I run X just fine* on my fit-pc, and that includes KDE 4.2, which is in itself a resource hog. That's on 256MB of RAM and a 500MHz Geode CPU.
*'just fine' doesn't include things like h.264 decoding, flash, compositing, or the like. Its purpose is a firewall/file server, but I installed a desktop on it out of boredom.
The short version is that ZFS isn't available for linux, and this is a linux FS benchmark on a linux specific site.
You could run the same benchmark on OpenSolaris vs Linux on the same hardware, but this wouldn't be particularly meaningful: different storage stack, vfs, etc. Even if the benchmark convinced someone that ZFS is better, they couldn't switch to it, because again, there is no linux port.
You could benchmark the userspace ZFS on Fuse driver, but this is meaningless because the Fuse ZFS implementation is useless (slow + unstable) and everyone knows it.
Extents and delayed allocation are the big ones, both of which are available in ext4, reiser4, and btrfs.
Unfortunately, xfs is more likely to eat data in individual files than ext3 or ext4 w/ data=ordered. It's apparently less likely to end up with an uncorrectable superblock.
xfs is also horrifically slow for random access of smaller files. If your application calls for massive files, such as databases or a porn library, xfs is preferable over reiserfs or ext3, comparable to ext4, but for general use you're better off with ext3/4 or reiserfs. (by reiserfs I mean 3.6, not reiser4. I can't speak for reiser4)
It's important to remember that there is no one fs to rule them all. Any time anyone tells you "*fs is the best filesystem" they're suffering from fanboyism. xfs is probably not the ideal filesystem for / on a desktop system, but it's a great filesystem for a partition on a server running a database or a fileserver serving large files, or for a DVR application like mythtv.
My Time Warner contract does say "unlimited internet". Granted, my plan is not the $15 month plan outlined in TFA, but it still has a catchall (paraphrasing) 'Time Warner has the right to change the terms of this contract in any way they see fit for any reason' clause in there somewhere. Basically, it's no contract at all.
I wouldn't expect an "unlimited mileage" warranty would cover my car if I used it in a demolition derby, nor would I expect an "unlimited internet" contract to cover my computer if I launched it in a catapult. However, I would expect an "unlimited mileage" warranty to cover my car if I drove it over 1,000 miles, just as I would expect an "unlimited internet" contract to cover bandwidth over 1 GB/month.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
Procedural mistakes should absolutely overturn convictions, overwhelming or otherwise.
As it is now, when the police are investigating a crime, or a prosecutor is building a case, they have the capability, legal or usually otherwise, to build a "overwhelming" case against someone who is completely and totally innocent of the specific crime. The reason they don't is partially ideological, but mostly because they know the case would be overturned on appeal, if the first judge even let the evidence be introduced. This is the reason we don't have prisons (gitmo aside) full of people innocent of the specific crime they were convicted for but aren't terribly well liked by the police and DA's office.
Once the court system starts saying, "Well, this guy may or may not be innocent, but he sure does deserve to be in prison," we're all screwed. Initially, only about half of us are screwed, (the people who voted for the other guy) but eventually we all will be.
Except that the kind of software in the bill in question is rarely licensed - it's tactical software, not admin software. Specialized tactical software is usually purchased outright. (Not to mention that the Federal Government undoubtedly gets significant discounts from vendors for per seat licenses and support.)
That being said, there's much less here than meets the eye. Like many other extremely specialized problem domains, there almost certainly isn't any FOSS to be considered for use. This goes double since this almost certainly is an embedded system, not a PC, with the operating hardware, computer hardware, OS, and applications tightly bound and integrated. (In the systems like this I worked on while I was in the Navy, the line between OS and application was a wide grey area - in some ways they were virtually the same.)
We have some systems here that run RHEL. On the unix systems we used to use zircon, since mirc is windows only.
FOSS software exists here, it's just very, very rare.
I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast.
If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.
