I generally hate traction control, because most systems modulate it by controlling the throttle inputs (limiting fuel injection...), which does not respond quite fast enough.
Hmmm. Traction control is a nebulous concept. All it really amounts to is some mechanism taking some control over wheel speed, somehow. "Most" traction controls work completely differently from one another.
My old '91 Mazda 626 had traction control. It was a little button you pushed next to the shifter, and all it did was prevent your transmission from rolling backwards and prevented you from putting too much power through the transmission. I never used it.
Limited slip/positrac differential is another kind of traction control that keeps power to both drive wheels at all times, and lets up on a drive wheel when turning, or when it starts to slip.
BMW came out, a number of years back, with a traction control that used wheel speed + abs to improve handling and smooth out a ride that would otherwise toss you around your sleep.
ABS itself is traction control, it prevents your wheels from losing traction during braking.
And subaru has had that fancy system where you push the brake and the clutch all the way down together, and then the transmission clicks itself into place to hold you on a hill (called a hill holder). So you don't spin out when you take off on the hill, and so you don't drift backwards when slipping the clutch.
Fact is, "traction control" is just an automotive buzzword, and has been implemented in a variety of different ways. Now, newer and fancier cars are starting to add more layers of systems that all deal with traction in some form or other, but the words "Traction control" mean very little by themselves.
"Imagine getting the blue screen of death at 85mph..."
Imagine crashing because it took too long to read the man page on the hdlghts command.
Dude, both of these jokes are like, so, yesterday, you know? How about:
Imagine driving at 85mph and your scheduler decides to allocate all its time to your webserver.
Or
Imagine driving at 85mph with your headlights off because the car failed to properly understand your double-click. Should've been running KDE, where a single click would have done.
Or
Shit, I can't even drive this car without a mod chip. It won't start unless I give it my special personal key, but they didn't give it to me! So until I can run linux on it, I just can't drive it. Shoulda bought a Toyota. Oops.
Better yet
Damn, why doesn't my Ford run right? Oh. Here's a Certificate of Authenticity. I'll bet if I re-install my OS and upgrade to the latest service pack it'll run fine. Nope. Still runs like shit.
No one ever thinks they will be in an accident; that's why they are called accidents. But you don't *know* you won't be. None of the 30,000 or 40,000 or so Americans who die in traffic accidents every year left the house that day thinking they were going to be in an accident, let alone be killed. You just never know when it will happen. Get insured.
You also don't *know* that you will be in an accident. It's what-if. What-if I crash into some dude's car today? What-if-I-don't?
Right now, I'm at an income level that makes insurance take food out of my kids' mouths. Now, it could be managed somehow, if I *really* wanted to. Fact is, I'd rather put insurance money in the bank, and what-if I hit somebody, I pay out of my own pocket. That is my plan, actually, to never get insurance, and when I can "afford" it, put it away instead of buying insurance. Insurance is a big black hole that you only ever get back what-if you actually hit somebody. So my plan is to become self-insured and have the money in a place where it can gain interest, be invested, what-have-you, and grow. Rather than a black hole, it'll be somewhere useful to me.
But you're still quoting numbers that are very small (30k-40k Americans die each year in car accidents, compared to how many that continue to survive driving cars that don't crash). Yes, it can happen to me. In fact, I've already been in wrecks (and I had insurance, and so did the other guy, so one time my company paid him, and the other time his company paid me). Statistically, I'm very *very* unlikely to ever be in a wreck again, and I get to be counted among those who have already been in wrecks. I know how real the possibility is, and I know what the consequences are. But I also happen to be in a demographic in which the chances of being in a wreck are very small. Very very small. Smaller than my dick, so small. So small that IBM would bet on it, and you know large corporations don't bet on anything unless the chances of failure are small enough that it's a "sure thing".
