I'm saddened by the fact that this thing will probably come under some extreme environmental protest simply because it contains the words "nuclear" or "reactor".
Eh? Why? Thanks to our president, nobody knows what "nuclear" is anymore. We all had it straight when Chekov was asking where the "nu-cle-ar wessels" are. Man, I wish Pavel were here to run for President. I'd vote that Russkie into office just because he can both pronounce and teach Americans how to pronounce "nuclear".
I cite the machine at the end of total recall for creating an atmosphere.
I can't believe you cited Total Recall as a reliable source of science. I just. Wow. I'm flabbergasted. I had to read your post twice! I just, I, well, I really don't know what to say...
Saying that the Constitution was silent on the issue of a standing army, as you imply, would be wrong.
He said:
It was argued () that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
Maybe that's because cruise missiles are offensive weapons? They're not karate, dude. Karate is for defense only. Cruise missiles are for offense only.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care much about someone's "rights" when it comes to weapons that might kill me. I'm in favor of my side keeping all the weapons. I'm am definitely not in favor of allowing someone else the freedom to express whatever rights they imagine they have if that puts me at risk.
Only thing I can say about this is that this was a popular sentiment in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
I'll bite, even though I agree with you in sentiment.
You mean like Fluoride in my drinking water?
The same fluoride that's in your toothpaste.
And a corrupt penal system which has more people incarcerated today than at any time since the dawn of the U.S.?
It's only natural that at a time when there are more people living in the US than at any time since the dawn of the US that the prisons would likewise have more people in them than ever.
And a corrupt FDA which allows GM food, Asparame, hormonally altered milk and meat products, and endless other poisons in the public food supply?
Not sure about asparame, but the other things you cited aren't necessarily poisonous. Sometimes, sure. Sometimes, no matter how hard the government tries, you still buy meat that gives you food poisoning, too. Way I hear it, animal rights to the side (of course:) ), hormones added to the meat don't make it bad, and more often than not add significant proteins that your muscles need to grow and be strong.
Which allows the drugging of 1 in 5 children with anti-depressants?
Um, forced is a better word. I wouldn't play devil's advocate on this point even if I could come up with an opposing viewpoint. Except to point out that this policy comes about as a result of people voting directly.
And which funds a backwards educational system designed to produce incredibly dumbed down citizens?
The accusation here is that the educational system is "designed" to produce ignorant fools. Maybe it's just politicians trying to show good test scores to get re-elected? Of course, if parents took a serious interest in this issue, it wouldn't fester like it does, and parents are ultimately responsible for their kids.
And which allows the promulgation of cell phone devices demonstrated to cause thinking disorders?
Heh, maybe people that use cell phones are just stupid?
And which supports massively environmentally destructive industry?
The alternative is.....what?
And which refuses to penalize or regulate multi-billion dollar corporate piracy?
Doesn't refuse, just happens to have certain limitations to work within. There are all kinds of regulation to deal with this ambiguous charge you put forth, you're just going to have to be more specific. The government does support the labor union movement...
And which allowed the automobile/oil industry to buy up and rip out hundreds of public transit systems all across the nation in order to sell more cars?
Weren't the rails privately owned? Was there ever any proof at a time at which the perpetrators could have been charged?
And which allows its secret services to devastate budding democracies in other countries so that they become ravaged drug traffic corridors?
Allows? Try: orders. But not necessarily to make them drug traffic corridors. There's a difference between a cause leading to a direct effect and a cause that merely creates the conditions...
And which spends the bulk of the public's tax dollars to fund an immoral and illegal war I did not agree to while 1 in 4 children in the U.S. doesn't get enough to eat and gets zero public health-care?
You showed the wrong colors, friend. Just because you didn't agree with it made it neither immoral or illegal. Quite the contrary, our president considers it his responsibility to wage this war. His "moral" responsibility. So you're expecting the government to live up to your standards of morality in spite of others'? I also have a hard time believing that 1 in 4 children don't get enough to eat and it's somehow the government's fault. Finally, adults get 0 public health care. Our health care system is privatized. Except for the massive government subsidies that keep the hospitals going that allow you and yours to go to the hospital in emergencies, like if you crash your car o
Are you sure they don't hate us for the 70 years of dominance, oppression, and cold-blooded manipulation we've been engaging in over in the middle east? Come on, dude! George Bush 0wns you. We have raised so much hell over there that it's no wonder anybody over there likes us! Remember the Iran Contra affair? Isn't that where we sold weapons to Iraq to support their war, and then sold the same weapons to Iran? Perhaps you remember hearing about our CIA training Osama Bin Laden so he can continue to be a "revolutionary" over there. How about putting Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq in the first place? What about the 10+ years we had "good" relations in Iraq, and then just sent a bunch of people in and started stomping on them? Not to mention all the support, training, and weapons we've given the Israelis. American bombs, guns, planes, tanks, you name it, are the weapons of choice over there because they're PLENTIFUL and CHEAP. And we sell them to everybody, although only publicly to Israel.
