There is no particular reason Apache needs to run on windows at all, particularly since it runs (arguably better) on free systems that are readily available. Windows on the other hand might be able to stay in many server rooms if it runs Apache. I guess we are right back to this benefiting Microsoft again eh?
That's insane, right in the middle of Miami I could only get 5 analog channels on a pair of rabbit ears. And none of those channels actually had decent picture and audio, at least 2 of them had a picture so crappy you probably wouldn't want to watch it.
I have no idea how many I'd get with a digital antenna... I really don't know anyone who actually watches broadcast tv so I can't check and compare. IMHO most of the hype about this is because people (including cable repairmen) misunderstood and though this applied to analog cable television which tons of people use. Extended basic gives you sci-fi, comedy central, the history channel, national geographic, fox, food network, espn, etc for $30 or less a month (or free in many apartment complexes). With digital getting that same lineup would require packages that will balloon your bill to over $100 and give you essentially the same programming with a couple hundred more channels of filler.
You'd do better on a bittorrent search engine than MSDN in that case. You will find handy copies that use the same disc to install various 'editions' of the operating systems as well. Less hassles and copy protections. Good stuff for testing and development.;)
Digital in general gives a nice sexy picture and compression artifacts aren't any worse than static. Pauses, skips, and audio sync issues on the other hand are absolutely unacceptable and they plague digital video (broadcast or otherwise). I'd rather have a constant static level that your mind ignores than pauses, skips, or audio sync issues.
On the other hand, OTA analogue tv isn't exactly on par with the static on an older vhs tape, its generally unwatchable.
'Bandwidth is also practically irrelevant as even HD video can stream of 802.11g let alone 802.11n without a problem.'
Yeah, if you are right on top of it. But wifi has significant latency issues and if you go into the next room, or across the house you will start to see problems.
Improved video codecs are helping to solve the streaming problem this problem but I wouldn't even think about transferring a couple gigs of videos across my wifi network! Performance on wifi also varies greatly with the wireless card and whether the wife is using the microwave.
I did a little test. I live in a small condo with only drywall walls. I can get what my card reports as 'very good' to 'excellent' connection in all parts of house on my dell laptop with intel wifi. The system claims its 40mbit plus at any point. However, I noticed I get low quality streaming netflix (1 to 1.5mbit stream) to my laptop in the livingroom on the tv. Despite having a 6mbit connection that tests at 6mbit on all speed tests.
So I decided to make a few videos myself and http stream them off my desktop (gigabit connection to the router, dual core athlon, 4gb ram, and raid1 seagate 10000rpm drives) and host the exact files off my servage account as well.
I used bitrates varying from 400kbit to 2.2mbit. I found that in the livingroom the laptop was able to stream smoothly (after maxing the buffer for the flash player) up to 1.4mbit from either source across the wifi in the livingroom. I plugged it into the router directly and it played the 2.2mbit smoothly.
My desktop could play both smoothly up to 2.2mbit. My wifes desktop (on the same wifi but in the room with the router) plays the files up to 2.2mbit smoothly. The laptop also streamed the top speed file smoothly in the same room.
Conclusion, the laptop can handle streaming. The laptop can handle fast wifi. Wifi can't handle fast streaming more than a few feet away.
'Um, actually "space ship" has only ever been defined as a "ship" that travels through "outer space". So you are entirely wrong in your posts in saying a truck is a "space ship".'
The person I replied to is who you should be directing that comment toward.
I merely pointed out that the authors of the TFA obviously weren't using his definition because a car would already meet that definition and the need for the vehicle to be capable of traversing space (as opposed to outer space) wouldn't be noteworthy.
'You are both assuming that "space ship" means "vessel that travels through the space beyond the Earth's atmosphere." All that "space ship" means, literally, is a ship that travels through space - any space, including the space within the Earth's atmosphere.
You could easily describe a car, truck, boat, airplane, or segway as a "space ship."
Yes but since the DeLorean started out as a car that would meet the definition of 'space ship' that you are using it is probably safe to say it was intended to refer to 'space ship' in the normal sense of the phrase.
'So, think about it... if you moved through time, forward one minute, and somehow skipped any spatial movement, the earth is going to be AT LEAST 1000 miles away from the point, relative to JUST its movement around the sun. That says nothing about how our solar system is moving through the galaxy or the galaxy moving in the universe.'
I think you misunderstood his point. Yes being at the same location on earth requires a spacial movement. But in back to the future that movement is instantaneous just as your movement through time is. You never actually occupy the space in between and are never in outer space. There is no reason the delorian must be pressurized or carry oxygen tanks, exercise equipment, etc like a 'space ship'.