So, the choice is "spend this not-insubstantial amount of money each month" or "don't spend this not-insubstantial amount of money each month". The qualifying fact from which I have to make this decision are very low odds, and insurance is putting money away what-if that-event-whose-chances-of-happening-are-so-astro nomically-low ever happens to me. It's a no-brainer. The chances of me being stopped and getting ticketed are greater.
Heh. Your entire post assumes I'll get into an accident. My whole point was that I'm gambling that I won't get into an accident. And that if you never get into a wreck, car insurance is a worthless expense and it is cheaper to pay the fines when/if you get them. If you don't defeat that one piece of reasoning, you will not be able to defeat any of it, since it is all built from there. Well, you might be able to hit a few points here and there, but not with that argument.
It's the opposite of gambling in Vegas. When you gamble in Vegas you bet on low odds that you'll win. Now let's reverse it. let's say you play the game (any game, pick one), and you do not win/lose. Rarely, however, you lose big and it takes all the money you have to stay in the game. Someone offers you $100/hand and guarantees that when you lose, you won't have to pay out of your pocket for the loss. Take the deal? I wouldn't.;) (Yeah, my example is poorly contrived, oh well)
Actually, it's funny you should mention this. I don't pay insurance even though it's required by state law. The chances of me getting into a car accident are so slim, I'd just as soon take my chances. Further, the chances of it being my fault (assume 1-1) make the monthly cost of insurance a pretty high amount to put out under the assumption that I"ll hit someone, it'll be my fault, and I'll cause any real damage. So the fine is much less than the insurance itself, and every state gives you a chance to fix your record by getting insurance for awhile. It takes 2-3 tickets before they crack down, and it could take me years to rack up that many tickets. Drive safely, keep your lights in good order, don't break any traffic laws, and don't do anything stupid.
INsurance is for pessimists and nihilists. I've paid out a total of $100 in fines over the last three years. Even if you're the best driver, how much would it have cost to have insurance? Remember, no car accidents either.;)
I hear your point, but I think you are missing another one. What the parent was trying to say, I think, is that the technology exists in the open source community to do what you need to do. The fact that Distro X didn't pick up the technology and package it isn't the OSS community's fault - it's the distro packager's fault.
Bang. It gets even worse than that, yet. Every distribution gets the crazy idea that theirs is the best of all of them, and there's no exchange of ideas/software between them, except for the stuff that's already independent. Why couldn't Fedora just take Mandrake's tool and make it better? It's GPL, you know. Why does every distribution have to have something different?
For that matter, why did every distribution go and build their own crap instead of working on LinuxConf, an almost-useful tool that exists independently of distribution. (I used to use it until I realized it didn't work that well, and I'd prefer to use it if I could rely on it being available on any distribution)
Eric's rant, while generally a good critique, missed the point entirely. What he really needs to do to make his point about free software GUIs is try the same test on Mandrake, SuSE, and Debian, and then blame the community.;)
Um, just wanted to point out that I've only used Mandrake's printer config tool to setup networked printers, but only connecting to smb shares or cups shares. I've not used it to setup a local printer because harddrake does that for me.;)
Despite whether the parent is a troll or just some random asshat,
Perhaps you should reread my post.
My problem with this little debate is the fact that one guy goes and tries to get something working under one distribution using the distributions tools and he blames everyone and everything he can touch for his hard time.
His experience, however bad it may be, is not representative of the rest of us and our experiences.
I'll prove this, too. Later on, when my wife gets home, I'll tell her to setup the laptop to connect to the printer on this computer (which I haven't yet done out of pure laziness).
Whether Eric Raymond chose the best distribution for the job is irrelevant, the fact that he extrapolated from one situation and passed judgement across the board is unacceptable. ANd the fact that his article reads like it was solely motivated by his frustration of the moment makes it even more unacceptable.