Really, man. Bush dreamed up that line about how they "have attacked Freedom. They have attacked our way of life" because he (or someone in his regime) has a history of swapping horses. They didn't attack freedom, they attacked the evil oppressive technocrats that have been dominating their region. Maybe they just want to be left alone? Maybe they really are fighting for their own freedom?
A Star Wars system would have given us right up until the planes collided to actually shoot them down.
Um, no. All the star wars system was ever supposed to do was burn out the guidance systems, since that's all it could really do. Sure, it could burn holes in the missiles, which is what you'd be trying to do with the planes.
BUT. ANd this is important. There's such a thing as momentum. If you burn up the cockpit on a passenger airliner when it's about to collide into a skyscraper, guess what? You haven't prevented the collision! The plane will still finish on it's course.
You have to burn it up quite a ways before it hits the skyscrape, with enough time for the plane to crash somewhere else, and hope it still doesn't hit somebody. Yeah, I know, "Even if it crashed on a few houses it would still have killed less people than if it hit the trade center!" But how do you know where it would have hit? When you start melting circuits in the cockpit, how do you know it's not going to spin off into the statue of liberty or something else?
SDI wasn't going to shoot missiles out of the sky. It was supposed to be a laser defense system that would burn up the guidance systems and theoretically take out the detonation systems as well, making the ICBM nothing but a big hunk of metal, stuck in orbit. Or maybe it would stay on it's elliptical trajectory and still hit, just that it wouldn't explode. It'd turn a nuclear weapon into a kinetic weapon.:)
Useless against aircraft because of the target area, the amount of time needed to burn up enough of the target area to disable the guidance system (i.e. the pilot, any backups, and the physical control systems). That would require a LOT more power in your laser than heating up the circuit boards in a cruise missile. A lot more.
Mod this shit up! That's the best single use of a gun I've ever heard. Reminds me of that Queensryche song... "Bless me father for I have sinned" *bang* *crash*
State Farm Agent: My name is Cindy, I'll be your agent today. what can I do for you?
Stoner: Um, I need to submit a claim on my renter's insurance, you know. *sniff*
SFA: Ok, what's the disaster?
Stoner: Well, you see, it's like this. My homeboy down in Mexico sent me this package, and everything, and it got here and all you know. *giggle*
SFA: I don't see why that would result in a claim on your renter's insurance.
Stoner: Um, hang on. (sound of paper crackling) *crunch* Um, yeah. Where were we?
SFA: You were about to explain how you received a package in the mail and it resulted in a claim on your renter's insurance.
Stoner: In the mail? I didn't receive a package in the mail? *crunch crunch*
SFA: Sir? You said that one of your friends in Mexico sent you a package in the mail.
Stoner: Friends? Oh! You mean my homeboy Paco. Yeah, he's a cool guy, you know. But he didn't send me a package---*crunch*--ooooooh yeah. Yeah. No, that package didn't come in the mail, you know.
SFA: It didn't?
Stoner: No, Man. See. It's like this, you know. *crunch* *swallow* Um, hang on. (water flowing) Aaaah. *zip* *snap* Ok, where were we?
SFA: I don't know.
Stoner: Oh yeah! I know! See, my buddy Paco said he has this new delivery system, and everything, and he sent me a package with it! It just got here today, you know.
SFA: Riiiiight. And how does that make it a renter's insurance claim? Do you have renter's insurance?
Stoner: Of course! You wouldn't think--*crunch*--you wouldn't think I wouldn't? I mean, I'm calling in a claim and everything, so of course I have renter's insurance, you know.
SFA: Riiiiiight.
Stoner: So, anyway. This new delivery system is like totally guaranteed to not be picked up by the DEA, you know, and everybody. But it blew up my house!
SFA: He sent you a bomb, through the mail?
