I've only installed Fluxbox for my PII-400 system, and it is actually useable (and relatively fast) as compared to Gnome or KDE, which is so downright slow that it is almost impossible to use.
My Windows 2K install was pretty slow too, then I grabbed this one program. I think it was called Mac OS X. Ever since then, haven't had any viruses, crashes or slow performance. You should give it a try...
My Win2K Pro install was pretty fast too. Ever since then I haven't had any viruses, crashes, or slow performance. I've never really found Win2K Pro to be at fault for a program crash. Photoshop, Lightwave, and the games I play are all stable. In fact, Lightwave crashed more on the OSX machines at school than here at home.
That may be true now, but not necessarily in 20 years. Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us.
And soon after, the first intergalactic Counterstrike games will begin... Of course the latency would be horrible, but it's bound to happen.
Very true- no software ever written has been 100% bug free. Mac, Linux, Mozilla etc. simply aren't targets for obvious reasons that are frequently brought up here.
I dunno, my Hello World program was pretty rock solid.
Or.... the missions were such a success that fewer missions would be needed. (Not just for this mission, but anytime a mission lasts longer and gets more accomplished than intended)
Agreed. If we don't send humans, why bother even sending robots? I think the best bet is it to use robots for performing tasks that humans cannot, and to explore an area first to know what we should expect when we finally send humans to any destination.
I highly doubt the Apollo missions would have had such an impact if they sent rovers instead of men.
Do you honestly think that the engineers, who I'm sure have infinite more knowledge on this subject than you, didn't think of this?
I'm not even an engineer but the thought of "brooms" makes me think of scratched solar panels. Also, it's extra weight, and something else to go wrong.
This is great news. Not only for the science, but it also adds to NASA's credibility. Sure, they thought it would only last 250 Martian days, but when it comes to funding in the future, this may help, however little.
I was merely pointing out recent times. I didn't feel like going back all the way to the 50's to make a point.
But here goes:
1950: Alfa Romeo wins 6 of 7 races. 1952: Ferrari wins 7 of 8 races. 1955: Mercedes wins 5 of 7 races. 1960: Cooper wins 6 of 10 races. Climax powered cars that won 8 of 10 in that year. 1961: Ferrari wins 5 of 8 races
Well, do you also realise that F1 has been this way for a long, long time? Look back at the days of Williams and McLaren domination. in '92 and '93, Williams won 10 races in each year I believe. In 96 they walked away with 12 wins. Look back to 1988 when McLaren won 15 out of 16 races. It's just the nature of the sport for one team to dominate.
Not only is there the performance gap in F1, but compared to Nascar, there's very little following of a safety (aka pace) car. This Sunday was the exception at Indy though. The tracks themselves have a lot of run off area (with the exception of Monaco), so usually when a car crashes, it's off track, or quickly removed from the track. In Nascar, if there's a crash, out comes the pace car, and the cars all bunch up again. Also, again, track design sometimes makes it very difficult to pass in F1, so a faster might get held up by a slower car for a few laps.
And actually, on average, you're going to see a red blur every 45 seconds or so, and I love it:) (Long time Ferrari fan, so I'm just loving the current domination of them rather than McLaren and Williams destroying the field. But such is F1, and another team will dominate eventually, and the cycle will continue.
What caught my eye about the article right away was the fact that they say 150 MPH. An F1 car is capable of 220 on some of the current tracks, and will go well over 150 on any of the tracks on the current schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
And a genius would know how to spell ;)
Didn't you hear? They changed the name of it to avoid all those bad puns. It's now called urectum.
/butchered joke, but I don't remember exactly how it went.
I have 256 mb of RAM on my PII-400, and KDE and Gnome are both slow.
I've only installed Fluxbox for my PII-400 system, and it is actually useable (and relatively fast) as compared to Gnome or KDE, which is so downright slow that it is almost impossible to use.
My Windows 2K install was pretty slow too, then I grabbed this one program. I think it was called Mac OS X. Ever since then, haven't had any viruses, crashes or slow performance. You should give it a try...
