No, I am not. I am defending his right to do whatever he is legally permitted to do and whatever legal rights he has over his products. Not because I'm on the "asshole's" side. Because if fairness and the law cannot b
He had a legal right. He also can chose NOT to pursue what he is legally permitted to do. Just because its legal to do something, does not make it a GOOD thing to do. Tridgell did not need clairvoyance in this situation. McVoy had alway threatened to do something like this, and Linus, McVoy, and OSDF had been in discussion with Tridgell to desist in this activity.
Larry had the right to take away the license, and furthermore, Larry has a legal right to ACT to protect HIS franchise.
Now YOU are the one who is LYING. I did not say Tridge was not working on a competing product. I said that Tridge's work on reverse-engineering would NOT RESULT in a REPLACEMENT to BK/BM. No one has to PROVE HARM came to Larry. Larry might be a idiot for thinking he needs to address things that way. But then again, you may be an idiot for thinking Tridge was right to sabotage the agreement Torvalds had with McVoy, merely because he could. Its called perspective.
By YOUR own admission, the end result is that the kernel developers got screwed over. They would NOT have been screwed over if Tridge did not continue his reverse engineering efforts. Tridge may have had the legal RIGHT to do so, but he did NOT HAVE to pursue his course of action. He did not have an alternative tool for Torvalds, he acted only to satify his curiosity, and CHOSE to screw over the developers that preferred to use BK/BM.
How about this characterization then?
Translation: Because we claim he owes us, and now he has to conduct himself according to our ideology.
(You just conveniently forget he actually wrote the damn thing, released the kernel with a GPL license, and you guys would be countable on two hands, unshowered in a basement bickering with each other if he hadn't.)
With that rationale, why not demand Bill Gates promote OSS? They're popular, prominent, and way of life is based on the work of people who promote OSS. After all, you've paid for a PC at some point in your life.
Oh God, please someone pluck out my eyes...
The repositories are not centralized. You can run a sanity check to see if an individual repository is correct, but you would have to run a sanity check on every repository in relation to each other. If the client has some responsibilities in that transaction, then an open source client could possibly corrupt that transaction. I don't know, the whole product is proprietary. That may be an argument for not using a proprietary product, but there are people who chose to use a proprietary product provided it works and the VENDOR is responsible for proper function. I don't see you quitting your job because your employer forces you to use proprietary Microsoft products at your job. Or dropping linux during the three years BK/BM was in use. (Or justify lying and misrepresenting people to further your ideology. That isn't directed at you, killjoe.)
I cannot. There hasn't been enough opportunity to let Tridge's client screw up BK/BM. That does not prove that Tridgell's client wouldn't screwup the BK/BM metadata. The "danger" still stands, as does the analogy.
My apologies for being unclear. I meant McVoy has the right to be a jerk, and the right to withdraw free use of his product and his support. And he is entitled to do anything conformant to law that would prevent a person from reverse-engineering his product.
I'm not defending the "asshole" McVoy. I am defending Torvalds, whom I don't think is an asshole or has conducted himself improperly. More important, I'm attacking the F/OSS cabal, because I don't believe its okay to lie and misrepresent individuals, and I don't want those parasites to get their way. This may make my point of view clearer.
Tridge always had a choice. He could have chosen to develop an alternative to McVoy's product. Tridge could have chosen to show discretion, and not screw over Torvalds (and the other maintainers) on his choice of SCM tool.
He did not make those choices. He chose instead to reverse-engineer a client, which would not result in the alternative to McVoy's product. But he did succeed in making it untenable for Torvalds to continue using the tool of his choice.
I don't know anyone who's in favor of getting screwed over by someone else.
Why should he stop? Because Tridgell did not do it to produce an alternative to BK/BM. Its a futile gesture, except to make Linus' agreement with McVoy untenable. Tridgell is basically denying Torvalds' use of his tool because he thinks he has a right to tell Torvalds what tool he can use. I can say Tridgell has the right to reverse-engineer. I can also call him a piss-ant for screwing over Torvalds, since Tridgell was not producing a viable alternative to McVoy's product. And yes, McVoy is a stupid prick for not making the tool available to Torvalds gratis. It doesn't absolve Tridgell of his culpability in the matter.
And what kind of loser doormat are you that you would let the other kids diss you when you are letting them use YOUR ball? McVoy took away his ball because he wasn't willing to bend over while people "stole" his "intellectual property". He might be a tool for thinking that way, but he certain has the right to take it away.
Yes, and your opinion on what constitutes open source holds no more weight than mine or Torvalds. It does not give Perens, you, or anyone the moral absolution to lie and misrepresent people.
So its okay to lie and misrepresent someone who doesn't agree with your position, because its "a movement"? The only difference between you and Osama then is that I assume you don't think its its okay to kill people over one's civil rights.
