The linux kernel console; a lightweight, lightning-fast TEXT console not depending on X or anything else. Who needs it, eh? Are you kidding me? This is an imbecilic idea. If you must have pointless cruft like this, add it IN ADDITION to what has ALWAYS worked perfectly, is super reliable, and super simple. Hopefully set it up so that any mature user can leave this garbage out of his system.
This is just a continuation of the systemd, Gnome 3 type of insanity.
The way things are going, BSD, here I come. An OS by adults, for adults, not a would-be Windows me-too with stupid people gradually one-by-one breaking everything that has made linux great - up until now.
You know it. They are not that tough. It's utter horse shit. No optical media can stand up to knives, except plastic picnic knives. The idea is ludicrous.
And that, people, is why operating systems have become so grotesquely bloated and gigantic. An endless accumulation of "oh it's only a few more bytes".
A Katyusha type rocket is about as cheap a rocket powered "ballistic missile" as it gets. These are the type of which Hezbollah forces fired 3970-4228 in the 2006 Lebanon War. They are reported to cost $3-5000 each to produce. As the parent to your post alludes, you can buy a GPS, an ARM board, and some batteries and servos off the shelf for no more than $300. Use your own imagination how much it would cost an RC modeler to modify the fins to steer. Burn up a few Katyushas and some volunteer hours in the development effort and you've got a cheap guided weapon.
You want something a lot cheaper still? Buy or build thousands of RC model airplanes and put a grenade on each one.
Asymmetrical warfare.
I do not believe the rest of us are quite as clueless as you arrogantly suppose.
Depends on your definitions, but a ballistic missile can be cheap. Actually, a 5.56x45 round for an M-16 or a 7.62x39 round for an AK-47 is a "ballistic missile". ballistic: relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving without guidance or control only under their own momentum and the force of gravity missile: an object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile
A Katyusha type rocket propelled projectile is a ballistic missile. The term is used popularly to describe just about any smallish unguided, ground rocket propelled projectile with an arcing flight path (non point-blank), and a warhead under 30 kg or so. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah forces fired between 3970 and 4228 of them. They have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan by irregular forces, and by both sides in the recent Libyan civil war.
And I think most would agree they are cheap. They are reported to cost $3-5000 each,
So yeah, I think events of the last decade in the middle east have amply demonstrated that forces on the unsophisticated end of asymmetrical warfare can "barrage you with cheap munitions".
Oh, you were thinking of something like ICBMs or IRBMs? I don't believe that is what your parent was talking about.
Actually, just about all ICBMs of major powers that are of less than ancient vintage are not fully ballistic even after the main boost burns out, for what it's worth. They employ guidance and bursts of maneuvering rocket power to launch their warhead(s) (MIRV = multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles).
Actually capitalism is letting the market compete, this is using regulation to prevent competition.
Capitalism is not the same as free market. In fact, capitalism is about two classes of people: dominant owners of capital, and disadvantaged workers. Capitalism is about more and more power and capital concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It naturally migrates toward a less free market, unless effectively regulated and mitigated.
You are entirely correct that patents and distorted forms of trademarks such as discussed here have the effect of favoring the established capitalists at the expense of those attempting to enter the free market successfully. It is really a collusion between government and megacorporate powers.
A free market does not have to follow the capitalist model. It, and humanity, is better served by the distributist model. IMHO, distributism as an economic model is hindered by its association with religious theory. The latter has no real bearing on the former. You can synthesize a philosophy from the combination, but it's not necessary to do so.
I'll give you points for civility if you give me points for being right. I told you how they already had protection against the fraud of somebody pretending to be an Apple store, without the silly trademark on the store design and layout.
In the US, patents and copyrights are clearly enabled constitutionally by the "copyright clause" - article 1, section 8, clause 8, which in its entirety states:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Trademarks are not so enabled per se. Lawmakers saw an open door in the "commerce clause" - article 1, section 8, clause 3, which in its entirety states:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
It's pretty intellectually clear to many of us that the clause was not intended as an excuse for the staggering load of crap hustled into federal law under its supposed umbrella. There is absolutely nothing there which suggests that trademarks are the valid concern of the federal government, in the same way that clause 8 clearly supports patents and copyrights.