Stoner: No man! It's not a bomb! He read some website in New Zealand, you know, that told him how to build a cruise missile with like, only $5,000 dollars and everything. I told him, I told him I said "Look man, you're crazy!" But he isn't! He built the fuckin' thing, and everything, you know! And it worked!
SFA: Your friend Paco, in Mexico, put a cruise missile in your house?
Stoner: Yeah man! That's crazy!
SFA: That's not covered by your renter's insurance, you know.
Stoner: It's not?
SFA: No, it's not. You know, if you read your policy, you'll see that your policy doesn't cover acts of war.
Stoner: But it's not an axe of war, you know. It's like, I mean, you know, it's just a cruise missile, and we're not like at war with anybody, I don't think. Are we?
Wouldn't you just wait until this guy was done with his missile, and then just steal it from him? Why bother mucking around with building one yourself, when he can do it for you, and then let you know when it is done.
The problem is, he took their plutonium, and he in turn was working on his shoddy bomb-casing using pinball machine parts!
I thought the point of the last 100 years is that it's now harder to blow up a plane, at least on purpose.
That's funny, I thought the point of the last 100 years was to build a plane big enough that it could carry enough people to make it worth blowing up.
Don't forget, the 100 year anniversary of powered space flight (measured from the flight at Kitty Hawk) is still around the corner, and hasn't happened yet.
Windows 98 was a decent platform for those who didnt want to bother about more advanced topics,
Hmm, how does this compare to Linux, by any chance? I hope you're not one of those people who keeps saying "Linux isn't ready for the desktop because you have to learn about more advanced topics." I find it ironic that the only way Win98 is a decent platform is if you learn about all the internals and tweak it "just so".
And no, I wasn't into computers back then, so I really can't say what kind of shape Linux was in comparatively speaking.:)
I know I've been trolled, but there is something to be said about this:
I'm sure development will be faster and more bug-free once every random asshole like yourself can commit patches with no review.
I challenge anybody--ANYBODY to find one open source project that accepts patches from any random asshole without review. Just one. That's it.
My criticism against XFree86 is based more on what I've read in the press, and it has to do with the fact that they don't quickly review patches, or they don't accept them unless they came from "special friends" or whatever. Their developers are pretty much closed (although they argue to the contrary) to the world and they don't take criticism well, if at all. There's a world of difference between accepting patches from "any random asshole without review" and not accepting patches unless they originate from within the group or someone else in the maintainer's special clique. Somewhere in the middle is the best place to be, and is where open source works the best. At either extremes, well, I'll leave that up to you to determine my opinion there, as well as your own.
That's what's bad about OpenSource. Everyone wants to do the 'kewl' stuff an no one wants to do the grind that many of these projects need. I'm sorry but a hell of a lot of Open Source software just isn't carried out professionally. Yes you can leap in and add all sorts of cool and froody stuff but the boring bits like quality control, documentation etc gets left behind. Where are the code reviews, test suites and the like? It still has the feeling of bedroom hacker development. If I ran my development team like some of these projects are run I would be severely slapped!
I think you should take a look at some of these projects a little more seriously. I'm somewhat involved with the venerable Audacity project, and there isn't any of this "bedroom hacker development" there. Sure, we're all doing it in our free time. But the code does get regular reviews, there is a focus on squashing bugs and making the software more reliable, and each version isn't just a collection of "kewl" features. It's always better software, all the way around. Eric Raymond even cited Audacity as a leader in Open Source UI design.
My experience with audacity is actually representative of my experience with every Free Software project I've gotten involved with. Granted, I've backed out of some for various reasons because it was obvious the projects didn't suit me, but that doesn't mean I haven't seen anything but professionalism. If anything, I've seen more professionalism among Free Software developers than I ever saw in the proprietary software world!
I have a Linux PDA. I'm still using the software it came with despite trying open source alternatives every couple of months or so. Why? Because some functionality is missing because it's not kewl. The documentation is crap. It's as buggy as hell At least with the comercial variant time was taken to clean it up. Yes it may be technologically behind but it's reliable.
Considering how new the PDA market is, and the barrier to entry for developing on PDAs, it's not surprising that PDA software is lagging right now. If you're such a hot programmer, and if you're so interested in making it better, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Get in there and start coding yourself! Or better yet, take the crap documentation and provide some good documentation. Take the lead, if you're so interested in seeing it taken, and implement that "not-kewl functionality". Fix the bugs. Show everyone what you thing should be happening.
