But continuous lines. Many random collections of lines totalling to 200 1) Doesn't even resemble System V without an "exhaustive comparison", and 2) Doesn't demonstrate that the small amount of SysV code in Linux actually gave it more functionality.
Good to know they give some thought to the dumbass people.
Seriously though, there is a difference between an engine dying because it wasn't maintained. You shouldn't rely on a not-maintained engine to work. If I was whooshing by on a gizmo that accounts for my balance, I do expect it to keep me balanced. When the battery gets low, the thing should refuse to drive. The balance giving out before it stops moving is bad, even though you should charge it up.
A more appropriate example would be blaming Ford if the power steering/braking gave out a few miles before the engine did when you ran out of gas.
If my engine dying caused me bodily harm, I should hope they recall them too. I'd be dead by now; I never change my oil enough.::Points to self:: This dipstick trying to work::points to oil dipstick:: that dipstick isn't a matter of technical skill, it's a downright battle of friggin' wits.
Why aren't more racial minority members participating in OSS projects?
Have you ever sat back and thought that maybe the problem isn't that we are racist, but that not enough minorities decide to take up programming, and even less OSS programming?
You're just stereotyping nerds the same way racists stereotype you. Go... play basketball or perfect Ebonics. If you want to write a free program, just shut up and do it like we do.
Seriously, the best way to be treated like just another person regardless of color is to just BE another person. It's like you guys are scared to be equal. Just do it. You don't need a law made by a white politician to tell you that you're equal, or special exceptions, or anything like that. YOU act like race isn't a problem, so will others.
And going towards another star wouldn't help, because you can't sail against the "wind" in this case
You could collapse the sail.
Which would only slow you down if the largest source of gravity were behind you, which isn't the case if you're going towards another star. You would have to reverse the sail around half-way through, making this whole ordeal take even longer.
two Voyagers (both of which are still sending data) are out past Neptune.
Yep, with conventional rockets and slingshot maneuvers around planets, a shitload faster than a solar sail.
the kind of person who would sit back and say "impossible, the earth is flat" as Columbus sets sail.
We had evidence that the earth was round, not the center of the universe, etc. before we found out experimentally. We saw plenty of heavier-than-air objects fly before we tried experimentally. We have absolutely no reason to believe that we can one day travel faster than light other than our own cocky belief that humans can eventually do anything... and the fact that the Enterprise does at the beginning of every episode. AND, every effort to do so has been met with the reaffirmation that it can't be done.
in more speed then any conventional propelled rocket that you send in space.
The main practical difficulty I see is stopping. You can't slap propelled rockets on the ship to do the job; if you did, I would want to know you didn't propell you ship with that to begin with.
Maybe some fancy gravity trickery... deaccelerate as a star's gravity starts to whip you around. Other than that, I don't see how you could do it. I still don't see a use for these other than minute corrections in satellite trajectories. They're not directional, and the methods by which, say, sailboats can sail against the wind won't work here. Only way to slow yourself down is to stop sailing and let gravity do it's thing... a big problem when you're somewhere in space in which gravity isn't acting against you. Moreover, we wouldn't get very far away, because the force provided by sunlight diminishes exponentially as you move further away. And going towards another star wouldn't help, because you can't sail against the "wind" in this case (ship sails can because of how the wind will curve and press on the sail in a different direction than what it was originally travelling, which won't happen with light).
We're getting to the point where it will just take too long to go where we want to go, and eventually it's going to make us ask if we really can go there. I mean, hundreds of years later, who's going to care that a probe, unable to communicate with us, is careening somewhere past Neptune? As for people, don't hold your breath on this transporting us; it just takes too long. I don't know about you, but going to another planet wouldn't be worth most of my life, if not the whole thing and part of my children's. And I don't even want to hear this whole "Once we figure out how to go faster than light" garbage. You've all been taking Star Trek too seriously. Granted, people didn't believe we could fly, or the earth was round, blah blah blah. As we progress we do realize that things were wrong, but some things become more compellingly right as well. The speed of light, the fact that we can't exceed it and its correlation with time are what defines our reality. Sending something faster than light, AND slowing it back down without the obvious logical and physical laws getting in the way is impossible. Sending something as complicated and sensetive as an organism is absurd. Sending an organism as intricate as a person should be grounds for insanity.
