If you're out in space mining an asteroid, then you're going to be a minor employee of some large corporation. Unless you, yourself, are capable of reaching said asteroid and claiming it.
So don't kid yourself that you'll be living free, or indeed reaping any kind of "bounty" other than the montly paycheck from your employers. Granted, the first few individuals to do this sort of work are likely to get some highly lucrative danger money; but if & when asteroid mining becomes routine, it'll be a pretty unglamorous life.
This tower doesn't heat air; it causes hot air at ground level to rise through the tower, driving turbines inside the tower.
Now, there may be unforeseen climatic consequences of heating the air 1km up (but the energy "stolen" by driving the turbines should result in the air being fairly cool when it exits the tower), but it's not pumping hot air "out into the atmosphere" - where do you think the hot air came from in the first place?
I bought a 120GB hard drive in the US recently - for USD130. The same model cost GBP129.99 here - that's USD232!
I hope it wasn't that recent (either that or it was a pretty special hard drive). 120GB drives can be easily bought for 60 in the UK - I've bought two in the last 3 months.
As far as the "Rip off Britain" topic - yep, this country is a rip-off. But it's really not very hard to shop around for good deals. And Napster: at 1.09 per track, DRM, no AAC, no MP3, no OGG - no thank you.
And some of us actually put our names to our beliefs, coward.
So what's wrong with Fair Trade coffee, then? Isn't that what a free market is all about? Or do you believe in a "free market" only when it applies to US megacorps?
Petreley didn't title it "Review of Gnome 2.6". The individual calling himself "FreeLinux" referred to the opinion piece as a review in his Slashdot article submission.
Yep. But if you're running X from xdm, "DontZap" is probably worth keeping. If nothing else, it's a handy way of ensuring an X server restart in an emergency.
Yep, I can confirm that 1.0-5336 works just fine on FC2 test2. It may be necessary to build a custom kernel, though. A couple of new 2.6.4 (I think.4) parameters cause a lockup with these drivers; you need to ensure that CONFIG_4KSTACKS and CONFIG_REGPARM are not set. This bit me with the 2.6.4-1.300 kernel.
To build a custom kernel on Fedora: install the kernel-sources package, create your.config (you can copy and modify an existing config from/usr/src/linux/configs), and type "make rpm". Let it build, and your custom kernel RPM will turn up in/usr/src/redhat/RPMS. Install that, check your Grub or LILO settings & reboot.
Now waiting for the trolls to come boiling out of their caves, holding this up as a shining example of why Linux will never make it on the desktop. To forestall them: 1) this is a test release, and 2) this is the risk you take with binary drivers. I expect FC2 final will have worked around the problem (and hopefully a newer release from Nvidia will fix it).
Your basic problem is that you somehow believe that these two camps are somehow mutually antagonistic, and effort put into improving the inner workings of the kernel somehow detracts from the "end-user experience". This simply isn't the case.
In general, kernel hackers don't write pretty GUI's or design highly usable interfaces, and HCI experts don't optimise low-level scheduling algorithms. These are orthogonal parts of Linux, and your belief that improving the kernel's low-level efficiency somehow makes the end-user experience worse is frankly ridiculous.
Of course maybe you're just a very good troll and you're successfully wasting mine and others' time:-)
You are a troll. Either that, or just plain ignorant.
"if energy is wasted on projects like this" ? Optimisation of the low-level IO scheduler is most certainly not a waste of energy. As the parent-poster said, users don't need to fiddle with this at all, but power-users and sysadmins can tune it to get the most out of the machines if they so choose. This is much more relevant to the enterprise market than it is to home users with a Walmart PC.
So what if "Joe Public" doesn't want this feature? If there are people who do want it (and this isn't some of kind of eye-candy add-on), then it's damn well worth implementing.
You seem to be under the impression that someone working on projects not important to you is somehow wasting their time. Would you like the smart people who are doing this good work to drop everything they're doing and design pretty user interfaces for Joe Public instead? Maybe you should tell them that directly, although I suspect you'll be told exactly where to go.
Well, people still keep giving these posts a Funny moderation. Mind you, they're probably the same people who still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my disappointment at the biased and factually-inaccurate story by Stephen Evans, who seems mistakenly convinced that he knows better than many network security experts.
Attacks like the Mydoom.B virus are unacceptable, let there be no doubt. As an IT professional, I know how much grief this sort of vandalism causes (I worked several late nights myself helping to clean up the damage it did).
However, Mr. Evans oversteps the bounds of good journalim by stating that there is little doubt that SCO was targetted by Linux zealots, or that this is all due to malice, not money. This is the sort of nonsense I would expect from a tabloid, not the BBC.