You're absolutely right; the JVM won't run very well on a 400MHz x86. RH wants it open-sourced so they can freely modify the JVM so that it will run decently, if not well, on those laptops. It's a lot easier to modify an existing JVM than it is to build one up from scratch.
That being said, GCJ is not that far away from being a complete replacement for Sun's implementation. RH may very well have a much easier time continuing what they've already been doing for years, and finishing the GCJ implementation.
Of course, there's also the line of though that a previous poster brought up; RH directly competes with Sun, and maybe they're just beating their angry-drums to give Sun a hard time. Personally, I doubt it. But it's worth thinking about.
OSS Java would be nice for The Movement(tm) but having rabid GPL monkies take a hard line on Sun won't help. Help them move in the OSS direction, but don't antaganize them.
I've been using an old pentium 2 with 2 nics I bought for $5 as a router for a few years now, rather than a traditional cable/dsl router. It does traffic shaping, and works very well.
With my old router, I'd have to turn off bittorrent whenever I wanted to play a multiplayer game. Now, I just leave my client running full speed all the time, and don't notice any extra lag, either in games or in teamspeak/ventrilo.
IMO it's not worth the effort for linux novices. But if you have a bit of experience I'd thoroughly reccomend it. It's cheaper and works better; but administering it can be difficult.
One thing to note is that you can't do anything to shape your download traffic. You can't control the modem sitting on your ISP's end. This is fine though, since download speed is almost always vastly in excess of your upload speed. Other people not understanding what you were saying is evidence of that.
You'll also, in general, decrease your total uploading bandwidth. One of the goals of traffic shaping is to keep the buffer in your cable modem empty; most modems have rather large buffers, which generally makes for a bigger number they can advertise as your uploading bandwidth. However, when the buffer fills up it makes for awful latency.
I can't speak for its effectiveness in reducing Vonage dropped calls or latency or other problems, as I don't have Vonage, but it works great for Teamspeak/Ventrilo, which does pretty much the same thing.
You can do that, but each individual torrent still requires a central tracker; the MPAA/RIAA can still sue the trackers, not to mention anyone whose IP shows up on the list of seeders.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm First line: "Uranium is ubiquitous on the earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea."
FYI- 4 million tons is what's economically to mine at today's uranium prices. If uranium prices double, 15 million tons of uranium become economically feasable to mine.
Techonological power? Who? Iraq was one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world. Their MiG-29's were much more capable aircraft than F-15/F-16's are, at least they were, before we blew the fuck out of them. Assuming that they're technologically inferior because we beat the crap out of them isn't just ignorant, it's a good way to get yourself killed in the next war. Your hypothetical technological power doesn't exist- anymore.
Hmmm, how silly of me. You're right, this system won't work anyway! Threat nations can simply coat their missiles with the same material your magic flight helmets are made of. End of problem.
You talk about flight helmets which prevent people from getting blinded by guide beams. Last I checked, they aren't using lasers of that power level to detonate missiles in the air.
If you're going to aim a laser like this at an airplane, the least of the pilot's worries are getting blinded, which was your argument. He *should* be more worried about things like the melting point of human flesh. More to the point, he should be more worried about the US's newist air to air missile, the AMRAAM. To date, it has never missed.
And you're right about the US always abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Like treatment of prisoners.
POW != terrorists. The Geneva convention/LOAC does not apply to civilians killing civilians with civilian assets. Human rights issue for the UN/Red Cross? Sure, but there are no international laws regarding "enemy combatants" or whatever we call them. If you want to do anything about it, join Amnesty International, because there's no legal reasons for the US to do anything different.
I'm not even going to address the other asinine points you raise. You're out, next batter please.
Your powers of logic and persuasion are truly astounding. You should run for President.
The first thing I think of when I see this is that it could be used for a blinder/dazzler with an immense range. Instant air superiority
In Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi's *never* launched an aircraft, and fired 4 SAM's during the entire war. Keep in mind that was using existing F-1[4-8]'s. F-22's are rolling out sometime soon(tm). While the military certainly uses the tactic of using sledge hammers to install picture-hanging nails, this is more akin to using a forklift. It's simply the wrong tool for the job.