Heh, I don't mean to dog on Jedit, but iirc Konqueror itself has plugins to do most of that. Of course, I'm perfectly happy on the command line, so I don't need all those plugins. But I see what you're saying. In my early days of development I preferred a fancy IDE, I even flirted with Borland C++ Builder for a little while. In my early days of web development I actually liked frontpage until I found Dreamweaver. ANd then one day, it was like, well it was, an epiphany, and I thought "Man, I waste more time managing my IDE than I do coding, and it really really sucks." And it came to pass that I determined that a small syntax-highlighting text editor that can load in less than 1 second is much more efficient than that big bloated mess that was Dreamweaver. Lo and behold I found Programmer's Notepad. And then I learned that Kwrite is the defualt text editor for KDevelop, and I no longer needed an IDE after all.
Granted it does take a little bit of extra steps adding a file to the source tree without a fancy wizard to build Makefile.am for me, but Makefile.am is not that complicated. And how much of your time do you really spend adding new files to the source tree? In all other ways that count (minus the class browser, but I never did get the hang of those) and IDE is slower than a simple fast text editor.
I understand there are still lots of people that do their coding in vim. And I understand why, finally.;) But I genuinely like GUIs, so vim isn't the right fit for me.
Of course, now when I'm stuck with Windows I use cygwin for development, because I'm physically addicted to a light-weight syntax-highlighting text editor and a terminal window with a strong set of command line development tools.
If I was going to buy a laptop to run Linux on, I wouldn't even know where to start in order to find out what hardware would really truly work.
Well, obviously you want a laptop that is pretty sturdy, so you'll be looking for something that's already been on the market a little while, right?
Personally, I went looking for a Thinkpad specifically because I knew that IBM used to support them officially with Linux, even though they discontinued Linux support. (rumor has it they still hack on drivers for the things, though) I've got complete support for everything except the stupid modem, but who actually uses that anyways, right? And that was with Mandrake 9.2 out of the box default install.:)
Older Dells usually work, but beware of 802.11g right now. Mucho proprietario hardwario interfacios mi amigo.:(
But pretty much just look for a laptop you want, then get tech specs on it, and then google for each and every chipset in the thing with "linux" prepended and the make & model of the laptop.:)
When the interface gets in my way by accidentially clicking a gadget or some dumbass tooltip following the mouse around, I get irritated. I'm here to work within my applications, not marvel at how flexible the interface is.
Man, speaking of tooltips...
I open a terminal when I'm doing c++ work, and I command-line my way around the project directory all over the place, 4-5 terminals open all at once, whatever, right? I'm sure I'm not the only one. I use Kwrite for my editor, so I frequently type something like "kwrite src/fuckyou.h &". I also frequently type something in kwrite, save, and then, check this out.
Then I move the mouse pointer all the way to the bottom of the screen, click the terminal, and start typing in the terminal. Now, what's wrong with this?
Nothing, tra-la-la?
A fucking tooltip appears and snatches the first character of input from me!!! So now I've typed "ake" or "/configure" or "write src/fuckyou.cpp &". Or even just "s"!
Irritating as hell. (KDE, just because I've failed to mention it so far)
Heh. Believe it or not, I really do sincerely prefer KWrite for all my coding needs. For web work, I keep a konqueror window open to the web directory and opening a file is as simple as right-clicking and saying "Open With Kwrite". Due to KWrite being tightly integrated with KDE, I can open files across any protocol KDE understands without any trouble. I frequently open a Konqueror window to ftp and sftp sites to work on web pages.
It's simple, everything loads fast, and it's only fucking php for cryin' out loud. WE're not talking resource files and rapid widget drag-n-drop or whatever. P - H - mutherfuckin' - P
YOu know, I couldn't help but read both articles and think "Jesus fucking Christ! Why didn't he do this on Mandrake? Mandrakes printer config tool opens up with a recommended printer and scans everything, and disables what doesn't work. Eric's looking for Mandrake!"
And, of course, after anything appears in Fedora it is immediately and profoundly representative of the entire development community.
I think they both need to fuck off and take a harder look at things. They're both exactly right, and they're both exactly wrong, and they're both just pissing for attention.