The instant Tridge submits a change to the software tree, he risks introducing transactional corruption. McVoy is willing to track down bugs with his product. Not track down bugs submitted by a 3rd party.
The tractor is my property. If someone is f**king it up, then I shouldn't be forced to accept damage to it. To bring it into intellectual property mindset, McVoy feels he has a right to conceal the methods and format of his proprietary product. He may be a jerk, but he has that right.
So was Osama bin Laden. That is the problem.
Except I have no vested interest in Bitkeeper's product. I do not own stock, I do not make money in anyway related to the product, or the Linux kernel for that matter. I am hardly a shill.
Then don't accuse me of being a proprietary crap zealot when I defend that right.
No, the vendor yanked the tool after he could not get Tridgell to desist on his reverse-engineering efforts. The disruption was triggered Tridgell trying to reverse-engineer the client. Tridgell had the "right" to reverse engineer the product, but he did not offer an alternative to the BK/BM product. He is partly to blame for the disruption.
There is a difference between saying "I told you so", and saying you're an idiot for making a choice in tool. (Here is the difference.)
Many zealots have conceded that BK/BM offered features that couldn't be found in any other product. If an FS RCS, like CVS, offered those features, Linus would not be writing his own kludge (GIT). People like you may think ARCH is an acceptable alternative, but some people do not want to wait a whole day to commit merges into a source tree.
His contributions can be found in the changlog entries. Liar.
And guess what? Linus's choice didn't stop them! So Linus is EVIL for not bending to the wishes of the herd about how THEY think Linus should do HIS work?
And guess what? HE DID! More important, so what!?!? We still have the source code and the changeset data!
I am not a proprietary crap zealot. I am not a supporter of McVoy. I merely recognise McVoy's RIGHT to choose the conditions upon which provides his proprietary software and his RIGHT to retract his offerings. What a horribly, unreasonable person I am for defending property rights! Some people need to learn that the will of a group of people is not grounds to dictate how other people choose to conduct their business.
Last year, I had to see my preferred political candidate for president lose the race all because he made the fatal mistake of expressing enthusiam during a political speech in Iowa. Boy, he was an idiot for doing that. Not like that great thinker GW Bush, and all the brilliant things he's said. Or that superior thinker, John Kerry, who knew never to express an opinion on anything other than he's a better candidate than GWB. Or fight back hard when slandered by a bunch of political operators like the "Swift Boat Veterans".
The lesson to be learned here is that anyone can be portrayed to look like an idiot. It doesn't mean they are. More important, one must closely observe what the pack of jackals say. Then you have to be able to discern the untruths and misreprentations. Then realize what are the consequences.
Realize that F/OSS is a philosophy. It stops being a philosophy and starts being an ideology when its proponent try to coerce their views on people with a different philosophy. Much like how people think the U.S. must conform to a Fundamentalist Christian value set. (After all, is it wrong to value life? Or the gov't showing respect to the Christian God? Aren't public schools denying religion by not permitting a Christian prayer in class? Or teaching something we don't believe because its relies on scientific research and methodology for its arguments?)
The key thing here is observe the positions that F/OSS zealots take, and the tactics they employ.
The problem here was that quite a few, if not the majority, of developers did not want to use BK and chose not to use BK. It did not prevent them from making contributions to kernel development. So how did Torvalds compel developers, against their will, to adopt a tool?
But as Torvalds points out here, its baseless. But gee, it sounds real scary, doesn't it. And who cares if its claptrap? So many Slashdotters think its the reason why Torvalds was an idiot to adopt a proprietary tool!
That's because F/OSS zealots Orlowski and Perens prefer to misrepresent Torvalds' position. Torvalds does not attack reverse-engineering, he attacks Tridgell for messing up his agreement with McVoy WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE.
Tridgell is not "literally not allowed to reply". He will not lose his job if he replies. Tridgell merely does not have the character to publicly defend his beliefs if it will result a (miniscule) risk to his financial wellbeing. (But he's more than happy to dismiss McVoy's concerns towards his financial wellbeing when he conducts his reverse-engineering activities.)
But perhaps Perens is right. Linus is being severely unfair, the way people are being unfair about commenting on Scott Pedersen during his trial, and Michael Jackson during his trial. This world is ridden with filthy, unethical people. Oh wait, Tridgell is not actually under indictment. I guess Torvalds should respect Tridgell's reputation and desire to protect his financial welfare after Tridgell screwed Torvalds' deal with McVoy, and gladly suffer the glaring misrepresentations made by Perens and his ilk. (See Swift Boat Veterans.) Oh yes, the hypocrisy!
Folks, its really simple. F/OSS ze