But time marches on. An argument can be made that 50 separate states with a forest of 50 different policies on trademarks (and the other stuff questionably justified under the commerce clause) would not be a good thing. I don't make that argument, but I recognize that it has merit.
Be that as it may, the trademark system is subject to legislative tuning in the same way as the patent system and the copyright system. Even if one accepts that trade names and product names should be subject to trademark protection, there is no reason to fall into the absurd black hole of allowing STORE DESIGN AND LAYOUT, and god knows what else, to be subject to trademark. This should be reformed legislatively, the same way the choking absurdity of software patents and ornamental design patents (not technical design patents), and today's almost eternal duration of copyrights, should be reformed legislatively.
Obviously, letting some Authority or Bureau or Commission, answerable to no one, and in the thrall of special interests, weave a repressive forest of regulation does not cut it.
I guess we don't just all passively accept it being rammed down our throats, as the tone of your post suggests we should. You're either part of the resistance or part of the problem.
So somebody should be able to set up an exact replica of an Apple store?
In terms of store layout and design, of course. Naturally. Any other questions?
slapping Apple logos all over the place
Are you daft? That would be outright fraud on the face of it. Even making the sign on the front of the store say "Apple" would be obvious fraud. You don't need trademarks on the GODDAM LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF A STORE to protect against that kind of thing.
The bowing to the excesses and insanity of capitalism has reached bizarre extremes. This is how little kids act. "Mommy! Jimmy is COPYING me! Make him stop!"
MBAs are like politicians. When they need to be bitch slapped and put away, they end up untouchable. But you can't effectively run a country like that, and you certainly can't run an aircraft building company like that - except run it INTO THE GROUND in both cases.
No, giant cells are NOT "better" in respect to what matters most. Safety concerns are paramount in a passenger vehicle. Especially not when packed too closely and without adequate provisions for cooling.
Specifically, Musk criticized the use of large-format lithium-ion cells "without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect." He also noted that when thermal runaway occurs in the larger cells, more energy is released by the single cell than comes from a small-format "commodity" cell, of the type used by the thousands in Tesla battery packs. And he went on to highlight what he viewed as the dangers of batteries using those large-format cells, saying they have a "fundamental safety issue" because it's harder to keep the internal temperature of a large-format cell consistent from the center to the edges.
Well, actually you CAN incorporate "protection circuits into the lithium cells themselves". 18650 cells very typically have such self-resetting protection circuits inside of them to prevent Bad Things Happening as a result of a short circuit applied to the cell. Not all of them have this, but plenty of them do. These are known as "protected" cells.
Not sure if it would be practical to have such circuits inside those gigantic 75 Ah prismatics. Those big ass interconnect bus bars you see in there indicate they are pulling really heavy amps out.
Can anyone confirm the actually battery chemistry?
It's lithium cobalt oxide, absolutely the most inherently dangerous there is. Not lithium manganese oxide, or LiFePO4, which would make FAR more sense. And the individual cells are not 18650s or 26650s. They are GIGANTIC 6 pound prismatics of 75 Ah each!
I'm not excusing the ridiculous pricing, and I don't know this for a fact, but presumably the built in flash is vastly faster than SD flash. It would take you pretty much forever to fill up most 64 GB SDHC cards. Speed isn't everything, but it can be important.
SD, even SDHC, is pretty much slow as molasses. SDXC looks like it will FINALLY have reasonable speed.
Completely agree that Apple not including a MicroSD slot is lame beyond belief.
Slashdot Mirror
The linux kernel console; a lightweight, lightning-fast TEXT console not depending on X or anything else. Who needs it, eh? Are you kidding me? This is an imbecilic idea. If you must have pointless cruft like this, add it IN ADDITION to what has ALWAYS worked perfectly, is super reliable, and super simple. Hopefully set it up so that any mature user can leave this garbage out of his system.