Sorry, that just bothers me when geeks worldwide sit back after watching something on the Sci-Fi channel and think "Man, once we learn to warp... that'll be good times my friend", to which his friend replies "Affirmative" and starts taking readings on his platic light-up box... er, tricorder.
It's always the turtle that wins...
Unless there's a dog running after you. I got 5 bucks on the hare.
So, are you really that obtuse, or did you quit something and feel self-righteous over it?
As a smoker, quite possibly the WORST addiction (not in terms of symptoms, but effectiveness), I must reply: bullshit.
Habits can be broken by choice - when you don't break them, it's because, on balance, you'd simply prefer not to.
I'm leaning towards obtuse now. When a person is addicted to doesn't mean that you are seemingly driven to do something, it means that for some reason, you lose the ability to choose not to do it. Not even considering the horrors of narcotics, ask someone who smokes to quit. You won't get some manic answer, or a person who really wants to but can't. What you'll get is an excuse. As a smoker, my sense of judgement is so messed up regarding cigarettes that I always find a reason. "I'm depressed, I can't." "I will... right after this pack." "I'll just cut back a little." "I can't, I'm addicted."
You're damn right, habits can be broken by choice, and that if one doesn't, they simply prefer not to. That's an addiction, when a person illogically prefers not to stop.
My reason not to stop, especially given that I appear to understand why I smoke and still do? Well, I would, except then I'd have to change my sig.:-)
Yeah, when you have an idle moment in the airport and you start reading the ingredient list on the granola bar because suddenly you care, then you know that the pursuit of data has passed beyond the rational and entered the, yes, that's right, addictive.
Or maybe you're just sitting at the airport doing nothing and you got bored. Entertainment/enjoyment does not mean addiction. I'm sure if one were in airport with nothing better to do, a lot of people would casually read a granola wrapper.
Linus should be more carefull about SCO. Its not a SCO vs IBM at all. They are trying to squash it via fud and legal options.
Linux CANNOT be destroyed/removed/etc. as a result of this lawsuit. Just as SCO can't "accidentally" make its own IP GPL'ed software by releasing Linux before it realized that it has their code in it (if it is there), Linux can't be punished for letting illegal code in without his knowledge. He didn't see SCO code, there was NO way for him to tell (again, if it is there).
Like it or not, SCO must eventually give specifics as to what code is in the kernel, they can't claim damages without giving the defending side the ability to change ti. So Linus will soon enough learn about the offending code, and if it is indeed their code, it will be removed. Either way, true or false, the kernel is in no danger.
What happens when the gadget mistakenly activates and starts trying to turn the plane?
There are always safety issues. What happens when ANYTHING on an airplane fails? By your logic airplanes should be as manually-driven as possible, but like it or not, pilots can fail too, much more than airplane avionics.
There's always going to be some way around security, but that doesn't make it a waste of time. That's why they have other measures. If you got in your Cessna alone with explosives, they'd just blow YOU up.
Yes, some terrorists could get hold of a private plane. Some could just run a van of explosives into a building. Some could just hit something other than downtown, but the point is that it could prevent some people from even trying, and that is never a waste of time.
and the pilot had to make "evasive maneuvors" (sp!) or something?
There's no justification for "evasively maneruvering" into DOWNTOWN. The plane can take its chances elsewhere. Threatening thousands of lives to save a couple hundred... eh, NO.
If there's going to be a mid-air collision, or even if the plane has engine failure and is going to crash, you still don't want damaged planes careening through a metropolis. If by astronomical odds that sutation happens, I'd rather have the plane take its chances then go downtown and take MY chances.
And even better question would be how in the hell a mid-air collision less than 1,000 ft above the ground, near downtown, would come to pass. WTF is an airliner (let alone TWO) doing down there in the first place?
