You forget that part of the reason MS's format gained dominance is because their programs were good at opening up their competitors' files, and they could save in their competitors' file formats too. If OO is to succeed, it needs to be able to do the same. Not that MS has made this easy... but that's what has to happen.
You don't happen to be using the same version of Word from 1995 do you? I just tried this (currently using Office 2000) and had no problems. I think you're talking out of your ass and hoping no one calls you on it.
-Move more than 500 meters from their landing site
It's really pathetic that we think we're going to explore *an entire planet* with rovers that can move only a few hundred meters in their entire life.
A better rover could solve this easily.
-Navigate around obstacles in less than a day and a half
See above about the pathetic mobility of current rovers.
See above about better robots
Use their tools in new and creative ways that weren't in the original mission plan
Not a whole lot to do on a barren planet of rocks.
-Solve problems on their own during the times NASA ground control is unreachable
Equipment breaks down. It's a lot easier to fix stuff when you have a person right there than to try to debug a robot from a hundred million miles away.
The implication here is also that the astronaut could easily get stranded and die -- with a robot, you can just send another one.
Re:Bang for the buck
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
doing this faster means you get more done in s given amount of time. That translates into getting more science done for your money.
Getting ready for an unmanned mission is much faster than preparing for a manned mission. And no, faster times do not give you that much more for your money.
The people on the ground have a 15 minute time lag, no sense of touch, smell, hearing or taste. I'd hardly call that comporable to being able to grab a rock, go back to the hab, and play with it with all your senses for a few hours.
Hmm... besides looking at it and using analyzers on it, what senses could they use? Should they listen to the rock? Taste it? Rub it on their skin? Sniff it? I seriously doubt an astronaut would do any of these things, both because they wouldn't yield much scientific data, and because they'd be dangerous. Besides, a probe could bring back rocks too, without having to bring a human along for the ride.
- Humans can do everything that the robots can but hundreds of times faster.
So what? It's not like Mars is a rapidly changing environment.
- They can use their intuition and perception in ways that robtos cannot.
That's what the ground controllers are for. The robots act as the senses for the ground controllers. And better robots do exist. I think the Mars rovers only have about 256MB memory -- they can do better than that. Besides, if humans were there, what would they do? They would use special equipment to take readings of Mars, just as the rovers do. If Mars was like Earth, then sending humans would be justifiable -- there would be so much there to explore that humans could do more. But Mars is pretty barren. A simple rover will suffice.
It was really cool in the beginning when it was a novelty, but now it has become an extremely expensive hobby. There are better things to spend/waste money on.
Now how many of this are the result of manned spaceflight? Seems a lot of people aren't making this distinction -- the article is not arguing against the space program, just manned spaceflight. There are a few spinoffs on the list related to manned spaceflight, but nothing spectacular, and probably could've been developed much cheaper.
Aside from the fact that microchips weren't invented for spaceflight, note that even if they were, they wouldn't have been for unmanned spaceflight -- after all, if you have computer chips to provide a bit of intelligence, you don't need a human.
Just a sidenote -- aerogel was developed by NASA, but it was invented quite some time ago, in the 1930s.
And yeah, it is undeniably cool -- it's sometimes called "frozen smoke".
Re:This is a fight that shouldn't be fought.
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 1
Looking at the evidence (manned flight, moon missions), I'd say that your statement is completely bogus. Humans can do a little more than robots can, but there's a lot more that robots can do that humans can't (explore more hazardous areas). Overall, I'd say that robots could actually outdo humans in a lot of areas. Sure, humans have reason and judgement, but a robot can get that from a human controller back on earth. As pointed out in the article, delays in communications aren't a problem, because they'll be dealing with a pretty much static environment anyway.
Simply not true. First, the rovers were more like $400 million each. I'm not sure where you get your figure of humans costing 100 times more. That's simply wild speculation on your part.
Two humans could have done everything the two current probes have done in the past two months in a few hours tops. It would cost more but in the two year stay that humans would undertake, they would produce tens of thousands of times the scientific data that machines would.