This is just a continuation of the systemd, Gnome 3 type of insanity.
The way things are going, BSD, here I come. An OS by adults, for adults, not a would-be Windows me-too with stupid people gradually one-by-one breaking everything that has made linux great - up until now.
As a citizen of a corrupt coporatocracy, hats off to Australia.
Thank you EU for a beacon of light in this matter.
You know it. They are not that tough. It's utter horse shit. No optical media can stand up to knives, except plastic picnic knives. The idea is ludicrous.
And that, people, is why operating systems have become so grotesquely bloated and gigantic. An endless accumulation of "oh it's only a few more bytes".
Funnier than hell. In fact it's positively precious. I wonder where that shared library is actually trying to branch to when it happens.
A Katyusha type rocket is about as cheap a rocket powered "ballistic missile" as it gets. These are the type of which Hezbollah forces fired 3970-4228 in the 2006 Lebanon War. They are reported to cost $3-5000 each to produce. As the parent to your post alludes, you can buy a GPS, an ARM board, and some batteries and servos off the shelf for no more than $300. Use your own imagination how much it would cost an RC modeler to modify the fins to steer. Burn up a few Katyushas and some volunteer hours in the development effort and you've got a cheap guided weapon.
You want something a lot cheaper still? Buy or build thousands of RC model airplanes and put a grenade on each one.
Asymmetrical warfare.
I do not believe the rest of us are quite as clueless as you arrogantly suppose.
Depends on your definitions, but a ballistic missile can be cheap. Actually, a 5.56x45 round for an M-16 or a 7.62x39 round for an AK-47 is a "ballistic missile".
ballistic: relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving without guidance or control only under their own momentum and the force of gravity
missile: an object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile
A Katyusha type rocket propelled projectile is a ballistic missile. The term is used popularly to describe just about any smallish unguided, ground rocket propelled projectile with an arcing flight path (non point-blank), and a warhead under 30 kg or so. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah forces fired between 3970 and 4228 of them. They have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan by irregular forces, and by both sides in the recent Libyan civil war.
And I think most would agree they are cheap. They are reported to cost $3-5000 each,
So yeah, I think events of the last decade in the middle east have amply demonstrated that forces on the unsophisticated end of asymmetrical warfare can "barrage you with cheap munitions".
Oh, you were thinking of something like ICBMs or IRBMs? I don't believe that is what your parent was talking about.
Actually, just about all ICBMs of major powers that are of less than ancient vintage are not fully ballistic even after the main boost burns out, for what it's worth. They employ guidance and bursts of maneuvering rocket power to launch their warhead(s) (MIRV = multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles).
I don't know much about them, but do they say "Apple" on the storefront? Do they carry apple products inside? Are they deceiving anyone?
Capitalism is not the same as free market. In fact, capitalism is about two classes of people: dominant owners of capital, and disadvantaged workers. Capitalism is about more and more power and capital concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It naturally migrates toward a less free market, unless effectively regulated and mitigated.
You are entirely correct that patents and distorted forms of trademarks such as discussed here have the effect of favoring the established capitalists at the expense of those attempting to enter the free market successfully. It is really a collusion between government and megacorporate powers.
A free market does not have to follow the capitalist model. It, and humanity, is better served by the distributist model. IMHO, distributism as an economic model is hindered by its association with religious theory. The latter has no real bearing on the former. You can synthesize a philosophy from the combination, but it's not necessary to do so.
I'll give you points for civility if you give me points for being right. I told you how they already had protection against the fraud of somebody pretending to be an Apple store, without the silly trademark on the store design and layout.
In the US, patents and copyrights are clearly enabled constitutionally by the "copyright clause" - article 1, section 8, clause 8, which in its entirety states:
Trademarks are not so enabled per se. Lawmakers saw an open door in the "commerce clause" - article 1, section 8, clause 3, which in its entirety states:
It's pretty intellectually clear to many of us that the clause was not intended as an excuse for the staggering load of crap hustled into federal law under its supposed umbrella. There is absolutely nothing there which suggests that trademarks are the valid concern of the federal government, in the same way that clause 8 clearly supports patents and copyrights.