Also, the AIM-54C Phoenix missile has a range of around 100 miles, (+/- a lot, I'd look it up, but I'm lazy. I've heard 80mi, I've heard 150.) which is probably greater than the range of this laser, and certainly cheaper. The reason they put it on a plane as opposed to being ground based is so it can get higher in the atmosphere, which will difuse the laser energy.
I understand that blinding lasers are against some Geneva accord. They're so different from blinding grenades, and blinding napalm, and blinding shell fragments, don't you know... Whether or not we respect the Geneva convention at all anymore, or whether such a ruling might just be trampled on by us if we ever got into extremis such as a fight with another technological power, I can easily see us using a theatre-wide laser this way. The benefits would be huge.
Flash-bang's do not blind, they disorient, and the effects are temporary. Blinding via 5 megawatt lasers is permanent. Napalm (which we don't use) and shell fragments are meant to kill, which they do far more effectively that blinding.
Blinding anythings are against the Geneva conventions because they are weapons with the intent to maim, (which is bad) as opposed to weapons that are meant to kill. (which is ok)
On top of that it's in the interest of the US to abide by the Geneva conventions because it gives us all the more righteousness when we fight enemies who don't, (witness Iraq in 2003) and if our enemies do fight a purely conventional war, we really won't have any difficulty beating them. (witness Iraq in 1991) Breaking LOAC (law of armed conflict) is in absolute violation of US principles and values, to say nothing of the disadvantage it puts us at militarily and politically.
Furthermore, you know those helmets pilots wear that have the visors? The purpose of those visors is not just to block glare from the sun, but to block range-finding/guidance laser beams, which have a disturbing tendancy to temporarily blind people, which really sucks when you're trying to fly a plane. That's why they wear transparent ones during night-flights. (unless the flight is going to be during the night and day, in which case they just use the tinted ones and flip it up during the night portion, and hope they don't get lased.) It wouldn't work.
C) Invade Iraq and not kill so many civilians by being much more careful
Boy, that sure sounds easy. All we have to do is not shoot civilians in the face!
In reality- It's a fucking difficult thing to do. Especially when the enemy you're fighting uses human shields. Not to mention every time a civilian dies because they get killed by a mugger or a Iraqi soldier, it's the US military's fault. At the end of the day, any dead people get stuck on the tally of whoever's in charge. (page 53)
D) Oust Saddam without invading Iraq (we do it all the time in other countries)
Name a couple. Haiti? That went well. Cuba? Afghanistan vs. the Soviets? I dunno who these Taliban people are, but they gotta be better than the Communists.
E) Lift Sanctions. Before we decided to impose sanctions after the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was one of the more prosperous nations. People were fed.
They were also one of the more nerve gassed nations. People were dead.
F) Find a relatively peacable solution to ousting the current regime. They do exist. For reference, see 1989: Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia
Ok- so we make Iraq go bankrupt, just like we did to the Soviets. You know what step 1 to making a country go bankrupt is? Economic sanctions.
(btw- that's what we were trying to do for 10 years. We tried diplomatic means, didn't work, tried economic means, arguably made it worse, can't influence the population cuz the population isn't in control of shit. So we went to Plan D- take over.)
In reality- Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. No, he didn't top Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, (yeah, our bad) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come in and fix the blood that was dripping from his hands.
Whatmore, a picture is worth a thousand words. You can convey or influence mood (cool blues, hot reds)
When you're trying to convey or influence the mood of, "We have 18 Model #8264's in stock, and have 40 more on order," you'd have a difficult time convincing me that a picture would be a better representation.
GUI's are undeniably better for certain things. Web browsing, image/video editing, (duh) CAD work, anything that by nature requires images, or has to cram lots of buttons on the screen at once. (look at all the links around your screen right now) I'm not arguing that.