That's simply wild speculation on your part. What could humans do that the robots can't? Play golf? The robots are just an extension of the human controllers back on earth; the presence of a human on Mars is not very useful. Want more data? Just send a better robot.
I think the point is that at this time, there are much better things to spend money on than manned space flight. It's very impressive to me, but when I think of the huge amount of money that goes into it, I can't help but feel that so much of it is wasted. I've heard the argument about spinoffs, but the reality is that there's very little spinoff, especially from manned flight in particular. Although it may pave the way for better exploration later, that's something that can wait. As for the inspiration factor, I don't think it will be as impressive as you think, and certainly not worth a trillion dollars.
The high price is due to the codes being secret -- I know the owner of a small car repair shop, and he can't afford to buy the special codes and the reader equipment. The companies charge thousands of dollars for the stuff -- and then you have to get expensive updates every year too. Part of the reason the dealership charges so much is probably because they were charged ridiculous prices for them. It's bullshit, because the reader is basically like a troubleshooting manual for the car. They don't contain detailed inner workings of the engine, it's just routine stuff like status of valves, RPMs, detected problems, etc -- something more detailed than a "Check Engine" light. And the readers aren't very sophisticated either, probably little more than a serial port on some cars. This same stuff applies to repair information on cars. Repair references such as Mitchell-On-Demand are basically just collections of diagrams from various manufacturers, but cost thousands of dollars to purchase. And really, it's not much more than a detailed manual, which you'd think would come with the car, which would make it available to small shops.
Linux is updated much more frequently than Windows, and due to lack of mfr support, usually has more "generic" drivers that aren't brand specific. Linux distributions rarely have to license drivers to include, but because Windows's drivers are closed-source and more limited in their distribution, it may be more difficult to get permission to distribute them (although you'd think that companies would want this), or maybe the situation is that MS doesn't want to distribute drivers it hasn't certified. New versions of Windows don't come out as often, but it's been my experience that most popular hardware is usually supported by a new version of Windows at the time of release, and because mfr support for Windows is strong, the drivers can be installed straight away quite easily. By screwing with the INF files in a driver, sometimes you can force a driver to install on hardware that's not quite a match, but this isn't always the case. I haven't had very good luck with Linux and video/monitor setup, especially when asked to identify precisely what video card I have and what refresh rates my monitor supports, but this usually isn't much of a concern because I rarely if ever use the GUI anyway.
This is the shit. I've wanted a desktop in portable form, but not lunchbox style. This is perfect, if it weren't the the fact that it's manufactured by Acer (don't really like them) and my company already supplied me with a nice Centrino-based laptop. One thing I would be curious about though is the battery life -- it sounds like a lot of the components are high wattage -- maybe half the weight of the laptop is battery:-]
I think you missed the point. He's not saying free means valueless, and he's not saying OSS is valueluess. He's saying that you are providing something of value for free, and the great majority of people can not afford to do this forever. Eventually, you'll need to get paid for your skills to support yourself. I don't think he's against free software completely. What he's saying is that advocacy/zealotry for it is a bad thing, and may blind you to economic realities in the future. He's not against charitable actions, but he's suggesting that your realize free software is unlikely to support you. You may spend years of your life writing free software, but you must realize that you can't expect to get anything tangible back from it. That doesn't mean those years were wasted -- it's nice to do good deeds, but don't be surprised when the people who benefited don't help pay the rent. I've noticed a lot of posts citing Linus as an example of someone who can live off of writing free software, but it's really an exception, not the rule. The quote about being a communist at 20 but not at 30 is very appropriate -- I'm 24 now, and I feel the changes in my views. I still like to work on computers for free for others, but as my free time shrinks and bills come in, I better understand the need to charge for your efforts. I guess the message here is not to become to engrossed with free software -- as you get older, your views on this may change. You'll still appreciate what you did for free when you were younger, but glad you didn't dedicate your life to it.
I upgraded the kernel on a Redhat 7.1 machine to 2.6 with SMP support recently, and ran into some trouble compiling fs/proc/array.c because of RedHat's gcc 2.96. I Googled around, and found a reference to a the problem at http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0311.0/0886.html
This is gcc 2.96 ??
