The only place I personally noticed the umount problem was with cdroms (part of the new ATA cdrom code?). I could umount any drive but cdroms, and the kernel would hang on reboot (not shutdown, weird) while trying to umount a mounted cdrom filesystem.
Otherwise everything else seemed to umount ok.
Otherwise I've been running 2.6 since -test3, and other than a few minor annoyances (framebuffer, cdrom umount, cd burner recognition) it's been fabulously stable and very fast.
Ditto here. I've been running the -test kernels on the faster machine since summer, so I can't remember just how much difference there was. I do know it was noticeable, tho. In particular setiathome used to noticeably slow the machine; now I don't even notice whether it's running or not. *grin* 2.6 definitely WU'ed me there *grin*
On the laptop I just compiled 2.6.1 for, however, (a 200mhz DEC HiNote) the speed increases are huge. You're not imagining the boot time drop - it's easily twice as fast on the laptop as 2.4.20 was. The GUI is also noticeably more responsive.
The new build system is great, especially on a slow machine:) Kudos to the kernel people, and thanks!
I just compiled 2.6.1 for my 200mhz laptop (Debian unstable) and the speed increase - especially at boot and for Fluxbox - was very, very noticeable, particularly for cpu intensive apps.
I haven't noticed any breakage - not yet - the machine has only been up for 4 days running 2.6.1. But so far it's great:)
BTW I used the kernel source from debian, not the backport.
A question for anyone out there with a Digital HiNote 7xx series laptop; any idea which sound chip it uses, and how to set up sound? Google hasn't been very informative. (Not a 2.6 problem, I can't figure out which driver to use; most people seem to be using old SB compatibility, but I can't make it work:( TIA )
changing the eccentricity of an orbit is easier than shifting to a different altitude at the same eccentricity.
It's still a simple velocity change.
Of course you do have to do more than one burn - but the efficiency loss in multiple burns depends more on your motor than it does on orbital mechanics.
Well, it's not really that simple. But I was trying to get it across in the original post in simple terms.
My *original* post/point WAS that if we have to launch a booster to change the HST's orbit, up *or* down, then the cost of the launch far outweighs the cost of any fuel/booster equipment/effort required to bring it down *or* up (unless one consider "up" as geosync, which I don't)
O'Keefe is playing politics in that respect. It doesn't really matter if we repair Hubble right now. For very close to the same cost we could "park" it somewhere where we could deal with it in the future. It's not necessary to bring it down.
I'm sick of this. Much the same argument was used with Mir, when it would have *cost* less than a thousandth of the expenditure of Mir to boost it high enough to keep it there for a couple hundred years.
It's fucking political. All of this is. I'm disgusted. If one could approximate the returns from the HST in dollar value, it'd be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. One can't. It's mostly data that will, and has, resulted in enormous returns in scientific data, most of which will not see any "practical" (read: monetary) returns for decades, if ever; but it all *matters* because we simply don't know what will result from the analysis.
Madame Curie didn't know what she was researching, either.
What if you're willing, as the attacking force, to reduce their space/air/artillery etc with your space/air/artillery forces; then broadcast to them that, if they go any further, you will annihilate them completely using standoff weapons ( what you have availaible? )
It's not a very viable scenario now, but it could be. You made a good point about the changes that technology has made in war. The disparities in most force comparisons are going to become more pronounced.
Have you read Pournelle's "Footfall"? It's somewhat dated, but we already have the capabilility to implement Thor (indeed, I'm surprised that Bush hasn't, to my knowledge, implemented such a program, given his apparent prerogatives in space); but as you're no doubt aware, whoever owns the "high ground" (air or space) essentially owns the battlefield.
I'm aware that you can't occupy or control on the ground from such a policy. However, you can annihilate the enemy completely from such a position. That's why I think it may become SOP in the future, humanitarian considerations aside.
What the worldwide political considersations of such a military policy may be, I don't know. I do know that from a military standpoint, it's the most efficient way of conducting a war. The political considerations may have just become irrelevant wrt to Iraq. Maybe, maybe not - but if even a small portion of the countries in the ME decide they're not going to put up with our invasion of Iraq, the political considerations could quickly become irrelevant - just as they could have during the Cold War.
IANAPS - so I may just be talking out of my ass here. However, I don't think that history, even recent history, has as much bearing on possible future actions as some people think it does.
Yeah. Shit like this is what prompted me to live on next to nothing for years while I built my own business; and after I moved 850 miles west, to search for work where there was loyalty both ways. I found it - not at the wage I was making before while independently employed, but at least when I go home now, my time is my own:)
I can think of 3 people/companies I've worked for who returned what they were given - out of over 13 in 20 years. *Three*
Back in '90 or so, I quit considering the kind of crap you are talking about as "unreasonable" and began to think of it as serfdom. It's no more and no less (probably a lot more).