'I'm pointing out that you can blame the USA all you want, conditions for our prisoners were nothing like that. And I'm citing a reference.'
You cited a reference for something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The way the Japanese treated their prisoners is an entirely different discussion.
As for citations, no, history is written by the victor. The documented evidence is that the Japanese-American citizens were detained in structures with no toilets or kitchens and several were shot. You can find that much at wikipedia. For the rest I only have first hand accounts of people I met who were in the camps and the scars I saw with my own eyes. Maybe that isn't good enough for you. Honestly, I couldn't give a fig.
Eugenics in the United States is well documented and was even cited by Hitler as inspiration for the Nazi program. The last sterilization in the United States was performed in 1981 according to Wikipedia.
'the USA'
I blame the government. This really isn't a democracy anymore and the people have no say in what occurs. Maybe you think things are just fine here but personally I think we should start slowly stepping backwards from this religious war. Then we need to focus on the civil war that is needed to win our country back (or to shape it into the nation we pretend it once was).
'As long as you track your 'commit charge' and don't go over the amount of physical memory you have, disabling swap will only improve things. All I can say is that it works for me, and I've never had an issue because of it -- in spite of the prevalent belief that it's a Bad Idea.'
That is probably the real source of the difference in experience. I don't know anyone who actively monitors their memory usage at all times on a desktop. It doesn't matter how much ram I load a desktop with, I will exceed physical memory at times. The problem isn't even just what I am doing, large windows applications work on the assumption that windows memory management is happening and load tons of information to memory. Apparently your usage is less memory intensive.
Really though, you shouldn't have to disable swap. The *nix method of handling memory is far superior, it stays physical until you get low enough that there is just enough to enable swap. If you reach that mark swap is turned on until memory usage drops low enough for awhile. There is a slight performance hit required to enable swapping but usually you are either swapping most of the time or rarely swap.
'The constitution, for example, does not authorize the President to order troops to invade Canada. It does, however, authorize him to command the military, and thus he can give this order, despite that specific action not being specifically authorized by the constitution.'
While such a thing is considered true today, it is probably in actuality contrary to the constitution. The constitution gives the right to declare war squarely to the congress. After it is declared the military is commanded by the president. And outside of wartime the federal government isn't even supposed to have a standing army for more than 2yrs (only a navy). States are supposed to have militias, those militias are conscripted by the federal government in time of war to form a standing army, which the president then commands.
At no point was the president supposed to have the authority to order attacks outside of wartime. Now we just look at it as a question of money, he can't have any extra money unless congress gives it to him. In other words, its okay for the president to break the rules right up to the point where there is a practical limitation that prevents him from continuing the abuse.
'or we can change the Constitution to say exactly what we want now'
Unfortunately 'we' of the present day is not someone I want to start fiddling with the constitution. Maybe if there was some honest element in government but there simply isn't, our government is bought and paid for by corporations with little concern for the people. Why pay attention to the people when history has shown that media coverage will get you re-elected and corps will provide the money to get you that.
'I assume he then thinks it would have to be updated with every new technology'
Probably not with every new tech. It just needs new wording. It should explicitly protect communications. A communication is a communication regardless of medium and that should stand over time.
I agree. The administration are war criminals. They are guilty of war crimes, they have violated the constitution, they have committed treason against the people (and so has this court) during wartime.
The punishment for treason during wartime is death. I don't think we should execute a sitting president (we should have impeached him) but now that he is a civilian again, Bush and company should be executed for treason.
As a nation we must send a loud, distinct, and clear message that this sort of abuse by government will not be tolerate. That they ARE accountable.
We won't though, because we will tolerate abuse, and they aren't really accountable anymore. Americans don't have the balls to be free anymore.
'enjoy certain inalienable rights. It doesn't enjoin the American govt to provide for the rights'
The two are implicit. The declaration is recognition of both the rights and the fact that they can not be alienated by a government, including our own. Since it was very clear that it was physically possible to alienate said rights when the document was written this is clearly an order for government.
'The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.)'
No, its not another matter entirely. You can't separate the two. Without valid trials you don't know if there are innocents incarcerated. The reason we hold the requirement for fair trial in the first place isn't for the benefits of the guilty who might 'get off' its for the innocents who's rights outweigh any justice owed to guilty 'getting off'.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised C++ didn't make the list.
There is no particular reason Apache needs to run on windows at all, particularly since it runs (arguably better) on free systems that are readily available. Windows on the other hand might be able to stay in many server rooms if it runs Apache. I guess we are right back to this benefiting Microsoft again eh?
That's insane, right in the middle of Miami I could only get 5 analog channels on a pair of rabbit ears. And none of those channels actually had decent picture and audio, at least 2 of them had a picture so crappy you probably wouldn't want to watch it.