I suspect that the journey would be far more informational than the destination.
Of course, they're being critical of XFree86. The mere existence of Xouvert is implicit criticism. Also, who says the XFree86 origranization is "slow, bloated and more or less unable to keep XFree86 in a constant, modern state." What does that even mean?
Yes, their very existence is critical of XFree86, but it's good-natured and intended to ultimately make XFree86 better. It's different, in that fashion, than a simple fork. It's more like egc vs gcc from back in the days.
The XFree86 organization is slow and bloated in the sense that there are a few core maintainers, and in order to get patches submitted you have to go through those core maintainers. Those core maintainers, in turn, take a long time to review and commit patches, and have developed something of a reputation for not taking "external" patches. XFree86 has also become very factionalized, and I can't even begin to grasp all the infighting that goes on over there. As far as XFree86 being in a constant modern state, the simple fact is that XFree86 is out-of-date almost as soon as the new "stable" version comes out. How many years did it take for them to support any sort of hardware 3d acceleration? I realize that graphics cards themselves are so competitive that it's very difficult to keep up with all the new cards sometimes, but look at ALSA. Sound cards are in as much flux and have as much, if not more, variation as video cards. They're just not as visible, no pun intended. But ALSA does a damn fine job keeping up, so much so that you can expect your sound card to be supported within 6-8 months of it's release. Yes, I know there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. ALSA, however, does not suffer from the infighting and factionalism that XFree86 faces.
I'm a user. I just want better software. I don't think I get better software when developers worry more about ideology and personal spite than implementing new ideas with good code.
Indeed, that's what this Xouvert seems to be all about. Cut through the bullshit that plagues XFree86 and just make good software. I wish them the best. Xfree86 is one of the bottlenecks in Free Software innovation, and I'd really like to see it get better. The software itself is great, but when I say I want to see XFree86 "get better", I'm referring to the organization and development process, and all the stupid factions.
Haha! Now I know why javascript is such a bad idea. The only thing I can't figure out, I have my popup blocker in Mozilla disabled, how the hell did they get around it?
I'm afraid that Xouvert shows the worst side of Open Source. And that is that anyone can write OpenSource. Where's all the profiling data showing where XFree86 is slow. Why if you're trying to improve on XFree86 are they using a code fork and not starting from scratch? It seems to me this whole project is based on a gut feeling that removing all that socket code will speed it up rather than doing the proper research.
Another poster already showed you their FAQ where they say they cannot remove network transparency.
I think the Xouvert actually shows one of the best sides of open source. They are being non-critical of the fact that the XFree86 organization is slow, bloated, and more or less unable to keep XFree86 in a constant, modern state. Instead, they are providing a 'branch' of XFree86 that will focus on being bleeding-edge and providing fast turnaround for development and testing, so that they can interface with the slow, bloated XFree86 organization to improve XFree86. I think that says a lot of good things about OpenSource, taking care of our own, getting the job done, etc.
and today... today, moz (and its variants) is a great browser that all the geeks use. those that don't, they're not hard core.
Nononono. The soft core geeks use Mozilla. The hard core geeks use Konqueror, Safari, Epiphany, Galeon, Firebird, blahblahblah. (Yes, I realize 3 of those I listed are moz variants) In fact, I don't even know if a hard core geek uses Firebird, since it's just Mozilla again, but the others require Linux, and Mozilla does *not* require Linux. Since hard core geeks use Linux, they use Linux browsers as well.:)
I can't wait 'till I get a Konqueror with Apple's additions merged in. Konqueror is shaping up to be a fine browser, and I screwed with Safari in a computer store. I think it might just finally become possible for me to discard Mozilla in favor of Konqueror, and that makes me happy.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saddened by the fact that this thing will probably come under some extreme environmental protest simply because it contains the words "nuclear" or "reactor".
Eh? Why? Thanks to our president, nobody knows what "nuclear" is anymore. We all had it straight when Chekov was asking where the "nu-cle-ar wessels" are. Man, I wish Pavel were here to run for President. I'd vote that Russkie into office just because he can both pronounce and teach Americans how to pronounce "nuclear".
Preventing biological contamination of enviroments in which life may have independently originated is of prime importance.
What? Is this some sort of primitive, savage version of the Prime Directive?