This problem has been reported multiple times.
Yes, you need a different gcc version, or there are a couple of
patches around that split up the code around line 398 into
smaller pieces that gcc 2.96 can handle.
Basically, there is a really large sprintf there that gcc chokes on, and splitting it up into a few smaller chunks fixes the compilation problem. I've included a diff of the files:
Oh, and another problem I had was "Error: Unknown pseudo-op: `.incbin'" -- this was fixed by upgrading binutils to the latest version. Aside from these two problems, the upgrade went smoothly.
I once dremeled a PCB from an old power supply into several pieces, then resoldered and glued it back together so that it still worked, and tried to sell it on eBay as modern art. Unfortunately, no one bit.
An interesting hack I've seen is something I think a lot of electronics slashdotters out there should note: Cheap oscilloscope using your sound card. The software is available on the web, just get your signals into at +/- 1 or 2V range, and you have a dual channel low frequency scope that plugs into any sound card. Check the voltage range of line-out to get an idea of what's acceptable. I started making an adapter to provide a high impedance input and scaling the signal down, but got distracted and haven't revisited the project in a while.
That's what I was wondering about... if a program is properly separated into code/data/stack segments, and the Execute bit is properly set on each segment's descriptor, then why is a new CPU feature needed? I never learned protected mode asm in depth (I learned asm in real mode), but it seems like all the necessary bits are there for the OS to protect against this. If someone knows why this isn't or can't be done, would you please post a response?
As for Windows update, I did a clean install of Win98SE about 2 weeks ago. 61 updates required, though mercifully only about 24 were "critical". And yes, you do need to stop everything and reboot every time with that OS.
You should note that nearly half of these updates are language packs, and that you can install 20-30 updates at a time, so it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It's still a cruddy OS to be using nowadays, but the updates aren't as bad as you say they are.
I've worked as a technician for about five years, both on-site and in-house, and I really haven't found any good all-around utilities. Most of the diganostic programs mentioned here tend to test things that hardly ever test bad in reality, such as serial and parallel ports, timer chips, address lines, etc. The best thing to have around in case of a rather obvious failure (failure to power on, blank screen, beeping) is a collection of known good parts that can be swapped in to isolate the problem. They can also be useful in cases involving more subtle or intermittent problems, such as a CD burner that fails half the time or a computer that locks up after a few hours. Heat problems can be subtle -- I remember a friend telling me that the computer he shop didn't have heat for a while during the winter because of a bad relay, so there was a case where a computer with a slow fan worked at the shop, but didn't work when the customer took it back to their warm home. Sometimes a USB device a customer installed won't work because they plugged it in before installing drivers, and now it needs to be removed from the registry and installed again. In Windows, sometimes certain programs don't play well together, and experience will tell you what programs to avoid, and which processes in your task list don't belong. The point is, certain utilities may have their place, but no utility can replace the ability to diagnose a problem through experience and process of elimination. A memory test utility may show that you have bad memory, but experience may tell you that it's bad anyway, even when the program says it's okay. The good news is that I believe quality is improving again, after hitting a low in the K6-2 era, when cheap motherboard production proliferated, and the problem was compounded by the large increase in cooling needed for those chips (I'll never forget PC100 mainboards (yes, that was the company name, not the memory speed)). It's also pretty cheap nowadays to have spare parts on hand for quick checks.
"Besides, as has been stated a million times before, most computer users are idiots."
That's really a poor attitude to have about the people you're trying to convert to Linux. Unfortunately, I think it's a prevalent attitude among a lot of people pushing Linux. Maybe if you didn't regard the people you're trying to convert as idiots, you'd have better luck. A view like yours only promotes defiance of your arrogance and makes the divide deeper.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that part of the reason MS's format gained dominance is because their programs were good at opening up their competitors' files, and they could save in their competitors' file formats too. If OO is to succeed, it needs to be able to do the same. Not that MS has made this easy... but that's what has to happen.
You don't happen to be using the same version of Word from 1995 do you? I just tried this (currently using Office 2000) and had no problems. I think you're talking out of your ass and hoping no one calls you on it.