I have no idea how many I'd get with a digital antenna... I really don't know anyone who actually watches broadcast tv so I can't check and compare. IMHO most of the hype about this is because people (including cable repairmen) misunderstood and though this applied to analog cable television which tons of people use. Extended basic gives you sci-fi, comedy central, the history channel, national geographic, fox, food network, espn, etc for $30 or less a month (or free in many apartment complexes). With digital getting that same lineup would require packages that will balloon your bill to over $100 and give you essentially the same programming with a couple hundred more channels of filler.
Microsoft fanboy mods must be out in force today
You'd do better on a bittorrent search engine than MSDN in that case. You will find handy copies that use the same disc to install various 'editions' of the operating systems as well. Less hassles and copy protections. Good stuff for testing and development. ;)
'But it makes Apache better too.'
In what way?
Allowing accessed to the products for testing, development, and improving interoperability improves the value of Microsoft's products.
That isn't a gift, its an invitation to give Microsoft something for nothing.
We've dumbed down the public enough that changing ram qualifies as hardware wizardry.
Digital in general gives a nice sexy picture and compression artifacts aren't any worse than static. Pauses, skips, and audio sync issues on the other hand are absolutely unacceptable and they plague digital video (broadcast or otherwise). I'd rather have a constant static level that your mind ignores than pauses, skips, or audio sync issues.
On the other hand, OTA analogue tv isn't exactly on par with the static on an older vhs tape, its generally unwatchable.
'Bandwidth is also practically irrelevant as even HD video can stream of 802.11g let alone 802.11n without a problem.'
Yeah, if you are right on top of it. But wifi has significant latency issues and if you go into the next room, or across the house you will start to see problems.
Improved video codecs are helping to solve the streaming problem this problem but I wouldn't even think about transferring a couple gigs of videos across my wifi network! Performance on wifi also varies greatly with the wireless card and whether the wife is using the microwave.
I did a little test. I live in a small condo with only drywall walls. I can get what my card reports as 'very good' to 'excellent' connection in all parts of house on my dell laptop with intel wifi. The system claims its 40mbit plus at any point. However, I noticed I get low quality streaming netflix (1 to 1.5mbit stream) to my laptop in the livingroom on the tv. Despite having a 6mbit connection that tests at 6mbit on all speed tests.
So I decided to make a few videos myself and http stream them off my desktop (gigabit connection to the router, dual core athlon, 4gb ram, and raid1 seagate 10000rpm drives) and host the exact files off my servage account as well.
I used bitrates varying from 400kbit to 2.2mbit. I found that in the livingroom the laptop was able to stream smoothly (after maxing the buffer for the flash player) up to 1.4mbit from either source across the wifi in the livingroom. I plugged it into the router directly and it played the 2.2mbit smoothly.
My desktop could play both smoothly up to 2.2mbit. My wifes desktop (on the same wifi but in the room with the router) plays the files up to 2.2mbit smoothly. The laptop also streamed the top speed file smoothly in the same room.
Conclusion, the laptop can handle streaming. The laptop can handle fast wifi. Wifi can't handle fast streaming more than a few feet away.
'Um, actually "space ship" has only ever been defined as a "ship" that travels through "outer space". So you are entirely wrong in your posts in saying a truck is a "space ship".'
The person I replied to is who you should be directing that comment toward.
I merely pointed out that the authors of the TFA obviously weren't using his definition because a car would already meet that definition and the need for the vehicle to be capable of traversing space (as opposed to outer space) wouldn't be noteworthy.
'You are both assuming that "space ship" means "vessel that travels through the space beyond the Earth's atmosphere." All that "space ship" means, literally, is a ship that travels through space - any space, including the space within the Earth's atmosphere.
You could easily describe a car, truck, boat, airplane, or segway as a "space ship."
Yes but since the DeLorean started out as a car that would meet the definition of 'space ship' that you are using it is probably safe to say it was intended to refer to 'space ship' in the normal sense of the phrase.
Either way in Back to the Future travel this happens instantaneously so you wouldn't need to outfit the delorian for 'outer space' travel.
'So, think about it... if you moved through time, forward one minute, and somehow skipped any spatial movement, the earth is going to be AT LEAST 1000 miles away from the point, relative to JUST its movement around the sun. That says nothing about how our solar system is moving through the galaxy or the galaxy moving in the universe.'
I think you misunderstood his point. Yes being at the same location on earth requires a spacial movement. But in back to the future that movement is instantaneous just as your movement through time is. You never actually occupy the space in between and are never in outer space. There is no reason the delorian must be pressurized or carry oxygen tanks, exercise equipment, etc like a 'space ship'.