Ok, I've just posted 3 times and didn't contribute anything but a sick attempt at humor. I'm going to bed now.
If the craft were to hit the surface of any Europa
At this point, I don't think there'd be any ill effects of dropping nuclear devices...
wait, you didn't...
Hm. You said Europa. My bad. NEver mind.
I cite the machine at the end of total recall for creating an atmosphere.
I can't believe you cited Total Recall as a reliable source of science. I just. Wow. I'm flabbergasted. I had to read your post twice! I just, I, well, I really don't know what to say...
You said:
Saying that the Constitution was silent on the issue of a standing army, as you imply, would be wrong.
He said:
It was argued () that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
Emphasis mine.
Maybe that's because cruise missiles are offensive weapons? They're not karate, dude. Karate is for defense only. Cruise missiles are for offense only.
Cruise Missiles != Karate
I don't know about you, but I really don't care much about someone's "rights" when it comes to weapons that might kill me. I'm in favor of my side keeping all the weapons. I'm am definitely not in favor of allowing someone else the freedom to express whatever rights they imagine they have if that puts me at risk.
Only thing I can say about this is that this was a popular sentiment in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
I'll bite, even though I agree with you in sentiment.
You mean like Fluoride in my drinking water?
The same fluoride that's in your toothpaste.
And a corrupt penal system which has more people incarcerated today than at any time since the dawn of the U.S.?
It's only natural that at a time when there are more people living in the US than at any time since the dawn of the US that the prisons would likewise have more people in them than ever.
And a corrupt FDA which allows GM food, Asparame, hormonally altered milk and meat products, and endless other poisons in the public food supply?
Not sure about asparame, but the other things you cited aren't necessarily poisonous. Sometimes, sure. Sometimes, no matter how hard the government tries, you still buy meat that gives you food poisoning, too. Way I hear it, animal rights to the side (of course :) ), hormones added to the meat don't make it bad, and more often than not add significant proteins that your muscles need to grow and be strong.
Which allows the drugging of 1 in 5 children with anti-depressants?
Um, forced is a better word. I wouldn't play devil's advocate on this point even if I could come up with an opposing viewpoint. Except to point out that this policy comes about as a result of people voting directly.
And which funds a backwards educational system designed to produce incredibly dumbed down citizens?
The accusation here is that the educational system is "designed" to produce ignorant fools. Maybe it's just politicians trying to show good test scores to get re-elected? Of course, if parents took a serious interest in this issue, it wouldn't fester like it does, and parents are ultimately responsible for their kids.
And which allows the promulgation of cell phone devices demonstrated to cause thinking disorders?
Heh, maybe people that use cell phones are just stupid?
And which supports massively environmentally destructive industry?
The alternative is.....what?
And which refuses to penalize or regulate multi-billion dollar corporate piracy?
Doesn't refuse, just happens to have certain limitations to work within. There are all kinds of regulation to deal with this ambiguous charge you put forth, you're just going to have to be more specific. The government does support the labor union movement...
And which allowed the automobile/oil industry to buy up and rip out hundreds of public transit systems all across the nation in order to sell more cars?
Weren't the rails privately owned? Was there ever any proof at a time at which the perpetrators could have been charged?
And which allows its secret services to devastate budding democracies in other countries so that they become ravaged drug traffic corridors?
Allows? Try: orders. But not necessarily to make them drug traffic corridors. There's a difference between a cause leading to a direct effect and a cause that merely creates the conditions...
And which spends the bulk of the public's tax dollars to fund an immoral and illegal war I did not agree to while 1 in 4 children in the U.S. doesn't get enough to eat and gets zero public health-care?
You showed the wrong colors, friend. Just because you didn't agree with it made it neither immoral or illegal. Quite the contrary, our president considers it his responsibility to wage this war. His "moral" responsibility. So you're expecting the government to live up to your standards of morality in spite of others'? I also have a hard time believing that 1 in 4 children don't get enough to eat and it's somehow the government's fault. Finally, adults get 0 public health care. Our health care system is privatized. Except for the massive government subsidies that keep the hospitals going that allow you and yours to go to the hospital in emergencies, like if you crash your car o
The terrorists hate us for being successful.