In space there is no street, no "absolute not-moving". You could probably make one if you really wanted by comparing yourself to the nearest planet / sun, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as important as it is on earth
Um, actually, there is, if you want to be that technical about it. Your velocity reaches 0 when you're not moving, but everything else is in constant motion. So if you're not moving, you could watch a planet or whatever spin for awhile. Now, it would take energy to keep still, but that's not the question here.;)
But since you put it that way, the original poster was probably referring to your velocity in relation to your opponent, but that's a whole other can of worms.
And if you want to get really technical, you're still moving until you reach 0 K.;)
But thanks to college frat houses we've learned that 250 cups of coffee will kill you. I realize this is a joke, but it's something that has appeared in news before, at least in Texas (I think it was a kid at A&M that discovered this).
So it's hard for the joke to be funny when you know people have actually died from drinking too much coffee. (Of course, that does make a person a good candidate for a Darwin Award)
Balance of Terror was an awesome episode. I'm glad you brought it up. That battle is very good, and considering how early it was in visual science fiction, it was an excellent battle.
Yeah, it might have had the same plot as whatever the GP was bitching about, but it was played out well. That's what the cloaking device was all about, it was the same ol' submarine warfare. Not to mention the weird plasma gun the Romulans had, so they could cloak themselves for awhile, hide, and fire their gun, and wipe out almost anybody besides Kirk.
I may be just an historian, but I have at least a nodding acquaintance with simple Newtonian physics.
I'm not trying to troll, really, but you should have read his whole post.
If you suddenly spin your ship 180 degrees and fire your thrusters the other way,
Emphasis mine. So visualize this. You're walking down the street, and you do a sudden about face. Regardless of how fancy your technology is, your velocity must reach 0 before you begin moving in the opposite direction.
Now, you're right if you're talking about just spinning a bit and changing direction, but that would require turning your thruster *off*, or else it would result in the appearance of a bank, which is the complaint made at the top of the thread. Now, turning your thruster off and on makes very little sense unless you're trying to conserve fuel or keep your speed down, otherwise you want to keep it on all the time and continue accelerating because it's a harder target to hit.;)
You could have just stopped there, man, 'nuff said. Kirk and Khan facing off is by far the best space battle ever. It really is a last man standing, and they didn't fool around with it, they trashed both of those ships.
On a completely unsci-fi note, I really enjoy the bombing of Pearl Harbor in the movie Pearl Harbor. Sucks that there's this whole stupid movie built around it, but when the fight actually starts it rocks.
STVIII (First Contact) was the one where Worf ordered it
I don't recall this exactly, sorta, however, in the next one (you know, that one nobody wants to remember) Riker orders them to ram the outcasts ship, and the guy says "He won't do it, will he?" and Worf says "Yes, he will.":) That whole movie's worth it just because Riker finally has balls, for the first time ever.
just getting silly and out there: the orbital fight at the beginning of the lost in space movie
I like that fight, actually. It may seem pretty cheesy or whatever, but it lays down important foundation for later in the movie. And Joey actually plays a cool guy.:) (I hate Friends)
And on that topic, while not exactly a space battle, I really enjoy the sequence later in the movie where they go through the planet.
Yeah, I know, there's some cheesy stuff in that movie, but I really like it anyway.;) Danny Oldman rules. Always. In everything he does. (Ok, I've only seen him in Lost in Space and the Fifth Element, but in both movies his character was the most interesting, and that says a lot when he's being compared to Bruce Willis)
Slashdot Mirror
I generally hate traction control, because most systems modulate it by controlling the throttle inputs (limiting fuel injection...), which does not respond quite fast enough.
Hmmm. Traction control is a nebulous concept. All it really amounts to is some mechanism taking some control over wheel speed, somehow. "Most" traction controls work completely differently from one another.