'I'm pointing out that you can blame the USA all you want, conditions for our prisoners were nothing like that. And I'm citing a reference.'
You cited a reference for something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The way the Japanese treated their prisoners is an entirely different discussion.
As for citations, no, history is written by the victor. The documented evidence is that the Japanese-American citizens were detained in structures with no toilets or kitchens and several were shot. You can find that much at wikipedia. For the rest I only have first hand accounts of people I met who were in the camps and the scars I saw with my own eyes. Maybe that isn't good enough for you. Honestly, I couldn't give a fig.
Eugenics in the United States is well documented and was even cited by Hitler as inspiration for the Nazi program. The last sterilization in the United States was performed in 1981 according to Wikipedia.
'the USA'
I blame the government. This really isn't a democracy anymore and the people have no say in what occurs. Maybe you think things are just fine here but personally I think we should start slowly stepping backwards from this religious war. Then we need to focus on the civil war that is needed to win our country back (or to shape it into the nation we pretend it once was).
'As long as you track your 'commit charge' and don't go over the amount of physical memory you have, disabling swap will only improve things. All I can say is that it works for me, and I've never had an issue because of it -- in spite of the prevalent belief that it's a Bad Idea.'
That is probably the real source of the difference in experience. I don't know anyone who actively monitors their memory usage at all times on a desktop. It doesn't matter how much ram I load a desktop with, I will exceed physical memory at times. The problem isn't even just what I am doing, large windows applications work on the assumption that windows memory management is happening and load tons of information to memory. Apparently your usage is less memory intensive.
Really though, you shouldn't have to disable swap. The *nix method of handling memory is far superior, it stays physical until you get low enough that there is just enough to enable swap. If you reach that mark swap is turned on until memory usage drops low enough for awhile. There is a slight performance hit required to enable swapping but usually you are either swapping most of the time or rarely swap.
What does that have to do with the United States rounding up Japanese-American citizens, caging them and then torturing and sterilizing many of them?
Are you really trying to claim that someone else abusing captured soldiers justifies us abusing and torturing our own civilian citizens?
'The constitution, for example, does not authorize the President to order troops to invade Canada. It does, however, authorize him to command the military, and thus he can give this order, despite that specific action not being specifically authorized by the constitution.'
While such a thing is considered true today, it is probably in actuality contrary to the constitution. The constitution gives the right to declare war squarely to the congress. After it is declared the military is commanded by the president. And outside of wartime the federal government isn't even supposed to have a standing army for more than 2yrs (only a navy). States are supposed to have militias, those militias are conscripted by the federal government in time of war to form a standing army, which the president then commands.
At no point was the president supposed to have the authority to order attacks outside of wartime. Now we just look at it as a question of money, he can't have any extra money unless congress gives it to him. In other words, its okay for the president to break the rules right up to the point where there is a practical limitation that prevents him from continuing the abuse.
'or we can change the Constitution to say exactly what we want now'
Unfortunately 'we' of the present day is not someone I want to start fiddling with the constitution. Maybe if there was some honest element in government but there simply isn't, our government is bought and paid for by corporations with little concern for the people. Why pay attention to the people when history has shown that media coverage will get you re-elected and corps will provide the money to get you that.
'I assume he then thinks it would have to be updated with every new technology'
Probably not with every new tech. It just needs new wording. It should explicitly protect communications. A communication is a communication regardless of medium and that should stand over time.
yup, because the one they stumbled on and publicized was likely the only one. Riiigggghhhht.
I agree. The administration are war criminals. They are guilty of war crimes, they have violated the constitution, they have committed treason against the people (and so has this court) during wartime.
The punishment for treason during wartime is death. I don't think we should execute a sitting president (we should have impeached him) but now that he is a civilian again, Bush and company should be executed for treason.
As a nation we must send a loud, distinct, and clear message that this sort of abuse by government will not be tolerate. That they ARE accountable.
We won't though, because we will tolerate abuse, and they aren't really accountable anymore. Americans don't have the balls to be free anymore.
'enjoy certain inalienable rights. It doesn't enjoin the American govt to provide for the rights'
The two are implicit. The declaration is recognition of both the rights and the fact that they can not be alienated by a government, including our own. Since it was very clear that it was physically possible to alienate said rights when the document was written this is clearly an order for government.
'The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.)'
No, its not another matter entirely. You can't separate the two. Without valid trials you don't know if there are innocents incarcerated. The reason we hold the requirement for fair trial in the first place isn't for the benefits of the guilty who might 'get off' its for the innocents who's rights outweigh any justice owed to guilty 'getting off'.
'I don't know if you've been following the UK lately but they haven't exactly been living up to their Common Law/Magna Carta heritage of late.'
And we have? We haven't honored our common law heritage since the civil war.