Dangit, I'm so mad now I can't think straight. Not for me, for all the people with obvious talent I see trapped underneath people who have no fucking idea how to accomplish the duties they were given without resorting to dictatorial tactics (most of the time, the first sign of cluelessness)
If the company has no loyalty to me, if they refuse to take my side, then I'll refuse to take theirs.
Yes, exactly. If the idiots at a company can't consider their employees their MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE; then they are bloody clueless. They can bribe, cajole, bitch, or threaten; but when it comes down to the grit, the most valuable employees for *any* company are the ones *who want to be there because they feel like they are accomplishing something*.
I fail to understand this "personnel management" thing. You *work* *with* your people, you don't *manage* them. They're not robots.
Sigh.
Sorry for the rant:) It's Friday and I'm trying to get drunk:)
"The nice thing about this Katana.....is that it breaks when you try to slice your tomatoes with it....so we *know* you won't be using it to try to kill anyone"
Heee hee! Good lord, he just got pinked a bit. I wonder what would have happened if it'd hit him a little harder? Might have been more than a couple stitches:)
Boy, what a sword:-)))) I really, really want one. Really.
Thanks for the link. I'm going to put that on VHS and show that at my next MA class. They'll get some amusement out of it, I think.
And that takes a lot less energy than keeping a supposedly-obsolete intrument safe for decades.
The amount of energy it'll take will depend on how high you want to boost it. Obviously we'd want to boost it above the Van Allen belts, if for no other reason than to keep the electronics from being cooked too quickly - yeah, debatable - which means ~ 5000km or higher (don't remember exactly).
Yes, it'd be cheaper in terms of pure fuel costs to deorbit it. But remember that large amount of the cost - possibly 90% + - in doing this in the first place is going to be spent on the rocket that launches the booster (ground to LEO).
So if we're going to do that anyway, why not boost it higher? Especially if we could work out a way to use something as efficient as a ion engine to do it? It'd be a great use - and demonstration - of the ion tech. (Hey, O'Keefe - think of what a boost that'd be to NASA; "we saved Hubble, and we did it with a new technology - oh wow, lookie == PR:)
Personally I feel that the whole Hubble thing is nothing more than O'Keefe playing politics in parallel with the Bush administration. However, IANAPS ( *grin* I Am Not A Political "Scientist")
A point: Walking across a room (even a carpeted one) with the video card *in your hand* will not fry the card. It's when you ground yourself, thru the card, that the charge is transferred. It's a good idea to not install a card unless you are grounded to the case of the computer in question.
I've never used a static wrist strap myself. I just make sure to ground myself to the case (resting my forearms on the bare metal) when working inside a machine. It's actually a better ground than a strap. However, when moving components from elsewhere to the machine, make sure to ground yourself by touching the case *first* (with the other hand, preferably, although I'm not sure it makes a difference except in high potential environments w/low humidity). In any case, make sure you're grounded to the computer case, so there is no potential between your body and the case, before you touch anything inside the case or install anything. Even with a wrist strap, it's still a good habit to be constantly touching the case metal somewhere. During winter, it's an especially good habit, as that's when humidity tends to be it's lowest (and static E has it's highest possibility of being generated).
Some might disagree with me, but I've used those techniques or similar ones for 25 years of working on electronics, and I haven't once fried a component. I *have* seen people using wrist straps fry RAM. Only a couple times, but it was enough.
It takes MUCH more fuel to boost an object's height than to send it crashing into earth.
Changing a object's orbit, within the small altitude changes we are talking about, involves essentially the same velocity change whether or not you are bringing it one kilometer higher or one kilometer lower.
*Inclination* changes - right angle changes - are much more expensive than altitude changes.
and possibly also the booster add-on that was discussed recently.
Well, we *do* have to orbit Hubble in a controlled manner. It's massive enough that there's a possibility some of the components might reach Earth intact. The political fallout of not even attempting to controllably deorbit Hubble would be, um, nasty:)
Ergo, the booster will be built regardless. As long as we're going to put a (unmanned, probably) booster up there, why not use it for a greater purpose than destroying the most productive orbital instrument we've already launched? Putting the booster up in the first place is the most expensive part; the additional fuel cost (use an ion engine, maybe?) is negligible when you consider the total cost of the operation.
I agree; but just to play Devil's Advocate, I'll state that all those social programs and, indeed, society itself, will be irrelevant if we don't develop a serious space presence.