My old '91 Mazda 626 had traction control. It was a little button you pushed next to the shifter, and all it did was prevent your transmission from rolling backwards and prevented you from putting too much power through the transmission. I never used it.
Limited slip/positrac differential is another kind of traction control that keeps power to both drive wheels at all times, and lets up on a drive wheel when turning, or when it starts to slip.
BMW came out, a number of years back, with a traction control that used wheel speed + abs to improve handling and smooth out a ride that would otherwise toss you around your sleep.
ABS itself is traction control, it prevents your wheels from losing traction during braking.
And subaru has had that fancy system where you push the brake and the clutch all the way down together, and then the transmission clicks itself into place to hold you on a hill (called a hill holder). So you don't spin out when you take off on the hill, and so you don't drift backwards when slipping the clutch.
Fact is, "traction control" is just an automotive buzzword, and has been implemented in a variety of different ways. Now, newer and fancier cars are starting to add more layers of systems that all deal with traction in some form or other, but the words "Traction control" mean very little by themselves.
Why do you think the space shuttle uses electronic guidance to land?
Um, when was the last time the space shuttle actually landed, anyway?
Oh all right. If nobody else is going to say it.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, Car drives YOU!
"Imagine getting the blue screen of death at 85mph..."
Imagine crashing because it took too long to read the man page on the hdlghts command.
Dude, both of these jokes are like, so, yesterday, you know? How about:
Imagine driving at 85mph and your scheduler decides to allocate all its time to your webserver.
Or
Imagine driving at 85mph with your headlights off because the car failed to properly understand your double-click. Should've been running KDE, where a single click would have done.
Or
Shit, I can't even drive this car without a mod chip. It won't start unless I give it my special personal key, but they didn't give it to me! So until I can run linux on it, I just can't drive it. Shoulda bought a Toyota. Oops.
Better yet
Damn, why doesn't my Ford run right? Oh. Here's a Certificate of Authenticity. I'll bet if I re-install my OS and upgrade to the latest service pack it'll run fine. Nope. Still runs like shit.
Toyota's method, at least on the Sienna, is to repeatedly quickly engage and disengage the clutch
That's funny, I thought the Sienna didn't have a manual transmission option. Can we say "torque converter"?
No one ever thinks they will be in an accident; that's why they are called accidents. But you don't *know* you won't be. None of the 30,000 or 40,000 or so Americans who die in traffic accidents every year left the house that day thinking they were going to be in an accident, let alone be killed. You just never know when it will happen. Get insured.
You also don't *know* that you will be in an accident. It's what-if. What-if I crash into some dude's car today? What-if-I-don't?
Right now, I'm at an income level that makes insurance take food out of my kids' mouths. Now, it could be managed somehow, if I *really* wanted to. Fact is, I'd rather put insurance money in the bank, and what-if I hit somebody, I pay out of my own pocket. That is my plan, actually, to never get insurance, and when I can "afford" it, put it away instead of buying insurance. Insurance is a big black hole that you only ever get back what-if you actually hit somebody. So my plan is to become self-insured and have the money in a place where it can gain interest, be invested, what-have-you, and grow. Rather than a black hole, it'll be somewhere useful to me.
But you're still quoting numbers that are very small (30k-40k Americans die each year in car accidents, compared to how many that continue to survive driving cars that don't crash). Yes, it can happen to me. In fact, I've already been in wrecks (and I had insurance, and so did the other guy, so one time my company paid him, and the other time his company paid me). Statistically, I'm very *very* unlikely to ever be in a wreck again, and I get to be counted among those who have already been in wrecks. I know how real the possibility is, and I know what the consequences are. But I also happen to be in a demographic in which the chances of being in a wreck are very small. Very very small. Smaller than my dick, so small. So small that IBM would bet on it, and you know large corporations don't bet on anything unless the chances of failure are small enough that it's a "sure thing".
