So why the extreme reaction to a very innocuous factual answer that you know from your own experience is correct? It was a simple question about doing things on the command line and I gave a real and practical answer of batch image processing. If you don't hate the platform why the irrational reaction?
Not only from there but from Microsoft's inaction. I used Xenix in 1988 and it was as awesome as linux was in 1994. If it wasn't for infighting and "not invented here" at Redmond we could have had a wave of cheap *nix workstations on PC hardware that could give Win98 a run for it's money, but in 1990!
Second, GPL does not prevent you from forking, provided the changes made to the fork are made available to people who receive your software.
A lot of nasty stuff gets said about RMS (sometimes by me) but he has stuck to the GPL and not killed off the other version of Emacs despite how much it annoyed him that he had lost control of it.
It sort of was theoretical until Darl McBride and his lawyer brother decided to use that premise to funnel as much money out of SCO as they could by pretending that code from linux was stolen from SCO and that IBM was financially responsible. Of course they lost, destroying SCO completely, but the legal fees were spectacular leaving them very wealthy perpetrators of a two man scam.
He is talking about code connected with his project. As far as yours goes all he is saying is "it worked for me" - he's not telling you to do anything one way or another.
Active Directory is just a subset of LDAP and there are plenty of other implementations, including the samba one that is very similar.
Client Access Licenses are the money makers
They almost fit the category of hidden costs and it's almost as if they were designed to cause cost overruns in projects. Since the stuff I support was never ported to MS windows it's been like watching a train wreck happen to others. At least with shitloads per seat product licensing you know exactly how much a project is going to cost instead of having extras come in from nowhere just because someone wants MS remote desktop instead of one of the many alternatives.
When ReactOS performs in the server space
Maybe it already does for the MS platform server software you want to run. Some of it isn't all the complicated.
I dispute that very strongly especially since the example I gave edits images whether you like it or not. Your very strong reaction was very odd - why do that?
Also it's going to be the profile exposed to wind and not volume that would matter and while that would be larger it's going to be closer to two times than five times - similar to cross sectional area from the direction of wind instead of volume. If the thing is going forward it could be much less since than the current blimp since the Akron etc were much more streamlined and is around the same maximum diameter. Almost pencil versus grid-iron football profile, just a really big pencil as thick as a football. On a still day moving down slowly it's not going to be much so is ignorable when there is a very large difference in thrust.
Did you notice it had a very different cross section and was much stiffer so would be loaded differently by wind and movement in general? It's a bit hard to do a comparison on anything other than raw thrust especially since the weight is going to be around the same once the things are full of gas. On a still day the Akron or any of the others would have far "more ability to anchor itself down with its fans" than the Airlander even if they would perform differently in other ways.
Did you also perhaps notice that Akron had 5 times the enclosed volume of the Airlander
That's kind of one of my points about the hype. Good on them for doing this but all the hype about it being an amazing new thing that Grandad would goggle at is a bit much. I'll add that calling this a "crash", like the journalists have been, is a bit like calling a ship that hits a dock hard and does some damage a "sinking".
Christ you've written a LOT of shit and now you have managed to trick me into wading through it despite both of us knowing what you are up to. Since I'm going backwards - first the bit AFTER it was pointed out to you how ridiculous your bit about it liquids cars being a massive problem:
I stand by my overall point, the pros of flow batteries are not sufficient to outweigh the cons wrt powering cars, and there is lttle reason to think that will change.
So you stand by your attack despite having no evidence - attacking just for the sake of it because you don't like "green" stuff as if machines are people with politics. Blind luddite politics trumping reason.
So here are your quotes: https://slashdot.org/users2.pl... https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=3&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22 https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=2&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22 https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=1&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22 Fuck you post a LOT of shit and just keep on attacking over and over and over almost as if you were paid for it - which makes people like me who do live off coal money look really bad when we get compared to utter pricks like you.
WTF is your problem? You've won your stupid fucking game of making me jump to "prove" what you already know so fuck off and don't bother me again until you are prepared to act your age instead of like a stupid kid.
A quick wikipedia search show that the USS Akron had eight Maybach VL-II 560 hp (420 kW) engines while the Airlander 10 has four x 350 hp engines. It's a step in front of some other current small blimps but has less ability to thrust itself down than airships of the past.
Yes but still a step below the semi-rigid airships like the Italians had in the 1920s (Norge, Italia) or the rigid airships, both of which have smaller relative cross section again. The bit about fans doesn't sound like anything new to be honest the engines are less powerful there are less of them so don't add up to the same thrust as was seen in airships which had engines that could pivot in a similar way to this. One airship of the 1920s had five engines - each 410 kW (550 hp). Airlander 10 apparently has four x 350 hp.
Yes but in a lot of ways this is technologically inferior to what the Italians had in 1926. It's more of a blimp than the Norge or Italia. The "hybrid" bit is hype because tiltable engines have been a feature of blimps and airships all along. Shiny new materials and a different lifting gas but it's still an awkwardly shaped balloon with engines attached.
Image editing is image editing even if it's a mass crop or resolution change done on a batch from the command line or a GUI application that can do batch processing. So you've got a cute little personal definition - fine - but you don't get to call others morons just because they don't know your cute personal "that's not a knife, THIS is a knife" definition.
Your post attacking flow batteries obviously. I'm starting to think that you are not just pretending to be stupid for effect (I really hate that shit) and I'm trying very hard not to look down on you as if you are an imbecile.
Read it again, turn off the emotional baggage and try to understand so that you can get your rants above a grade school standard on this issue. They are just machines doing the same task in different ways - get that into your head if you can apply reason and not emotion.
Slashdot Mirror
A Gladius from that era is no joke.