Are you sure they don't hate us for the 70 years of dominance, oppression, and cold-blooded manipulation we've been engaging in over in the middle east? Come on, dude! George Bush 0wns you. We have raised so much hell over there that it's no wonder anybody over there likes us! Remember the Iran Contra affair? Isn't that where we sold weapons to Iraq to support their war, and then sold the same weapons to Iran? Perhaps you remember hearing about our CIA training Osama Bin Laden so he can continue to be a "revolutionary" over there. How about putting Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq in the first place? What about the 10+ years we had "good" relations in Iraq, and then just sent a bunch of people in and started stomping on them? Not to mention all the support, training, and weapons we've given the Israelis. American bombs, guns, planes, tanks, you name it, are the weapons of choice over there because they're PLENTIFUL and CHEAP. And we sell them to everybody, although only publicly to Israel.
Really, man. Bush dreamed up that line about how they "have attacked Freedom. They have attacked our way of life" because he (or someone in his regime) has a history of swapping horses. They didn't attack freedom, they attacked the evil oppressive technocrats that have been dominating their region. Maybe they just want to be left alone? Maybe they really are fighting for their own freedom?
A Star Wars system would have given us right up until the planes collided to actually shoot them down.
Um, no. All the star wars system was ever supposed to do was burn out the guidance systems, since that's all it could really do. Sure, it could burn holes in the missiles, which is what you'd be trying to do with the planes.
BUT. ANd this is important. There's such a thing as momentum. If you burn up the cockpit on a passenger airliner when it's about to collide into a skyscraper, guess what? You haven't prevented the collision! The plane will still finish on it's course.
You have to burn it up quite a ways before it hits the skyscrape, with enough time for the plane to crash somewhere else, and hope it still doesn't hit somebody. Yeah, I know, "Even if it crashed on a few houses it would still have killed less people than if it hit the trade center!" But how do you know where it would have hit? When you start melting circuits in the cockpit, how do you know it's not going to spin off into the statue of liberty or something else?
SDI wasn't going to shoot missiles out of the sky. It was supposed to be a laser defense system that would burn up the guidance systems and theoretically take out the detonation systems as well, making the ICBM nothing but a big hunk of metal, stuck in orbit. Or maybe it would stay on it's elliptical trajectory and still hit, just that it wouldn't explode. It'd turn a nuclear weapon into a kinetic weapon. :)
Useless against aircraft because of the target area, the amount of time needed to burn up enough of the target area to disable the guidance system (i.e. the pilot, any backups, and the physical control systems). That would require a LOT more power in your laser than heating up the circuit boards in a cruise missile. A lot more.
do you use a gun to change the tv channel?
Mod this shit up! That's the best single use of a gun I've ever heard. Reminds me of that Queensryche song... "Bless me father for I have sinned" *bang* *crash*
Drugs are a great civilian app for cruise missles
Stoner (on the phone): Um, State Farm agent?
State Farm Agent: My name is Cindy, I'll be your agent today. what can I do for you?
Stoner: Um, I need to submit a claim on my renter's insurance, you know. *sniff*
SFA: Ok, what's the disaster?
Stoner: Well, you see, it's like this. My homeboy down in Mexico sent me this package, and everything, and it got here and all you know. *giggle*
SFA: I don't see why that would result in a claim on your renter's insurance.
Stoner: Um, hang on. (sound of paper crackling) *crunch* Um, yeah. Where were we?
SFA: You were about to explain how you received a package in the mail and it resulted in a claim on your renter's insurance.
Stoner: In the mail? I didn't receive a package in the mail? *crunch crunch*
SFA: Sir? You said that one of your friends in Mexico sent you a package in the mail.
Stoner: Friends? Oh! You mean my homeboy Paco. Yeah, he's a cool guy, you know. But he didn't send me a package---*crunch*--ooooooh yeah. Yeah. No, that package didn't come in the mail, you know.
SFA: It didn't?
Stoner: No, Man. See. It's like this, you know. *crunch* *swallow* Um, hang on. (water flowing) Aaaah. *zip* *snap* Ok, where were we?
SFA: I don't know.
Stoner: Oh yeah! I know! See, my buddy Paco said he has this new delivery system, and everything, and he sent me a package with it! It just got here today, you know.
SFA: Riiiiight. And how does that make it a renter's insurance claim? Do you have renter's insurance?
Stoner: Of course! You wouldn't think--*crunch*--you wouldn't think I wouldn't? I mean, I'm calling in a claim and everything, so of course I have renter's insurance, you know.
SFA: Riiiiiight.
Stoner: So, anyway. This new delivery system is like totally guaranteed to not be picked up by the DEA, you know, and everybody. But it blew up my house!