However, for just about any process which isn't fundamentally graphical in nature, a good CLI can probably get it done faster. File management/editing, having text config files vs GUI ones, any basic tasks I can think of are better with a CLI. In fact, I usually end up find myself eliminating the mouse (the fundamental element of a GUI) from as many GUI programs as I can. I only don't map clickable buttons to the keyboard when you actively can't do it. You'll see me sitting in my GUI environment with dozens of terms up opening apps with hotkeys, etc. Sure, I can click the programs icon in the taskbar, but it's faster to alt-tab. Yes, I can right click on the desktop and click aterm, but it's faster to hold the windows key and press x a. I aliased emacs to run with the '-nw' option- so that it doesn't open up the graphical version. Why do I use my GUI as a fancy CLI? Because everything I do, I do faster.
So you don't actually work in 3D- you just switch between programs in 3D and click on icons in 3D? Basically, it's the functionality of a normal desktop, only it looks purty?
Original poster makes no mention of distribution for profit (or non-profit) of said hard disk platter.
Which is the point of this whole argument. You're allowed to make as many copies of a copyrighted product as long as you do not distribute them, under the nebulous-but-still-present fair use notion. The word "Copyright" has no bearing on this piece of software, as long as its users do not distribute the songs they de-DRM. (I know- fat chance)
The abbreviation "DMCA", on the other hand, clots it squarely on the head.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is X taking almost a gig of memory?
Wait wat?
I run X just fine* on my fit-pc, and that includes KDE 4.2, which is in itself a resource hog. That's on 256MB of RAM and a 500MHz Geode CPU.
*'just fine' doesn't include things like h.264 decoding, flash, compositing, or the like. Its purpose is a firewall/file server, but I installed a desktop on it out of boredom.
or add HISTSIZE=0 to /etc/bash/bashrc or ~/.bashrc
more secure, uses less resources.
The short version is that ZFS isn't available for linux, and this is a linux FS benchmark on a linux specific site.
You could run the same benchmark on OpenSolaris vs Linux on the same hardware, but this wouldn't be particularly meaningful: different storage stack, vfs, etc. Even if the benchmark convinced someone that ZFS is better, they couldn't switch to it, because again, there is no linux port.
You could benchmark the userspace ZFS on Fuse driver, but this is meaningless because the Fuse ZFS implementation is useless (slow + unstable) and everyone knows it.
Extents and delayed allocation are the big ones, both of which are available in ext4, reiser4, and btrfs.
Unfortunately, xfs is more likely to eat data in individual files than ext3 or ext4 w/ data=ordered. It's apparently less likely to end up with an uncorrectable superblock.
xfs is also horrifically slow for random access of smaller files. If your application calls for massive files, such as databases or a porn library, xfs is preferable over reiserfs or ext3, comparable to ext4, but for general use you're better off with ext3/4 or reiserfs. (by reiserfs I mean 3.6, not reiser4. I can't speak for reiser4)
It's important to remember that there is no one fs to rule them all. Any time anyone tells you "*fs is the best filesystem" they're suffering from fanboyism. xfs is probably not the ideal filesystem for / on a desktop system, but it's a great filesystem for a partition on a server running a database or a fileserver serving large files, or for a DVR application like mythtv.
My Time Warner contract does say "unlimited internet". Granted, my plan is not the $15 month plan outlined in TFA, but it still has a catchall (paraphrasing) 'Time Warner has the right to change the terms of this contract in any way they see fit for any reason' clause in there somewhere. Basically, it's no contract at all.
I wouldn't expect an "unlimited mileage" warranty would cover my car if I used it in a demolition derby, nor would I expect an "unlimited internet" contract to cover my computer if I launched it in a catapult. However, I would expect an "unlimited mileage" warranty to cover my car if I drove it over 1,000 miles, just as I would expect an "unlimited internet" contract to cover bandwidth over 1 GB/month.
Procedural mistakes should not overturn convictions that are this overwhelming.
Procedural mistakes should absolutely overturn convictions, overwhelming or otherwise.