I have many reasons for saying so. Here's a few:
Means of detection and possible prevention of an asteroid/comet strike on our planet.
A civilian presence in space to counter any potentially destabilizing military presence in space (such as by the Chinese).
Pure research. Plain ol' scientific research, in all it's forms, has contributed more to the human race than all the social programs in history combined.
We need the social programs, too. We have the capability to do both - as long as we're not off trying to save every two-bit country in the world from it's own leadership (a laudable, if not practical goal, at least in this point in history). Unfortunately it seems like our space program is at least as badly managed as many of our gov-funded social programs.
I'm not sure how politically or financially feasible a robotic repair mission would be, but think of the huge boost it could give to remote orbital construction techniques....after all, NASA's real mandate is research.
Personally I think it'd be an excellent demonstration of the new ion engine technology to use it to send Hubble to a higher orbit. We could probably even do science on the way. It'd be slow, but fairly cheap and would have less potential of damaging Hubble than a larger booster using more standard fuels.
Just a thought. I bet the Europeans would be interested in doing so, however.
I for one would love to see Hubble saved. If not for future science (tho that's a possibility) then maybe for some future orbital Smithsonian, where tourists could ooh and ahh over the instrument that gave us so much...
This whole thing stinks so badly of politics I feel like puking.
It takes energy to deorbit objects too (remember, it boils down to a velocity change). A higher orbit may take *more* fuel because it has a larger velocity change. But - you still have to hook a booster to it - so why not boost it up instead of down?
Left to itself Hubble would deorbit eventually due to atmospheric drag (pretty small but still exists in LEO). The thing is, we would have no control over where it came down...so we *have* to send a booster to it...so why not boost it up (save it for some future orbital Smithsonian, if nothing else?)
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't tried lspci yet; I'll try later.
There's no info on the sound card in
SB
s/social barriers/political barriers/ :)
SB
Thanks, yeah, I do. Still works with www.caldera.com, tho I doubt that that will last much longer.
SB
The only place I personally noticed the umount problem was with cdroms (part of the new ATA cdrom code?). I could umount any drive but cdroms, and the kernel would hang on reboot (not shutdown, weird) while trying to umount a mounted cdrom filesystem.
Otherwise everything else seemed to umount ok.
Otherwise I've been running 2.6 since -test3, and other than a few minor annoyances (framebuffer, cdrom umount, cd burner recognition) it's been fabulously stable and very fast.
SB
Ditto here. I've been running the -test kernels on the faster machine since summer, so I can't remember just how much difference there was. I do know it was noticeable, tho. In particular setiathome used to noticeably slow the machine; now I don't even notice whether it's running or not. *grin* 2.6 definitely WU'ed me there *grin*
:) Kudos to the kernel people, and thanks!
On the laptop I just compiled 2.6.1 for, however, (a 200mhz DEC HiNote) the speed increases are huge. You're not imagining the boot time drop - it's easily twice as fast on the laptop as 2.4.20 was. The GUI is also noticeably more responsive.
The new build system is great, especially on a slow machine
SB
I just compiled 2.6.1 for my 200mhz laptop (Debian unstable) and the speed increase - especially at boot and for Fluxbox - was very, very noticeable, particularly for cpu intensive apps.
I haven't noticed any breakage - not yet - the machine has only been up for 4 days running 2.6.1. But so far it's great
BTW I used the kernel source from debian, not the backport.
A question for anyone out there with a Digital HiNote 7xx series laptop; any idea which sound chip it uses, and how to set up sound? Google hasn't been very informative. (Not a 2.6 problem, I can't figure out which driver to use; most people seem to be using old SB compatibility, but I can't make it work
SB
WiFi at campgrounds is already happening. Cool stuff, too.... :)
SB
changing the eccentricity of an orbit is easier than shifting to a different altitude at the same eccentricity.
It's still a simple velocity change.
Of course you do have to do more than one burn - but the efficiency loss in multiple burns depends more on your motor than it does on orbital mechanics.
Well, it's not really that simple. But I was trying to get it across in the original post in simple terms.
My *original* post/point WAS that if we have to launch a booster to change the HST's orbit, up *or* down, then the cost of the launch far outweighs the cost of any fuel/booster equipment/effort required to bring it down *or* up (unless one consider "up" as geosync, which I don't)
O'Keefe is playing politics in that respect. It doesn't really matter if we repair Hubble right now. For very close to the same cost we could "park" it somewhere where we could deal with it in the future. It's not necessary to bring it down.
I'm sick of this. Much the same argument was used with Mir, when it would have *cost* less than a thousandth of the expenditure of Mir to boost it high enough to keep it there for a couple hundred years.