Because if you wait, the price of going into space will go down, the quality will improve, and you'll get a much better deal.
It was really cool in the beginning when it was a novelty, but now it has become an extremely expensive hobby. There are better things to spend/waste money on.
Now how many of this are the result of manned spaceflight? Seems a lot of people aren't making this distinction -- the article is not arguing against the space program, just manned spaceflight. There are a few spinoffs on the list related to manned spaceflight, but nothing spectacular, and probably could've been developed much cheaper.
Aside from the fact that microchips weren't invented for spaceflight, note that even if they were, they wouldn't have been for unmanned spaceflight -- after all, if you have computer chips to provide a bit of intelligence, you don't need a human.
Just a sidenote -- aerogel was developed by NASA, but it was invented quite some time ago, in the 1930s. And yeah, it is undeniably cool -- it's sometimes called "frozen smoke".
Looking at the evidence (manned flight, moon missions), I'd say that your statement is completely bogus. Humans can do a little more than robots can, but there's a lot more that robots can do that humans can't (explore more hazardous areas). Overall, I'd say that robots could actually outdo humans in a lot of areas. Sure, humans have reason and judgement, but a robot can get that from a human controller back on earth. As pointed out in the article, delays in communications aren't a problem, because they'll be dealing with a pretty much static environment anyway.
I think the point is that at this time, there are much better things to spend money on than manned space flight. It's very impressive to me, but when I think of the huge amount of money that goes into it, I can't help but feel that so much of it is wasted. I've heard the argument about spinoffs, but the reality is that there's very little spinoff, especially from manned flight in particular. Although it may pave the way for better exploration later, that's something that can wait. As for the inspiration factor, I don't think it will be as impressive as you think, and certainly not worth a trillion dollars.
The high price is due to the codes being secret -- I know the owner of a small car repair shop, and he can't afford to buy the special codes and the reader equipment. The companies charge thousands of dollars for the stuff -- and then you have to get expensive updates every year too. Part of the reason the dealership charges so much is probably because they were charged ridiculous prices for them. It's bullshit, because the reader is basically like a troubleshooting manual for the car. They don't contain detailed inner workings of the engine, it's just routine stuff like status of valves, RPMs, detected problems, etc -- something more detailed than a "Check Engine" light. And the readers aren't very sophisticated either, probably little more than a serial port on some cars. This same stuff applies to repair information on cars. Repair references such as Mitchell-On-Demand are basically just collections of diagrams from various manufacturers, but cost thousands of dollars to purchase. And really, it's not much more than a detailed manual, which you'd think would come with the car, which would make it available to small shops.
Linux is updated much more frequently than Windows, and due to lack of mfr support, usually has more "generic" drivers that aren't brand specific. Linux distributions rarely have to license drivers to include, but because Windows's drivers are closed-source and more limited in their distribution, it may be more difficult to get permission to distribute them (although you'd think that companies would want this), or maybe the situation is that MS doesn't want to distribute drivers it hasn't certified. New versions of Windows don't come out as often, but it's been my experience that most popular hardware is usually supported by a new version of Windows at the time of release, and because mfr support for Windows is strong, the drivers can be installed straight away quite easily. By screwing with the INF files in a driver, sometimes you can force a driver to install on hardware that's not quite a match, but this isn't always the case. I haven't had very good luck with Linux and video/monitor setup, especially when asked to identify precisely what video card I have and what refresh rates my monitor supports, but this usually isn't much of a concern because I rarely if ever use the GUI anyway.