SFA: He sent you a bomb, through the mail?
Stoner: No man! It's not a bomb! He read some website in New Zealand, you know, that told him how to build a cruise missile with like, only $5,000 dollars and everything. I told him, I told him I said "Look man, you're crazy!" But he isn't! He built the fuckin' thing, and everything, you know! And it worked!
SFA: Your friend Paco, in Mexico, put a cruise missile in your house?
Stoner: Yeah man! That's crazy!
SFA: That's not covered by your renter's insurance, you know.
Stoner: It's not?
SFA: No, it's not. You know, if you read your policy, you'll see that your policy doesn't cover acts of war.
Stoner: But it's not an axe of war, you know. It's like, I mean, you know, it's just a cruise missile, and we're not like at war with anybody, I don't think. Are we?
*click*
Wouldn't you just wait until this guy was done with his missile, and then just steal it from him? Why bother mucking around with building one yourself, when he can do it for you, and then let you know when it is done.
The problem is, he took their plutonium, and he in turn was working on his shoddy bomb-casing using pinball machine parts!
how does a UID 7000 post something so retarded?
What, you thought this sudden influx of brain-dead-ass-lick-o-mother-spankers was a new trend?
How about being able to moderate moderations? The fact that this was modded as +1 Insightful should be modded as +1 Funny.
I thought the point of the last 100 years is that it's now harder to blow up a plane, at least on purpose.
That's funny, I thought the point of the last 100 years was to build a plane big enough that it could carry enough people to make it worth blowing up.
Don't forget, the 100 year anniversary of powered space flight (measured from the flight at Kitty Hawk) is still around the corner, and hasn't happened yet.
Windows 98 was a decent platform for those who didnt want to bother about more advanced topics,
Hmm, how does this compare to Linux, by any chance? I hope you're not one of those people who keeps saying "Linux isn't ready for the desktop because you have to learn about more advanced topics." I find it ironic that the only way Win98 is a decent platform is if you learn about all the internals and tweak it "just so".
And no, I wasn't into computers back then, so I really can't say what kind of shape Linux was in comparatively speaking. :)
I know I've been trolled, but there is something to be said about this:
I'm sure development will be faster and more bug-free once every random asshole like yourself can commit patches with no review.
I challenge anybody-- ANYBODY to find one open source project that accepts patches from any random asshole without review. Just one. That's it.
My criticism against XFree86 is based more on what I've read in the press, and it has to do with the fact that they don't quickly review patches, or they don't accept them unless they came from "special friends" or whatever. Their developers are pretty much closed (although they argue to the contrary) to the world and they don't take criticism well, if at all. There's a world of difference between accepting patches from "any random asshole without review" and not accepting patches unless they originate from within the group or someone else in the maintainer's special clique. Somewhere in the middle is the best place to be, and is where open source works the best. At either extremes, well, I'll leave that up to you to determine my opinion there, as well as your own.
That's what's bad about OpenSource. Everyone wants to do the 'kewl' stuff an no one wants to do the grind that many of these projects need. I'm sorry but a hell of a lot of Open Source software just isn't carried out professionally. Yes you can leap in and add all sorts of cool and froody stuff but the boring bits like quality control, documentation etc gets left behind. Where are the code reviews, test suites and the like? It still has the feeling of bedroom hacker development. If I ran my development team like some of these projects are run I would be severely slapped!
I think you should take a look at some of these projects a little more seriously. I'm somewhat involved with the venerable Audacity project, and there isn't any of this "bedroom hacker development" there. Sure, we're all doing it in our free time. But the code does get regular reviews, there is a focus on squashing bugs and making the software more reliable, and each version isn't just a collection of "kewl" features. It's always better software, all the way around. Eric Raymond even cited Audacity as a leader in Open Source UI design.
My experience with audacity is actually representative of my experience with every Free Software project I've gotten involved with. Granted, I've backed out of some for various reasons because it was obvious the projects didn't suit me, but that doesn't mean I haven't seen anything but professionalism. If anything, I've seen more professionalism among Free Software developers than I ever saw in the proprietary software world!
I have a Linux PDA. I'm still using the software it came with despite trying open source alternatives every couple of months or so. Why? Because some functionality is missing because it's not kewl. The documentation is crap. It's as buggy as hell At least with the comercial variant time was taken to clean it up. Yes it may be technologically behind but it's reliable.