In fact, there are numerous possible reasons that this particular virus could have been released. Here are three:
1) Perhaps it was indeed a disgruntled Linux user. If so, it was an individual, and not the Linux or Open Source community, who absolutely do not support such vandalism.
2) Mr. Evans neglects to mention that the virus also opens backdoor ports on infected machines, allowing spam relaying. The possibility exists that Mydoom.B is a spammer tool, and the DDoS against SCO (and Microsoft, a fact Mr. Evans also neglects to mention) is a cover, a decoy - perhaps to fool journalists who really don't know better?
3) The possibility even exists that the virus was released by a SCO or Microsoft sympathiser to make the Linux community look bad, although I'll admit this is straying into the realms of conspiracy theory.
In any case, Mr. Evans is pontificating on a subject he clearly doesn't understand. I would advise him to go and do some real research on the subject before he writes any more articles.
As everyone else has said, you're talking nonsense. I've bought quite a few DVD's from the US (importing to the UK) - you do have to pay import duty, but there's nothing whatsoever stopping you from buying them. Even with import duty, it usually works out slightly cheaper than buying them locally.
That's what free trade is supposed to be about. A bit of healthy competition.
What about power, though? Access points might be common enough, but cafes don't generally make power points available to the general public, and laptops don't really run for more than a few hours...
I suppose a spare battery would help, but even so, I personally don't see the attraction of trying to work in a public space like a cafe. Way too much distraction.
Quantitive leaps like this aren't too significant as regards encryption, and it's certainly nowhere near "infinite processing power".
Assuming this new optical chip is 1000 time faster than existing chips, that would mean I need to add a whole 10 bits to my key to make a brute force attack as hard as it is now. If you make a chip one million times faster, I'll just add another 10 bits.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. "Walkman" was big in the 80's and 90's. iPod has the mindshare now (and I'm admitting this as a Rio Karma owner :-)
Someone else said it, and it's true: this thing doesn't play MP3, so what's the point? It's just a glorified Minidisc player.
If you're out in space mining an asteroid, then you're going to be a minor employee of some large corporation. Unless you, yourself, are capable of reaching said asteroid and claiming it.
So don't kid yourself that you'll be living free, or indeed reaping any kind of "bounty" other than the montly paycheck from your employers. Granted, the first few individuals to do this sort of work are likely to get some highly lucrative danger money; but if & when asteroid mining becomes routine, it'll be a pretty unglamorous life.
Try this.
Google too difficult for you?
How about this ?
This tower doesn't heat air; it causes hot air at ground level to rise through the tower, driving turbines inside the tower.
Now, there may be unforeseen climatic consequences of heating the air 1km up (but the energy "stolen" by driving the turbines should result in the air being fairly cool when it exits the tower), but it's not pumping hot air "out into the atmosphere" - where do you think the hot air came from in the first place?
I bought a 120GB hard drive in the US recently - for USD130. The same model cost GBP129.99 here - that's USD232!
I hope it wasn't that recent (either that or it was a pretty special hard drive). 120GB drives can be easily bought for 60 in the UK - I've bought two in the last 3 months.
As far as the "Rip off Britain" topic - yep, this country is a rip-off. But it's really not very hard to shop around for good deals. And Napster: at 1.09 per track, DRM, no AAC, no MP3, no OGG - no thank you.
And some of us actually put our names to our beliefs, coward.
So what's wrong with Fair Trade coffee, then? Isn't that what a free market is all about? Or do you believe in a "free market" only when it applies to US megacorps?
Then I guess you should go and RTFA.
Petreley didn't title it "Review of Gnome 2.6". The individual calling himself "FreeLinux" referred to the opinion piece as a review in his Slashdot article submission.
Yep. But if you're running X from xdm, "DontZap" is probably worth keeping. If nothing else, it's a handy way of ensuring an X server restart in an emergency.
Hey. That's GNU/.DLL's, if you please.
Damn straight. Kelkoo will never get any business from me (and I do live in the UK) because of this behaviour. I don't care how cheap they are.
Maybe the robots weren't much help, but those Inca orbital platforms made short work of the little German guy and his tanks!
(outlandish... but who knows would have happened if Europe had never colonised the Americas?)
Yep, I can confirm that 1.0-5336 works just fine on FC2 test2. It may be necessary to build a custom kernel, though. A couple of new 2.6.4 (I think .4) parameters cause a lockup with these drivers; you need to ensure that CONFIG_4KSTACKS and CONFIG_REGPARM are not set. This bit me with the 2.6.4-1.300 kernel.
.config (you can copy and modify an existing config from /usr/src/linux/configs), and type "make rpm". Let it build, and your custom kernel RPM will turn up in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS. Install that, check your Grub or LILO settings & reboot.