As it is now, when the police are investigating a crime, or a prosecutor is building a case, they have the capability, legal or usually otherwise, to build a "overwhelming" case against someone who is completely and totally innocent of the specific crime. The reason they don't is partially ideological, but mostly because they know the case would be overturned on appeal, if the first judge even let the evidence be introduced. This is the reason we don't have prisons (gitmo aside) full of people innocent of the specific crime they were convicted for but aren't terribly well liked by the police and DA's office.
Once the court system starts saying, "Well, this guy may or may not be innocent, but he sure does deserve to be in prison," we're all screwed. Initially, only about half of us are screwed, (the people who voted for the other guy) but eventually we all will be.
We have some systems here that run RHEL. On the unix systems we used to use zircon, since mirc is windows only.
FOSS software exists here, it's just very, very rare.
As someone who has been misdiagnosed with schizophrenia[...]
Must... resist... my karma... must live...
You always knew the voices were real! Admit it! Submit to their evil will!
Screw it. I don't have any karma to burn, but I don't care. One cannot resist bait such as that.
I seriously doubt the current implementation of Java would fit inside a 400 MHz x86 computer that's designed more to be energy-efficient and small than to be fast.
If Java is to run on the OLPC computer, it needs a smaller, simpler implementation. Sun provides all information neccessary to build one. It's up to Red Hat or any one other than them to make it.
You're absolutely right; the JVM won't run very well on a 400MHz x86. RH wants it open-sourced so they can freely modify the JVM so that it will run decently, if not well, on those laptops. It's a lot easier to modify an existing JVM than it is to build one up from scratch.
That being said, GCJ is not that far away from being a complete replacement for Sun's implementation. RH may very well have a much easier time continuing what they've already been doing for years, and finishing the GCJ implementation.
Of course, there's also the line of though that a previous poster brought up; RH directly competes with Sun, and maybe they're just beating their angry-drums to give Sun a hard time. Personally, I doubt it. But it's worth thinking about.
OSS Java would be nice for The Movement(tm) but having rabid GPL monkies take a hard line on Sun won't help. Help them move in the OSS direction, but don't antaganize them.
I've been using an old pentium 2 with 2 nics I bought for $5 as a router for a few years now, rather than a traditional cable/dsl router. It does traffic shaping, and works very well.
With my old router, I'd have to turn off bittorrent whenever I wanted to play a multiplayer game. Now, I just leave my client running full speed all the time, and don't notice any extra lag, either in games or in teamspeak/ventrilo.
IMO it's not worth the effort for linux novices. But if you have a bit of experience I'd thoroughly reccomend it. It's cheaper and works better; but administering it can be difficult.
One thing to note is that you can't do anything to shape your download traffic. You can't control the modem sitting on your ISP's end. This is fine though, since download speed is almost always vastly in excess of your upload speed. Other people not understanding what you were saying is evidence of that.
You'll also, in general, decrease your total uploading bandwidth. One of the goals of traffic shaping is to keep the buffer in your cable modem empty; most modems have rather large buffers, which generally makes for a bigger number they can advertise as your uploading bandwidth. However, when the buffer fills up it makes for awful latency.
I can't speak for its effectiveness in reducing Vonage dropped calls or latency or other problems, as I don't have Vonage, but it works great for Teamspeak/Ventrilo, which does pretty much the same thing.
You can do that, but each individual torrent still requires a central tracker; the MPAA/RIAA can still sue the trackers, not to mention anyone whose IP shows up on the list of seeders.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm First line: "Uranium is ubiquitous on the earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea."
FYI- 4 million tons is what's economically to mine at today's uranium prices. If uranium prices double, 15 million tons of uranium become economically feasable to mine.
Worked great for California.
Also, the AIM-54C Phoenix missile has a range of around 100 miles, (+/- a lot, I'd look it up, but I'm lazy. I've heard 80mi, I've heard 150.) which is probably greater than the range of this laser, and certainly cheaper. The reason they put it on a plane as opposed to being ground based is so it can get higher in the atmosphere, which will difuse the laser energy.