So, the choice is "spend this not-insubstantial amount of money each month" or "don't spend this not-insubstantial amount of money each month". The qualifying fact from which I have to make this decision are very low odds, and insurance is putting money away what-if that-event-whose-chances-of-happening-are-so-astro nomically-low ever happens to me. It's a no-brainer. The chances of me being stopped and getting ticketed are greater.
Heh. Your entire post assumes I'll get into an accident. My whole point was that I'm gambling that I won't get into an accident. And that if you never get into a wreck, car insurance is a worthless expense and it is cheaper to pay the fines when/if you get them. If you don't defeat that one piece of reasoning, you will not be able to defeat any of it, since it is all built from there. Well, you might be able to hit a few points here and there, but not with that argument.
It's the opposite of gambling in Vegas. When you gamble in Vegas you bet on low odds that you'll win. Now let's reverse it. let's say you play the game (any game, pick one), and you do not win/lose. Rarely, however, you lose big and it takes all the money you have to stay in the game. Someone offers you $100/hand and guarantees that when you lose, you won't have to pay out of your pocket for the loss. Take the deal? I wouldn't. ;) (Yeah, my example is poorly contrived, oh well)
Actually, it's funny you should mention this. I don't pay insurance even though it's required by state law. The chances of me getting into a car accident are so slim, I'd just as soon take my chances. Further, the chances of it being my fault (assume 1-1) make the monthly cost of insurance a pretty high amount to put out under the assumption that I"ll hit someone, it'll be my fault, and I'll cause any real damage. So the fine is much less than the insurance itself, and every state gives you a chance to fix your record by getting insurance for awhile. It takes 2-3 tickets before they crack down, and it could take me years to rack up that many tickets. Drive safely, keep your lights in good order, don't break any traffic laws, and don't do anything stupid.
INsurance is for pessimists and nihilists. I've paid out a total of $100 in fines over the last three years. Even if you're the best driver, how much would it have cost to have insurance? Remember, no car accidents either. ;)
I hear your point, but I think you are missing another one. What the parent was trying to say, I think, is that the technology exists in the open source community to do what you need to do. The fact that Distro X didn't pick up the technology and package it isn't the OSS community's fault - it's the distro packager's fault.
Bang. It gets even worse than that, yet. Every distribution gets the crazy idea that theirs is the best of all of them, and there's no exchange of ideas/software between them, except for the stuff that's already independent. Why couldn't Fedora just take Mandrake's tool and make it better? It's GPL, you know. Why does every distribution have to have something different?
For that matter, why did every distribution go and build their own crap instead of working on LinuxConf, an almost-useful tool that exists independently of distribution. (I used to use it until I realized it didn't work that well, and I'd prefer to use it if I could rely on it being available on any distribution)
Eric's rant, while generally a good critique, missed the point entirely. What he really needs to do to make his point about free software GUIs is try the same test on Mandrake, SuSE, and Debian, and then blame the community. ;)
Um, just wanted to point out that I've only used Mandrake's printer config tool to setup networked printers, but only connecting to smb shares or cups shares. I've not used it to setup a local printer because harddrake does that for me. ;)
Despite whether the parent is a troll or just some random asshat,
Perhaps you should reread my post.
My problem with this little debate is the fact that one guy goes and tries to get something working under one distribution using the distributions tools and he blames everyone and everything he can touch for his hard time.
His experience, however bad it may be, is not representative of the rest of us and our experiences.
I'll prove this, too. Later on, when my wife gets home, I'll tell her to setup the laptop to connect to the printer on this computer (which I haven't yet done out of pure laziness).
Whether Eric Raymond chose the best distribution for the job is irrelevant, the fact that he extrapolated from one situation and passed judgement across the board is unacceptable. ANd the fact that his article reads like it was solely motivated by his frustration of the moment makes it even more unacceptable.