My Win2K Pro install was pretty fast too. Ever since then I haven't had any viruses, crashes, or slow performance. I've never really found Win2K Pro to be at fault for a program crash. Photoshop, Lightwave, and the games I play are all stable. In fact, Lightwave crashed more on the OSX machines at school than here at home.
It all boils down to the user(s) of the machine.
SCO?
How do I get out of here? This spinal fluid is kind of gross.
That may be true now, but not necessarily in 20 years. Heck, in 20 years we may discover a more practical way to transmit over vast distances... and suddenly discover aliens are already trying to communicate with us. And soon after, the first intergalactic Counterstrike games will begin... Of course the latency would be horrible, but it's bound to happen.
Ahem. He said chicken leg. I'm almost sure however, that I could indeed choke the chicken without my thumbs.
I dunno, I can hold a pencil and a variety of other things without using my thumb.
That depends on your sexual preference...
That's because they didn't have a hairy martian sitting in a tent with thousands of mosquitos telling them "no, nothing beats the deet".
Very true- no software ever written has been 100% bug free. Mac, Linux, Mozilla etc. simply aren't targets for obvious reasons that are frequently brought up here.
I dunno, my Hello World program was pretty rock solid.
Or.... the missions were such a success that fewer missions would be needed. (Not just for this mission, but anytime a mission lasts longer and gets more accomplished than intended)
Agreed. If we don't send humans, why bother even sending robots? I think the best bet is it to use robots for performing tasks that humans cannot, and to explore an area first to know what we should expect when we finally send humans to any destination.
I highly doubt the Apollo missions would have had such an impact if they sent rovers instead of men.
I don't know if you're serious or not but...
Do you honestly think that the engineers, who I'm sure have infinite more knowledge on this subject than you, didn't think of this?
I'm not even an engineer but the thought of "brooms" makes me think of scratched solar panels. Also, it's extra weight, and something else to go wrong.
Battlebots: MARS!
This is great news. Not only for the science, but it also adds to NASA's credibility. Sure, they thought it would only last 250 Martian days, but when it comes to funding in the future, this may help, however little.
I think you mean cool. And by cool, you inherently mean totally sweet.
I was merely pointing out recent times. I didn't feel like going back all the way to the 50's to make a point.
But here goes:
1950: Alfa Romeo wins 6 of 7 races.
1952: Ferrari wins 7 of 8 races.
1955: Mercedes wins 5 of 7 races.
1960: Cooper wins 6 of 10 races. Climax powered cars that won 8 of 10 in that year.
1961: Ferrari wins 5 of 8 races
I hope that's far enough back for you.
Well, do you also realise that F1 has been this way for a long, long time? Look back at the days of Williams and McLaren domination. in '92 and '93, Williams won 10 races in each year I believe. In 96 they walked away with 12 wins. Look back to 1988 when McLaren won 15 out of 16 races. It's just the nature of the sport for one team to dominate.
Possibly, but give Minardi the same budget as Ferrari and they won't even come close to putting together a car like Ferrari.
Not only is there the performance gap in F1, but compared to Nascar, there's very little following of a safety (aka pace) car. This Sunday was the exception at Indy though. The tracks themselves have a lot of run off area (with the exception of Monaco), so usually when a car crashes, it's off track, or quickly removed from the track. In Nascar, if there's a crash, out comes the pace car, and the cars all bunch up again. Also, again, track design sometimes makes it very difficult to pass in F1, so a faster might get held up by a slower car for a few laps.
:) (Long time Ferrari fan, so I'm just loving the current domination of them rather than McLaren and Williams destroying the field. But such is F1, and another team will dominate eventually, and the cycle will continue.
And actually, on average, you're going to see a red blur every 45 seconds or so, and I love it
Even robots make mistakes. What mistake are you refering to? Do you mean last Sunday as in at Indy or at Montreal?
What caught my eye about the article right away was the fact that they say 150 MPH. An F1 car is capable of 220 on some of the current tracks, and will go well over 150 on any of the tracks on the current schedule.