It's fucking political. All of this is. I'm disgusted. If one could approximate the returns from the HST in dollar value, it'd be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. One can't. It's mostly data that will, and has, resulted in enormous returns in scientific data, most of which will not see any "practical" (read: monetary) returns for decades, if ever; but it all *matters* because we simply don't know what will result from the analysis.
Madame Curie didn't know what she was researching, either.
Lord Almighty this country is fucked up.
SB
What if you're willing, as the attacking force, to reduce their space/air/artillery etc with your space/air/artillery forces; then broadcast to them that, if they go any further, you will annihilate them completely using standoff weapons ( what you have availaible? )
It's not a very viable scenario now, but it could be. You made a good point about the changes that technology has made in war. The disparities in most force comparisons are going to become more pronounced.
Have you read Pournelle's "Footfall"? It's somewhat dated, but we already have the capabilility to implement Thor (indeed, I'm surprised that Bush hasn't, to my knowledge, implemented such a program, given his apparent prerogatives in space); but as you're no doubt aware, whoever owns the "high ground" (air or space) essentially owns the battlefield.
I'm aware that you can't occupy or control on the ground from such a policy. However, you can annihilate the enemy completely from such a position. That's why I think it may become SOP in the future, humanitarian considerations aside.
What the worldwide political considersations of such a military policy may be, I don't know. I do know that from a military standpoint, it's the most efficient way of conducting a war. The political considerations may have just become irrelevant wrt to Iraq. Maybe, maybe not - but if even a small portion of the countries in the ME decide they're not going to put up with our invasion of Iraq, the political considerations could quickly become irrelevant - just as they could have during the Cold War.
IANAPS - so I may just be talking out of my ass here. However, I don't think that history, even recent history, has as much bearing on possible future actions as some people think it does.
SB
Yeah. Shit like this is what prompted me to live on next to nothing for years while I built my own business; and after I moved 850 miles west, to search for work where there was loyalty both ways. I found it - not at the wage I was making before while independently employed, but at least when I go home now, my time is my own :)
:) It's Friday and I'm trying to get drunk :)
I can think of 3 people/companies I've worked for who returned what they were given - out of over 13 in 20 years. *Three*
Back in '90 or so, I quit considering the kind of crap you are talking about as "unreasonable" and began to think of it as serfdom. It's no more and no less (probably a lot more).
Dangit, I'm so mad now I can't think straight. Not for me, for all the people with obvious talent I see trapped underneath people who have no fucking idea how to accomplish the duties they were given without resorting to dictatorial tactics (most of the time, the first sign of cluelessness)
If the company has no loyalty to me, if they refuse to take my side, then I'll refuse to take theirs.
Yes, exactly. If the idiots at a company can't consider their employees their MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE; then they are bloody clueless. They can bribe, cajole, bitch, or threaten; but when it comes down to the grit, the most valuable employees for *any* company are the ones *who want to be there because they feel like they are accomplishing something*.
I fail to understand this "personnel management" thing. You *work* *with* your people, you don't *manage* them. They're not robots.
Sigh.
Sorry for the rant
SB
Lifetime Warranty Heeee heee heheheheheheheheheee
Whose lifetime, I wonder?
Thanks again, I just showed that to my GF, and she's rolling on the floor LMOL.
Damn, that was hilarious.
SB
That's priceless.
:)
:-)))) I really, really want one. Really.
"The nice thing about this Katana.....is that it breaks when you try to slice your tomatoes with it....so we *know* you won't be using it to try to kill anyone"
Heee hee! Good lord, he just got pinked a bit. I wonder what would have happened if it'd hit him a little harder? Might have been more than a couple stitches
Boy, what a sword
Thanks for the link. I'm going to put that on VHS and show that at my next MA class. They'll get some amusement out of it, I think.
SB
pull down her sweater...
Obvious answer: She was wearing a very *loose* sweater.
With nothing under it (??)
Anyone have her phone number? *grin*
SB
And that takes a lot less energy than keeping a supposedly-obsolete intrument safe for decades.
The amount of energy it'll take will depend on how high you want to boost it. Obviously we'd want to boost it above the Van Allen belts, if for no other reason than to keep the electronics from being cooked too quickly - yeah, debatable - which means ~ 5000km or higher (don't remember exactly).
Yes, it'd be cheaper in terms of pure fuel costs to deorbit it. But remember that large amount of the cost - possibly 90% + - in doing this in the first place is going to be spent on the rocket that launches the booster (ground to LEO).