Heh, I don't mean to dog on Jedit, but iirc Konqueror itself has plugins to do most of that. Of course, I'm perfectly happy on the command line, so I don't need all those plugins. But I see what you're saying. In my early days of development I preferred a fancy IDE, I even flirted with Borland C++ Builder for a little while. In my early days of web development I actually liked frontpage until I found Dreamweaver. ANd then one day, it was like, well it was, an epiphany, and I thought "Man, I waste more time managing my IDE than I do coding, and it really really sucks." And it came to pass that I determined that a small syntax-highlighting text editor that can load in less than 1 second is much more efficient than that big bloated mess that was Dreamweaver. Lo and behold I found Programmer's Notepad. And then I learned that Kwrite is the defualt text editor for KDevelop, and I no longer needed an IDE after all.
Granted it does take a little bit of extra steps adding a file to the source tree without a fancy wizard to build Makefile.am for me, but Makefile.am is not that complicated. And how much of your time do you really spend adding new files to the source tree? In all other ways that count (minus the class browser, but I never did get the hang of those) and IDE is slower than a simple fast text editor.
I understand there are still lots of people that do their coding in vim. And I understand why, finally. ;) But I genuinely like GUIs, so vim isn't the right fit for me.
Of course, now when I'm stuck with Windows I use cygwin for development, because I'm physically addicted to a light-weight syntax-highlighting text editor and a terminal window with a strong set of command line development tools.
If I was going to buy a laptop to run Linux on, I wouldn't even know where to start in order to find out what hardware would really truly work.
Well, obviously you want a laptop that is pretty sturdy, so you'll be looking for something that's already been on the market a little while, right?
Personally, I went looking for a Thinkpad specifically because I knew that IBM used to support them officially with Linux, even though they discontinued Linux support. (rumor has it they still hack on drivers for the things, though) I've got complete support for everything except the stupid modem, but who actually uses that anyways, right? And that was with Mandrake 9.2 out of the box default install. :)
Older Dells usually work, but beware of 802.11g right now. Mucho proprietario hardwario interfacios mi amigo. :(
But pretty much just look for a laptop you want, then get tech specs on it, and then google for each and every chipset in the thing with "linux" prepended and the make & model of the laptop. :)
When the interface gets in my way by accidentially clicking a gadget or some dumbass tooltip following the mouse around, I get irritated. I'm here to work within my applications, not marvel at how flexible the interface is.
Man, speaking of tooltips...
I open a terminal when I'm doing c++ work, and I command-line my way around the project directory all over the place, 4-5 terminals open all at once, whatever, right? I'm sure I'm not the only one. I use Kwrite for my editor, so I frequently type something like "kwrite src/fuckyou.h &". I also frequently type something in kwrite, save, and then, check this out.
Then I move the mouse pointer all the way to the bottom of the screen, click the terminal, and start typing in the terminal. Now, what's wrong with this?
Nothing, tra-la-la?
A fucking tooltip appears and snatches the first character of input from me!!! So now I've typed "ake" or "/configure" or "write src/fuckyou.cpp &". Or even just "s"!
Irritating as hell. (KDE, just because I've failed to mention it so far)
Heh. Believe it or not, I really do sincerely prefer KWrite for all my coding needs. For web work, I keep a konqueror window open to the web directory and opening a file is as simple as right-clicking and saying "Open With Kwrite". Due to KWrite being tightly integrated with KDE, I can open files across any protocol KDE understands without any trouble. I frequently open a Konqueror window to ftp and sftp sites to work on web pages.
It's simple, everything loads fast, and it's only fucking php for cryin' out loud. WE're not talking resource files and rapid widget drag-n-drop or whatever. P - H - mutherfuckin' - P
YOu know, I couldn't help but read both articles and think "Jesus fucking Christ! Why didn't he do this on Mandrake? Mandrakes printer config tool opens up with a recommended printer and scans everything, and disables what doesn't work. Eric's looking for Mandrake!"
And, of course, after anything appears in Fedora it is immediately and profoundly representative of the entire development community.
I think they both need to fuck off and take a harder look at things. They're both exactly right, and they're both exactly wrong, and they're both just pissing for attention.