But time marches on. An argument can be made that 50 separate states with a forest of 50 different policies on trademarks (and the other stuff questionably justified under the commerce clause) would not be a good thing. I don't make that argument, but I recognize that it has merit.
Be that as it may, the trademark system is subject to legislative tuning in the same way as the patent system and the copyright system. Even if one accepts that trade names and product names should be subject to trademark protection, there is no reason to fall into the absurd black hole of allowing STORE DESIGN AND LAYOUT, and god knows what else, to be subject to trademark. This should be reformed legislatively, the same way the choking absurdity of software patents and ornamental design patents (not technical design patents), and today's almost eternal duration of copyrights, should be reformed legislatively.
Obviously, letting some Authority or Bureau or Commission, answerable to no one, and in the thrall of special interests, weave a repressive forest of regulation does not cut it.
I guess we don't just all passively accept it being rammed down our throats, as the tone of your post suggests we should. You're either part of the resistance or part of the problem.
In terms of store layout and design, of course. Naturally. Any other questions?
Are you daft? That would be outright fraud on the face of it. Even making the sign on the front of the store say "Apple" would be obvious fraud. You don't need trademarks on the GODDAM LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF A STORE to protect against that kind of thing.
The bowing to the excesses and insanity of capitalism has reached bizarre extremes. This is how little kids act. "Mommy! Jimmy is COPYING me! Make him stop!"
MBAs are like politicians. When they need to be bitch slapped and put away, they end up untouchable. But you can't effectively run a country like that, and you certainly can't run an aircraft building company like that - except run it INTO THE GROUND in both cases.
No, giant cells are NOT "better" in respect to what matters most. Safety concerns are paramount in a passenger vehicle. Especially not when packed too closely and without adequate provisions for cooling.
Specifically, Musk criticized the use of large-format lithium-ion cells "without enough space between them to isolate against the cell-to-cell thermal domino effect." He also noted that when thermal runaway occurs in the larger cells, more energy is released by the single cell than comes from a small-format "commodity" cell, of the type used by the thousands in Tesla battery packs. And he went on to highlight what he viewed as the dangers of batteries using those large-format cells, saying they have a "fundamental safety issue" because it's harder to keep the internal temperature of a large-format cell consistent from the center to the edges.
LiFePO4 can do high current no problem. I have a 4200 mAh pack that can supply 30C (126 A) continuous and 60C (252 A) burst.
There are two.
Not lithium ion, that's for damn sure.
+1; a thousand times +1. Your post is worth about 70 of the 78 comments currently showing on this topic.
Well, actually you CAN incorporate "protection circuits into the lithium cells themselves". 18650 cells very typically have such self-resetting protection circuits inside of them to prevent Bad Things Happening as a result of a short circuit applied to the cell. Not all of them have this, but plenty of them do. These are known as "protected" cells.
Not sure if it would be practical to have such circuits inside those gigantic 75 Ah prismatics. Those big ass interconnect bus bars you see in there indicate they are pulling really heavy amps out.
Pretty much agree with everything, but, um, half TON??? The 787 battery weighs 63 pounds.
Look at the size of those bus bars interconnecting the gigantic prismatic 75 Ah cells, though. It sure seems they are pulling BIG amps out of it.
It's lithium cobalt oxide, absolutely the most inherently dangerous there is. Not lithium manganese oxide, or LiFePO4, which would make FAR more sense. And the individual cells are not 18650s or 26650s. They are GIGANTIC 6 pound prismatics of 75 Ah each!
I'm not excusing the ridiculous pricing, and I don't know this for a fact, but presumably the built in flash is vastly faster than SD flash. It would take you pretty much forever to fill up most 64 GB SDHC cards. Speed isn't everything, but it can be important.
SD, even SDHC, is pretty much slow as molasses. SDXC looks like it will FINALLY have reasonable speed.
Completely agree that Apple not including a MicroSD slot is lame beyond belief.