So if we're going to do that anyway, why not boost it higher? Especially if we could work out a way to use something as efficient as a ion engine to do it? It'd be a great use - and demonstration - of the ion tech. (Hey, O'Keefe - think of what a boost that'd be to NASA; "we saved Hubble, and we did it with a new technology - oh wow, lookie == PR
Personally I feel that the whole Hubble thing is nothing more than O'Keefe playing politics in parallel with the Bush administration. However, IANAPS ( *grin* I Am Not A Political "Scientist")
SB
He knew what he was talking about.
A point: Walking across a room (even a carpeted one) with the video card *in your hand* will not fry the card. It's when you ground yourself, thru the card, that the charge is transferred. It's a good idea to not install a card unless you are grounded to the case of the computer in question.
I've never used a static wrist strap myself. I just make sure to ground myself to the case (resting my forearms on the bare metal) when working inside a machine. It's actually a better ground than a strap. However, when moving components from elsewhere to the machine, make sure to ground yourself by touching the case *first* (with the other hand, preferably, although I'm not sure it makes a difference except in high potential environments w/low humidity). In any case, make sure you're grounded to the computer case, so there is no potential between your body and the case, before you touch anything inside the case or install anything. Even with a wrist strap, it's still a good habit to be constantly touching the case metal somewhere. During winter, it's an especially good habit, as that's when humidity tends to be it's lowest (and static E has it's highest possibility of being generated).
Some might disagree with me, but I've used those techniques or similar ones for 25 years of working on electronics, and I haven't once fried a component. I *have* seen people using wrist straps fry RAM. Only a couple times, but it was enough.
SB
It takes MUCH more fuel to boost an object's height than to send it crashing into earth.
Changing a object's orbit, within the small altitude changes we are talking about, involves essentially the same velocity change whether or not you are bringing it one kilometer higher or one kilometer lower.
*Inclination* changes - right angle changes - are much more expensive than altitude changes.
SB
and possibly also the booster add-on that was discussed recently.
Well, we *do* have to orbit Hubble in a controlled manner. It's massive enough that there's a possibility some of the components might reach Earth intact. The political fallout of not even attempting to controllably deorbit Hubble would be, um, nasty
Ergo, the booster will be built regardless. As long as we're going to put a (unmanned, probably) booster up there, why not use it for a greater purpose than destroying the most productive orbital instrument we've already launched? Putting the booster up in the first place is the most expensive part; the additional fuel cost (use an ion engine, maybe?) is negligible when you consider the total cost of the operation.
SB
I agree; but just to play Devil's Advocate, I'll state that all those social programs and, indeed, society itself, will be irrelevant if we don't develop a serious space presence.
I have many reasons for saying so. Here's a few:
Means of detection and possible prevention of an asteroid/comet strike on our planet.
A civilian presence in space to counter any potentially destabilizing military presence in space (such as by the Chinese).
Pure research. Plain ol' scientific research, in all it's forms, has contributed more to the human race than all the social programs in history combined.
We need the social programs, too. We have the capability to do both - as long as we're not off trying to save every two-bit country in the world from it's own leadership (a laudable, if not practical goal, at least in this point in history). Unfortunately it seems like our space program is at least as badly managed as many of our gov-funded social programs.
SB
I'm not sure how politically or financially feasible a robotic repair mission would be, but think of the huge boost it could give to remote orbital construction techniques....after all, NASA's real mandate is research.
SB
Personally I think it'd be an excellent demonstration of the new ion engine technology to use it to send Hubble to a higher orbit. We could probably even do science on the way. It'd be slow, but fairly cheap and would have less potential of damaging Hubble than a larger booster using more standard fuels.
Just a thought. I bet the Europeans would be interested in doing so, however.
I for one would love to see Hubble saved. If not for future science (tho that's a possibility) then maybe for some future orbital Smithsonian, where tourists could ooh and ahh over the instrument that gave us so much...
This whole thing stinks so badly of politics I feel like puking.
SB
It takes energy to deorbit objects too (remember, it boils down to a velocity change). A higher orbit may take *more* fuel because it has a larger velocity change. But - you still have to hook a booster to it - so why not boost it up instead of down?
Left to itself Hubble would deorbit eventually due to atmospheric drag (pretty small but still exists in LEO). The thing is, we would have no control over where it came down...so we *have* to send a booster to it...so why not boost it up (save it for some future orbital Smithsonian, if nothing else?)
SB
No, it was the Ferengi. They had the motive, anyway.
SB
Not yet. Well, the population did; but the politicians seem to be a bit behind.
SB
Thereby proving that Political Correctness is not a new invention...
The irony is so thick one could walk on it.
SB
After google caches your post, it wont't be an empty search anymore :)
SB