In space there is no street, no "absolute not-moving". You could probably make one if you really wanted by comparing yourself to the nearest planet / sun, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as important as it is on earth
Um, actually, there is, if you want to be that technical about it. Your velocity reaches 0 when you're not moving, but everything else is in constant motion. So if you're not moving, you could watch a planet or whatever spin for awhile. Now, it would take energy to keep still, but that's not the question here. ;)
But since you put it that way, the original poster was probably referring to your velocity in relation to your opponent, but that's a whole other can of worms.
And if you want to get really technical, you're still moving until you reach 0 K. ;)
But thanks to college frat houses we've learned that 250 cups of coffee will kill you. I realize this is a joke, but it's something that has appeared in news before, at least in Texas (I think it was a kid at A&M that discovered this).
So it's hard for the joke to be funny when you know people have actually died from drinking too much coffee. (Of course, that does make a person a good candidate for a Darwin Award)
Balance of Terror was an awesome episode. I'm glad you brought it up. That battle is very good, and considering how early it was in visual science fiction, it was an excellent battle.
Yeah, it might have had the same plot as whatever the GP was bitching about, but it was played out well. That's what the cloaking device was all about, it was the same ol' submarine warfare. Not to mention the weird plasma gun the Romulans had, so they could cloak themselves for awhile, hide, and fire their gun, and wipe out almost anybody besides Kirk.
I may be just an historian, but I have at least a nodding acquaintance with simple Newtonian physics.
I'm not trying to troll, really, but you should have read his whole post.
If you suddenly spin your ship 180 degrees and fire your thrusters the other way,
Emphasis mine. So visualize this. You're walking down the street, and you do a sudden about face. Regardless of how fancy your technology is, your velocity must reach 0 before you begin moving in the opposite direction.
Now, you're right if you're talking about just spinning a bit and changing direction, but that would require turning your thruster *off*, or else it would result in the appearance of a bank, which is the complaint made at the top of the thread. Now, turning your thruster off and on makes very little sense unless you're trying to conserve fuel or keep your speed down, otherwise you want to keep it on all the time and continue accelerating because it's a harder target to hit. ;)
Mmmm. Sorry! :(
Still can't figure out where I got Danny from....
I saw Star Trek II when I was a kid.
You could have just stopped there, man, 'nuff said. Kirk and Khan facing off is by far the best space battle ever. It really is a last man standing, and they didn't fool around with it, they trashed both of those ships.
On a completely unsci-fi note, I really enjoy the bombing of Pearl Harbor in the movie Pearl Harbor. Sucks that there's this whole stupid movie built around it, but when the fight actually starts it rocks.
STVIII (First Contact) was the one where Worf ordered it
I don't recall this exactly, sorta, however, in the next one (you know, that one nobody wants to remember) Riker orders them to ram the outcasts ship, and the guy says "He won't do it, will he?" and Worf says "Yes, he will." :) That whole movie's worth it just because Riker finally has balls, for the first time ever.
Oops, I didn't realize you meant Voyager. I thought you were referring to Star Trek 5. Sorry.
An honest mistake I made too. I thought she/he was talking about something cool and instead turned out to be talking about something worthless. ;)
(I like ST Five, and I don't care who knows it)
just getting silly and out there: the orbital fight at the beginning of the lost in space movie
I like that fight, actually. It may seem pretty cheesy or whatever, but it lays down important foundation for later in the movie. And Joey actually plays a cool guy. :) (I hate Friends)
And on that topic, while not exactly a space battle, I really enjoy the sequence later in the movie where they go through the planet.
Yeah, I know, there's some cheesy stuff in that movie, but I really like it anyway. ;) Danny Oldman rules. Always. In everything he does. (Ok, I've only seen him in Lost in Space and the Fifth Element, but in both movies his character was the most interesting, and that says a lot when he's being compared to Bruce Willis)