Taking control from a pilot is dangerous, yes, but this is a zone where no pilot has ANY reason to be. It should be treated like a big hill; as good as ground. At that low of an altitude, there is no reason a pilot would need to navigate though there. If his plane is going to crash and he has no chance other than to navigate between buildings to find a place to crash-land, well I'm sorry, but endangering potentionally thousands of lives and millions of dollars isn't worth one airplane's worth of passengers.
It's a simulated hill, that's how it should be considered. Flying through there isn't an option. It may be dangerous, but if a normal pilot finds himself that low, aimed at a building, he's already pretty screwed, and any measure that can save the building is fine. A pilot should just treat the soft-wall like the ground, there is no justification for endangering people and buildings within the wall.
I'd guess this can only be used to protect parts of cities a distance away from and airport. It still sounds useful; most of the buildings a terrorist (as opposed to a hijacker, which *wants* the plane to fly) would want to hit are reasonably far from and airport. The "walls" sound progressive, and could be modified so that even if an airport runway comes close to or runs near a soft wall, a check on the GPS and the compass could inform the avionics that the plane, though approaching a soft wall, is not aimed towards a building.
In newer planes, the autopilot system is an integral part of the airplane, not a separate box or something you can rip out. The controls of new airliners simply must go through avionics systems, it's not a direct stick-to-flap kinda thing. There is no such thing as true manual control in airplanes like that.
It's such an integral part of airplanes these days, it's like bypassing the CPU on a computer; doesn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
And, as we all know, beef is the ONLY food that one can eat...
And, as we all know, tractors, plowers, and harvesting machines run on fairy dust.
Congratulations, you just gave vegetarians another reason to feel better about themselves.
What was the other one?
So, once again, think about what you install on your computer just like you would think about what you eat or who you have sex with.
...Then again, that doesn't hold true for the third example. Times like that I'm happy to have no reason.
And make sure you have backups of anything worth keeping.
Too bad you can't back up the other two... instruments. I must admit to seeing obviously-vile food items and wondering "What if...?"
But continuous lines. Many random collections of lines totalling to 200 1) Doesn't even resemble System V without an "exhaustive comparison", and 2) Doesn't demonstrate that the small amount of SysV code in Linux actually gave it more functionality.
I sincerely hope Boeing doesn't sell jets to the kind of people that would fall off of a low-battery-powered Segeway.
Good to know they give some thought to the dumbass people.
Seriously though, there is a difference between an engine dying because it wasn't maintained. You shouldn't rely on a not-maintained engine to work. If I was whooshing by on a gizmo that accounts for my balance, I do expect it to keep me balanced. When the battery gets low, the thing should refuse to drive. The balance giving out before it stops moving is bad, even though you should charge it up.
A more appropriate example would be blaming Ford if the power steering/braking gave out a few miles before the engine did when you ran out of gas.
If my engine dying caused me bodily harm, I should hope they recall them too. I'd be dead by now; I never change my oil enough. ::Points to self:: This dipstick trying to work ::points to oil dipstick:: that dipstick isn't a matter of technical skill, it's a downright battle of friggin' wits.
Just in time to send it to Mars to work on the power plant.
An injunction would shut down SCO's sales of any of the identified infringing software.
...Sales?
Why aren't more racial minority members participating in OSS projects?
Have you ever sat back and thought that maybe the problem isn't that we are racist, but that not enough minorities decide to take up programming, and even less OSS programming?
You're just stereotyping nerds the same way racists stereotype you. Go... play basketball or perfect Ebonics. If you want to write a free program, just shut up and do it like we do.
Seriously, the best way to be treated like just another person regardless of color is to just BE another person. It's like you guys are scared to be equal. Just do it. You don't need a law made by a white politician to tell you that you're equal, or special exceptions, or anything like that. YOU act like race isn't a problem, so will others.
And going towards another star wouldn't help, because you can't sail against the "wind" in this case
You could collapse the sail.
Which would only slow you down if the largest source of gravity were behind you, which isn't the case if you're going towards another star. You would have to reverse the sail around half-way through, making this whole ordeal take even longer.
two Voyagers (both of which are still sending data) are out past Neptune.