To build a custom kernel on Fedora: install the kernel-sources package, create your
Now waiting for the trolls to come boiling out of their caves, holding this up as a shining example of why Linux will never make it on the desktop. To forestall them: 1) this is a test release, and 2) this is the risk you take with binary drivers. I expect FC2 final will have worked around the problem (and hopefully a newer release from Nvidia will fix it).
Your basic problem is that you somehow believe that these two camps are somehow mutually antagonistic, and effort put into improving the inner workings of the kernel somehow detracts from the "end-user experience". This simply isn't the case.
:-)
In general, kernel hackers don't write pretty GUI's or design highly usable interfaces, and HCI experts don't optimise low-level scheduling algorithms. These are orthogonal parts of Linux, and your belief that improving the kernel's low-level efficiency somehow makes the end-user experience worse is frankly ridiculous.
Of course maybe you're just a very good troll and you're successfully wasting mine and others' time
You are a troll. Either that, or just plain ignorant.
"if energy is wasted on projects like this" ? Optimisation of the low-level IO scheduler is most certainly not a waste of energy. As the parent-poster said, users don't need to fiddle with this at all, but power-users and sysadmins can tune it to get the most out of the machines if they so choose. This is much more relevant to the enterprise market than it is to home users with a Walmart PC.
So what if "Joe Public" doesn't want this feature? If there are people who do want it (and this isn't some of kind of eye-candy add-on), then it's damn well worth implementing.
You seem to be under the impression that someone working on projects not important to you is somehow wasting their time. Would you like the smart people who are doing this good work to drop everything they're doing and design pretty user interfaces for Joe Public instead? Maybe you should tell them that directly, although I suspect you'll be told exactly where to go.
Yup. US or Canada were my options for next year's skiing holiday (North American ski slopes are so much more civilised than European ones :-)
Now it's just a choice of which Canadian resort...
Well, people still keep giving these posts a Funny moderation. Mind you, they're probably the same people who still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
(with apologies to Douglas Adams)
Because the only phrase that should follow "Best viewed with " is "any browser".
Who's this "we" you refer to? Are you one of the JuK developers, or just some bystander who likes to whine at people who develop this stuff for free?
Here's mine...
----------------
I would like to take this opportunity to express my disappointment at the biased and factually-inaccurate story by Stephen Evans, who seems mistakenly convinced that he knows better than many network security experts.
Attacks like the Mydoom.B virus are unacceptable, let there be no doubt. As an IT professional, I know how much grief this sort of vandalism causes (I worked several late nights myself helping to clean up the damage it did).
However, Mr. Evans oversteps the bounds of good journalim by stating that there is little doubt that SCO was targetted by Linux zealots, or that this is all due to malice, not money. This is the sort of nonsense I would expect from a tabloid, not the BBC.
In fact, there are numerous possible reasons that this particular virus could have been released. Here are three:
1) Perhaps it was indeed a disgruntled Linux user. If so, it was an individual, and not the Linux or Open Source community, who absolutely do not support such vandalism.
2) Mr. Evans neglects to mention that the virus also opens backdoor ports on infected machines, allowing spam relaying. The possibility exists that Mydoom.B is a spammer tool, and the DDoS against SCO (and Microsoft, a fact Mr. Evans also neglects to mention) is a cover, a decoy - perhaps to fool journalists who really don't know better?
3) The possibility even exists that the virus was released by a SCO or Microsoft sympathiser to make the Linux community look bad, although I'll admit this is straying into the realms of conspiracy theory.
In any case, Mr. Evans is pontificating on a subject he clearly doesn't understand. I would advise him to go and do some real research on the subject before he writes any more articles.
1's are a lot heavier than 0's
Huh? Everyone knows that 1's are only a bit heavier than 0's!
As everyone else has said, you're talking nonsense. I've bought quite a few DVD's from the US (importing to the UK) - you do have to pay import duty, but there's nothing whatsoever stopping you from buying them. Even with import duty, it usually works out slightly cheaper than buying them locally.
That's what free trade is supposed to be about. A bit of healthy competition.
What about power, though? Access points might be common enough, but cafes don't generally make power points available to the general public, and laptops don't really run for more than a few hours...
I suppose a spare battery would help, but even so, I personally don't see the attraction of trying to work in a public space like a cafe. Way too much distraction.
Speaking as a Brit, this isn't flamebait, it's funny!
Quantitive leaps like this aren't too significant as regards encryption, and it's certainly nowhere near "infinite processing power".
Assuming this new optical chip is 1000 time faster than existing chips, that would mean I need to add a whole 10 bits to my key to make a brute force attack as hard as it is now. If you make a chip one million times faster, I'll just add another 10 bits.