So why the extreme reaction to a very innocuous factual answer that you know from your own experience is correct?
It was a simple question about doing things on the command line and I gave a real and practical answer of batch image processing.
If you don't hate the platform why the irrational reaction?
Why is it a whoosh? Hot and humid weather is Japan may sound pretty nice to someone shivering in Melbourne right now.
Not something Melbourne is know for.
There are penguins within walking distance of the middle of the city FFS!
http://stkildapenguins.com.au/skp/
Ah - that's your problem - blind platform hate.
Surely you can find something more interesting to do?
Not only from there but from Microsoft's inaction.
I used Xenix in 1988 and it was as awesome as linux was in 1994. If it wasn't for infighting and "not invented here" at Redmond we could have had a wave of cheap *nix workstations on PC hardware that could give Win98 a run for it's money, but in 1990!
A lot of nasty stuff gets said about RMS (sometimes by me) but he has stuck to the GPL and not killed off the other version of Emacs despite how much it annoyed him that he had lost control of it.
It sort of was theoretical until Darl McBride and his lawyer brother decided to use that premise to funnel as much money out of SCO as they could by pretending that code from linux was stolen from SCO and that IBM was financially responsible. Of course they lost, destroying SCO completely, but the legal fees were spectacular leaving them very wealthy perpetrators of a two man scam.
He is talking about code connected with his project. As far as yours goes all he is saying is "it worked for me" - he's not telling you to do anything one way or another.
They almost fit the category of hidden costs and it's almost as if they were designed to cause cost overruns in projects. Since the stuff I support was never ported to MS windows it's been like watching a train wreck happen to others. At least with shitloads per seat product licensing you know exactly how much a project is going to cost instead of having extras come in from nowhere just because someone wants MS remote desktop instead of one of the many alternatives.
Maybe it already does for the MS platform server software you want to run. Some of it isn't all the complicated.
Yes but not 200% or more better :)
Wind loading and wind resistance relate to that.
I dispute that very strongly especially since the example I gave edits images whether you like it or not. Your very strong reaction was very odd - why do that?
Also it's going to be the profile exposed to wind and not volume that would matter and while that would be larger it's going to be closer to two times than five times - similar to cross sectional area from the direction of wind instead of volume. If the thing is going forward it could be much less since than the current blimp since the Akron etc were much more streamlined and is around the same maximum diameter. Almost pencil versus grid-iron football profile, just a really big pencil as thick as a football.
On a still day moving down slowly it's not going to be much so is ignorable when there is a very large difference in thrust.
It's a bit hard to do a comparison on anything other than raw thrust especially since the weight is going to be around the same once the things are full of gas.
On a still day the Akron or any of the others would have far "more ability to anchor itself down with its fans" than the Airlander even if they would perform differently in other ways.
That's kind of one of my points about the hype. Good on them for doing this but all the hype about it being an amazing new thing that Grandad would goggle at is a bit much.
I'll add that calling this a "crash", like the journalists have been, is a bit like calling a ship that hits a dock hard and does some damage a "sinking".
Since I'm going backwards - first the bit AFTER it was pointed out to you how ridiculous your bit about it liquids cars being a massive problem:
So you stand by your attack despite having no evidence - attacking just for the sake of it because you don't like "green" stuff as if machines are people with politics. Blind luddite politics trumping reason.
So here are your quotes: https://slashdot.org/users2.pl...
https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=3&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22
https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=2&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22
https://slashdot.org/users2.pl?page=1&uid=3395377&view=userhomepage&fhfilter=%22home%3AMr+D+from+63%22
Fuck you post a LOT of shit and just keep on attacking over and over and over almost as if you were paid for it - which makes people like me who do live off coal money look really bad when we get compared to utter pricks like you.
WTF is your problem?
You've won your stupid fucking game of making me jump to "prove" what you already know so fuck off and don't bother me again until you are prepared to act your age instead of like a stupid kid.
A quick wikipedia search show that the USS Akron had eight Maybach VL-II 560 hp (420 kW) engines while the Airlander 10 has four x 350 hp engines.
It's a step in front of some other current small blimps but has less ability to thrust itself down than airships of the past.
Yes but still a step below the semi-rigid airships like the Italians had in the 1920s (Norge, Italia) or the rigid airships, both of which have smaller relative cross section again.
The bit about fans doesn't sound like anything new to be honest the engines are less powerful there are less of them so don't add up to the same thrust as was seen in airships which had engines that could pivot in a similar way to this. One airship of the 1920s had five engines - each 410 kW (550 hp). Airlander 10 apparently has four x 350 hp.
Yes but in a lot of ways this is technologically inferior to what the Italians had in 1926.
It's more of a blimp than the Norge or Italia. The "hybrid" bit is hype because tiltable engines have been a feature of blimps and airships all along.
Shiny new materials and a different lifting gas but it's still an awkwardly shaped balloon with engines attached.
I call bullshit and point you at CSV if they are going to use MS Excel.
Image editing is image editing even if it's a mass crop or resolution change done on a batch from the command line or a GUI application that can do batch processing.
So you've got a cute little personal definition - fine - but you don't get to call others morons just because they don't know your cute personal "that's not a knife, THIS is a knife" definition.
Your post attacking flow batteries obviously. I'm starting to think that you are not just pretending to be stupid for effect (I really hate that shit) and I'm trying very hard not to look down on you as if you are an imbecile.
WTF?
Are you just here to play some silly little mass debate game where all the matters is the current post even when evidence is in the same thread?
Read it again, turn off the emotional baggage and try to understand so that you can get your rants above a grade school standard on this issue. They are just machines doing the same task in different ways - get that into your head if you can apply reason and not emotion.
Did they do that? Obviously you do not know and are making things up. Why bother to lie over something so trivial?