Yep, with conventional rockets and slingshot maneuvers around planets, a shitload faster than a solar sail.
the kind of person who would sit back and say "impossible, the earth is flat" as Columbus sets sail.
We had evidence that the earth was round, not the center of the universe, etc. before we found out experimentally. We saw plenty of heavier-than-air objects fly before we tried experimentally. We have absolutely no reason to believe that we can one day travel faster than light other than our own cocky belief that humans can eventually do anything... and the fact that the Enterprise does at the beginning of every episode. AND, every effort to do so has been met with the reaffirmation that it can't be done.
in more speed then any conventional propelled rocket that you send in space.
The main practical difficulty I see is stopping. You can't slap propelled rockets on the ship to do the job; if you did, I would want to know you didn't propell you ship with that to begin with.
Maybe some fancy gravity trickery... deaccelerate as a star's gravity starts to whip you around. Other than that, I don't see how you could do it. I still don't see a use for these other than minute corrections in satellite trajectories. They're not directional, and the methods by which, say, sailboats can sail against the wind won't work here. Only way to slow yourself down is to stop sailing and let gravity do it's thing... a big problem when you're somewhere in space in which gravity isn't acting against you. Moreover, we wouldn't get very far away, because the force provided by sunlight diminishes exponentially as you move further away. And going towards another star wouldn't help, because you can't sail against the "wind" in this case (ship sails can because of how the wind will curve and press on the sail in a different direction than what it was originally travelling, which won't happen with light).
We're getting to the point where it will just take too long to go where we want to go, and eventually it's going to make us ask if we really can go there. I mean, hundreds of years later, who's going to care that a probe, unable to communicate with us, is careening somewhere past Neptune? As for people, don't hold your breath on this transporting us; it just takes too long. I don't know about you, but going to another planet wouldn't be worth most of my life, if not the whole thing and part of my children's. And I don't even want to hear this whole "Once we figure out how to go faster than light" garbage. You've all been taking Star Trek too seriously. Granted, people didn't believe we could fly, or the earth was round, blah blah blah. As we progress we do realize that things were wrong, but some things become more compellingly right as well. The speed of light, the fact that we can't exceed it and its correlation with time are what defines our reality. Sending something faster than light, AND slowing it back down without the obvious logical and physical laws getting in the way is impossible. Sending something as complicated and sensetive as an organism is absurd. Sending an organism as intricate as a person should be grounds for insanity.
Sorry, that just bothers me when geeks worldwide sit back after watching something on the Sci-Fi channel and think "Man, once we learn to warp... that'll be good times my friend", to which his friend replies "Affirmative" and starts taking readings on his platic light-up box... er, tricorder.
It's always the turtle that wins...
Unless there's a dog running after you. I got 5 bucks on the hare.
Why should we choose a binary format when we have Gentoo with which you can download the sources and build your own optimized binaries..
Why should we choose Gentoo when we have the actual sources, with which you can download and build your own optimized binaries?
It's not like we've heard this joke at least 30 times already.
Addiction does not exist.
:-)
So, are you really that obtuse, or did you quit something and feel self-righteous over it?
As a smoker, quite possibly the WORST addiction (not in terms of symptoms, but effectiveness), I must reply: bullshit.
Habits can be broken by choice - when you don't break them, it's because, on balance, you'd simply prefer not to.
I'm leaning towards obtuse now. When a person is addicted to doesn't mean that you are seemingly driven to do something, it means that for some reason, you lose the ability to choose not to do it. Not even considering the horrors of narcotics, ask someone who smokes to quit. You won't get some manic answer, or a person who really wants to but can't. What you'll get is an excuse. As a smoker, my sense of judgement is so messed up regarding cigarettes that I always find a reason. "I'm depressed, I can't." "I will... right after this pack." "I'll just cut back a little." "I can't, I'm addicted."
You're damn right, habits can be broken by choice, and that if one doesn't, they simply prefer not to. That's an addiction, when a person illogically prefers not to stop.
My reason not to stop, especially given that I appear to understand why I smoke and still do? Well, I would, except then I'd have to change my sig.