This is the shit. I've wanted a desktop in portable form, but not lunchbox style. This is perfect, if it weren't the the fact that it's manufactured by Acer (don't really like them) and my company already supplied me with a nice Centrino-based laptop. One thing I would be curious about though is the battery life -- it sounds like a lot of the components are high wattage -- maybe half the weight of the laptop is battery :-]
I think you missed the point. He's not saying free means valueless, and he's not saying OSS is valueluess. He's saying that you are providing something of value for free, and the great majority of people can not afford to do this forever. Eventually, you'll need to get paid for your skills to support yourself. I don't think he's against free software completely. What he's saying is that advocacy/zealotry for it is a bad thing, and may blind you to economic realities in the future. He's not against charitable actions, but he's suggesting that your realize free software is unlikely to support you. You may spend years of your life writing free software, but you must realize that you can't expect to get anything tangible back from it. That doesn't mean those years were wasted -- it's nice to do good deeds, but don't be surprised when the people who benefited don't help pay the rent. I've noticed a lot of posts citing Linus as an example of someone who can live off of writing free software, but it's really an exception, not the rule. The quote about being a communist at 20 but not at 30 is very appropriate -- I'm 24 now, and I feel the changes in my views. I still like to work on computers for free for others, but as my free time shrinks and bills come in, I better understand the need to charge for your efforts. I guess the message here is not to become to engrossed with free software -- as you get older, your views on this may change. You'll still appreciate what you did for free when you were younger, but glad you didn't dedicate your life to it.
Oh, and another problem I had was "Error: Unknown pseudo-op: `.incbin'" -- this was fixed by upgrading binutils to the latest version. Aside from these two problems, the upgrade went smoothly.
I once dremeled a PCB from an old power supply into several pieces, then resoldered and glued it back together so that it still worked, and tried to sell it on eBay as modern art. Unfortunately, no one bit. An interesting hack I've seen is something I think a lot of electronics slashdotters out there should note: Cheap oscilloscope using your sound card. The software is available on the web, just get your signals into at +/- 1 or 2V range, and you have a dual channel low frequency scope that plugs into any sound card. Check the voltage range of line-out to get an idea of what's acceptable. I started making an adapter to provide a high impedance input and scaling the signal down, but got distracted and haven't revisited the project in a while.
That's what I was wondering about... if a program is properly separated into code/data/stack segments, and the Execute bit is properly set on each segment's descriptor, then why is a new CPU feature needed? I never learned protected mode asm in depth (I learned asm in real mode), but it seems like all the necessary bits are there for the OS to protect against this. If someone knows why this isn't or can't be done, would you please post a response?
I've worked as a technician for about five years, both on-site and in-house, and I really haven't found any good all-around utilities. Most of the diganostic programs mentioned here tend to test things that hardly ever test bad in reality, such as serial and parallel ports, timer chips, address lines, etc. The best thing to have around in case of a rather obvious failure (failure to power on, blank screen, beeping) is a collection of known good parts that can be swapped in to isolate the problem. They can also be useful in cases involving more subtle or intermittent problems, such as a CD burner that fails half the time or a computer that locks up after a few hours. Heat problems can be subtle -- I remember a friend telling me that the computer he shop didn't have heat for a while during the winter because of a bad relay, so there was a case where a computer with a slow fan worked at the shop, but didn't work when the customer took it back to their warm home. Sometimes a USB device a customer installed won't work because they plugged it in before installing drivers, and now it needs to be removed from the registry and installed again. In Windows, sometimes certain programs don't play well together, and experience will tell you what programs to avoid, and which processes in your task list don't belong. The point is, certain utilities may have their place, but no utility can replace the ability to diagnose a problem through experience and process of elimination. A memory test utility may show that you have bad memory, but experience may tell you that it's bad anyway, even when the program says it's okay. The good news is that I believe quality is improving again, after hitting a low in the K6-2 era, when cheap motherboard production proliferated, and the problem was compounded by the large increase in cooling needed for those chips (I'll never forget PC100 mainboards (yes, that was the company name, not the memory speed)). It's also pretty cheap nowadays to have spare parts on hand for quick checks.
That's like if someone cuts you, but it's okay because you can always buy a band-aid.
"Besides, as has been stated a million times before, most computer users are idiots." That's really a poor attitude to have about the people you're trying to convert to Linux. Unfortunately, I think it's a prevalent attitude among a lot of people pushing Linux. Maybe if you didn't regard the people you're trying to convert as idiots, you'd have better luck. A view like yours only promotes defiance of your arrogance and makes the divide deeper.
The words religious zealot come to mind....