Considering how new the PDA market is, and the barrier to entry for developing on PDAs, it's not surprising that PDA software is lagging right now. If you're such a hot programmer, and if you're so interested in making it better, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Get in there and start coding yourself! Or better yet, take the crap documentation and provide some good documentation. Take the lead, if you're so interested in seeing it taken, and implement that "not-kewl functionality". Fix the bugs. Show everyone what you thing should be happening.
I suspect that the journey would be far more informational than the destination.
Of course, they're being critical of XFree86. The mere existence of Xouvert is implicit criticism. Also, who says the XFree86 origranization is "slow, bloated and more or less unable to keep XFree86 in a constant, modern state." What does that even mean?
Yes, their very existence is critical of XFree86, but it's good-natured and intended to ultimately make XFree86 better. It's different, in that fashion, than a simple fork. It's more like egc vs gcc from back in the days.
The XFree86 organization is slow and bloated in the sense that there are a few core maintainers, and in order to get patches submitted you have to go through those core maintainers. Those core maintainers, in turn, take a long time to review and commit patches, and have developed something of a reputation for not taking "external" patches. XFree86 has also become very factionalized, and I can't even begin to grasp all the infighting that goes on over there. As far as XFree86 being in a constant modern state, the simple fact is that XFree86 is out-of-date almost as soon as the new "stable" version comes out. How many years did it take for them to support any sort of hardware 3d acceleration? I realize that graphics cards themselves are so competitive that it's very difficult to keep up with all the new cards sometimes, but look at ALSA. Sound cards are in as much flux and have as much, if not more, variation as video cards. They're just not as visible, no pun intended. But ALSA does a damn fine job keeping up, so much so that you can expect your sound card to be supported within 6-8 months of it's release. Yes, I know there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. ALSA, however, does not suffer from the infighting and factionalism that XFree86 faces.
I'm a user. I just want better software. I don't think I get better software when developers worry more about ideology and personal spite than implementing new ideas with good code.
Indeed, that's what this Xouvert seems to be all about. Cut through the bullshit that plagues XFree86 and just make good software. I wish them the best. Xfree86 is one of the bottlenecks in Free Software innovation, and I'd really like to see it get better. The software itself is great, but when I say I want to see XFree86 "get better", I'm referring to the organization and development process, and all the stupid factions.
Thank you, that was about the funniest thing I've read in awhile. :)
Haha! Now I know why javascript is such a bad idea. The only thing I can't figure out, I have my popup blocker in Mozilla disabled, how the hell did they get around it?
Never trust anyone with a slashdot ID = 150,000
What about slashdot ID == 150,001?
What about slashdot ID == 149,999?
Aaaaaa, fuck slashdot.
(cheesiest post I ever made)
I'm afraid that Xouvert shows the worst side of Open Source. And that is that anyone can write OpenSource. Where's all the profiling data showing where XFree86 is slow. Why if you're trying to improve on XFree86 are they using a code fork and not starting from scratch? It seems to me this whole project is based on a gut feeling that removing all that socket code will speed it up rather than doing the proper research.
Another poster already showed you their FAQ where they say they cannot remove network transparency.
I think the Xouvert actually shows one of the best sides of open source. They are being non-critical of the fact that the XFree86 organization is slow, bloated, and more or less unable to keep XFree86 in a constant, modern state. Instead, they are providing a 'branch' of XFree86 that will focus on being bleeding-edge and providing fast turnaround for development and testing, so that they can interface with the slow, bloated XFree86 organization to improve XFree86. I think that says a lot of good things about OpenSource, taking care of our own, getting the job done, etc.
and today... today, moz (and its variants) is a great browser that all the geeks use. those that don't, they're not hard core.
Nononono. The soft core geeks use Mozilla. The hard core geeks use Konqueror, Safari, Epiphany, Galeon, Firebird, blahblahblah. (Yes, I realize 3 of those I listed are moz variants) In fact, I don't even know if a hard core geek uses Firebird, since it's just Mozilla again, but the others require Linux, and Mozilla does *not* require Linux. Since hard core geeks use Linux, they use Linux browsers as well. :)
I can't wait 'till I get a Konqueror with Apple's additions merged in. Konqueror is shaping up to be a fine browser, and I screwed with Safari in a computer store. I think it might just finally become possible for me to discard Mozilla in favor of Konqueror, and that makes me happy. :)