Flash-bang's do not blind, they disorient, and the effects are temporary. Blinding via 5 megawatt lasers is permanent. Napalm (which we don't use) and shell fragments are meant to kill, which they do far more effectively that blinding.Blinding anythings are against the Geneva conventions because they are weapons with the intent to maim, (which is bad) as opposed to weapons that are meant to kill. (which is ok)
On top of that it's in the interest of the US to abide by the Geneva conventions because it gives us all the more righteousness when we fight enemies who don't, (witness Iraq in 2003) and if our enemies do fight a purely conventional war, we really won't have any difficulty beating them. (witness Iraq in 1991) Breaking LOAC (law of armed conflict) is in absolute violation of US principles and values, to say nothing of the disadvantage it puts us at militarily and politically.
Furthermore, you know those helmets pilots wear that have the visors? The purpose of those visors is not just to block glare from the sun, but to block range-finding/guidance laser beams, which have a disturbing tendancy to temporarily blind people, which really sucks when you're trying to fly a plane. That's why they wear transparent ones during night-flights. (unless the flight is going to be during the night and day, in which case they just use the tinted ones and flip it up during the night portion, and hope they don't get lased.) It wouldn't work.
linkie b
Hooray! $m4r+n3$$ for every1!
Which doesn't run on linux. Which means I'll have to go out, buy Windows and download Adobe Acrobat 6.0.
Bastards! They got me everwhere I turn!
In reality- It's a fucking difficult thing to do. Especially when the enemy you're fighting uses human shields. Not to mention every time a civilian dies because they get killed by a mugger or a Iraqi soldier, it's the US military's fault. At the end of the day, any dead people get stuck on the tally of whoever's in charge. (page 53)
Name a couple. Haiti? That went well. Cuba? Afghanistan vs. the Soviets? I dunno who these Taliban people are, but they gotta be better than the Communists. They were also one of the more nerve gassed nations. People were dead.Ok- so we make Iraq go bankrupt, just like we did to the Soviets. You know what step 1 to making a country go bankrupt is? Economic sanctions.(btw- that's what we were trying to do for 10 years. We tried diplomatic means, didn't work, tried economic means, arguably made it worse, can't influence the population cuz the population isn't in control of shit. So we went to Plan D- take over.)
In reality- Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. No, he didn't top Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, (yeah, our bad) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come in and fix the blood that was dripping from his hands.
GUI's are undeniably better for certain things. Web browsing, image/video editing, (duh) CAD work, anything that by nature requires images, or has to cram lots of buttons on the screen at once. (look at all the links around your screen right now) I'm not arguing that.
However, for just about any process which isn't fundamentally graphical in nature, a good CLI can probably get it done faster. File management/editing, having text config files vs GUI ones, any basic tasks I can think of are better with a CLI. In fact, I usually end up find myself eliminating the mouse (the fundamental element of a GUI) from as many GUI programs as I can. I only don't map clickable buttons to the keyboard when you actively can't do it. You'll see me sitting in my GUI environment with dozens of terms up opening apps with hotkeys, etc. Sure, I can click the programs icon in the taskbar, but it's faster to alt-tab. Yes, I can right click on the desktop and click aterm, but it's faster to hold the windows key and press x a. I aliased emacs to run with the '-nw' option- so that it doesn't open up the graphical version. Why do I use my GUI as a fancy CLI? Because everything I do, I do faster.
You'll excuse my while I keep using fluxbox.
Yes, but you're not Tom Cruise. Fatty.
Mine is. It won't POST. Try hacking THAT!
Original poster makes no mention of distribution for profit (or non-profit) of said hard disk platter.
Which is the point of this whole argument. You're allowed to make as many copies of a copyrighted product as long as you do not distribute them, under the nebulous-but-still-present fair use notion. The word "Copyright" has no bearing on this piece of software, as long as its users do not distribute the songs they de-DRM. (I know- fat chance)
The abbreviation "DMCA", on the other hand, clots it squarely on the head.