Yeah, when you have an idle moment in the airport and you start reading the ingredient list on the granola bar because suddenly you care, then you know that the pursuit of data has passed beyond the rational and entered the, yes, that's right, addictive.
Or maybe you're just sitting at the airport doing nothing and you got bored. Entertainment/enjoyment does not mean addiction. I'm sure if one were in airport with nothing better to do, a lot of people would casually read a granola wrapper.
::Sheepishly crawls back under rock to die of dimwittedness::
Linus should be more carefull about SCO. Its not a SCO vs IBM at all. They are trying to squash it via fud and legal options.
Linux CANNOT be destroyed/removed/etc. as a result of this lawsuit. Just as SCO can't "accidentally" make its own IP GPL'ed software by releasing Linux before it realized that it has their code in it (if it is there), Linux can't be punished for letting illegal code in without his knowledge. He didn't see SCO code, there was NO way for him to tell (again, if it is there).
Like it or not, SCO must eventually give specifics as to what code is in the kernel, they can't claim damages without giving the defending side the ability to change ti. So Linus will soon enough learn about the offending code, and if it is indeed their code, it will be removed. Either way, true or false, the kernel is in no danger.
::Buzz:: Wrong again.
Forks are actually quite old.
What happens when the gadget mistakenly activates and starts trying to turn the plane?
There are always safety issues. What happens when ANYTHING on an airplane fails? By your logic airplanes should be as manually-driven as possible, but like it or not, pilots can fail too, much more than airplane avionics.
There's always going to be some way around security, but that doesn't make it a waste of time. That's why they have other measures. If you got in your Cessna alone with explosives, they'd just blow YOU up.
Yes, some terrorists could get hold of a private plane. Some could just run a van of explosives into a building. Some could just hit something other than downtown, but the point is that it could prevent some people from even trying, and that is never a waste of time.
and the pilot had to make "evasive maneuvors" (sp!) or something?
There's no justification for "evasively maneruvering" into DOWNTOWN. The plane can take its chances elsewhere. Threatening thousands of lives to save a couple hundred... eh, NO.
If there's going to be a mid-air collision, or even if the plane has engine failure and is going to crash, you still don't want damaged planes careening through a metropolis. If by astronomical odds that sutation happens, I'd rather have the plane take its chances then go downtown and take MY chances.
And even better question would be how in the hell a mid-air collision less than 1,000 ft above the ground, near downtown, would come to pass. WTF is an airliner (let alone TWO) doing down there in the first place?
Taking control from a pilot is dangerous, yes, but this is a zone where no pilot has ANY reason to be. It should be treated like a big hill; as good as ground. At that low of an altitude, there is no reason a pilot would need to navigate though there. If his plane is going to crash and he has no chance other than to navigate between buildings to find a place to crash-land, well I'm sorry, but endangering potentionally thousands of lives and millions of dollars isn't worth one airplane's worth of passengers.
It's a simulated hill, that's how it should be considered. Flying through there isn't an option. It may be dangerous, but if a normal pilot finds himself that low, aimed at a building, he's already pretty screwed, and any measure that can save the building is fine. A pilot should just treat the soft-wall like the ground, there is no justification for endangering people and buildings within the wall.
I'd guess this can only be used to protect parts of cities a distance away from and airport. It still sounds useful; most of the buildings a terrorist (as opposed to a hijacker, which *wants* the plane to fly) would want to hit are reasonably far from and airport. The "walls" sound progressive, and could be modified so that even if an airport runway comes close to or runs near a soft wall, a check on the GPS and the compass could inform the avionics that the plane, though approaching a soft wall, is not aimed towards a building.
In newer planes, the autopilot system is an integral part of the airplane, not a separate box or something you can rip out. The controls of new airliners simply must go through avionics systems, it's not a direct stick-to-flap kinda thing. There is no such thing as true manual control in airplanes like that.
It's such an integral part of airplanes these days, it's like bypassing the CPU on a computer; doesn't happen.
That a 17" laptop is useless...
But buying a laptop with a smaller screen and two LCD's for your home and your office is a better idea?!