I always assumed (based on the original 3 movies...in MY world, those are the Star Wars universe:) that the light saber was just a different take on the common blaster. like a swordsman looks down on a gun (no skill needed, just point, runs out of ammo, mechanically wears out, etc.), The Jedis look down on blasters. Anyone with that level of skill wants a weapon that extends and compliments that skill instead of a machine that does your work for you. . I didn't need the saber to be a special unknown technology to be unique. The comment in the 3rd movie about his skills being complete worried me some, but I figure that just shows you've been motivated enough to figure out how to make a weapon that fits your skills, and since only Jedi's get irritated at blasters for being crude and limited, all the sabers are hand-made on a one by one basis. Technology was always background in the first 3 movies, it was assumed everyone COULD build those things, but only some people were interested in actually getting into the details of 'em (i.e. grunt work).
The light saber wasn't special by itself until the later 3 movies, which by then Lucas was so in love with his genius of scifi, no one could tell him to leave it be. His ideas of what the story SHOULD have been was always naive in my opinion....been done before and done better.
I fail in reading comprehension....wasn't until I had clicked "Submit' that the control-Z part sunk in...
good trick to keep in the back of my mind:) I would have assumed that suspending X itself would have caused all the apps in the session to freak, if I'd thought about it. Now I know better;)
So, is it just Slack that still keeps VT 6 open even when using *DM or do they all still do that? Unless I'm spoiled by my slack, you can pull that trick you're talking about regardless of the run level (i.e. the normal run level for most is the graphical login...)
so, chances are someone can pull the same trick on people like you too...
If MS is a puppy, then someone needs to get it's attention and tell it to QUIT SNAPPING AT PEOPLE!
So, don't kick puppies, but how would you train a nasty one?
"'There are many goodies in Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux " , really? wouldn't it be more a accurate to write it "GNU/Debian 6.0 Linux' or is it enough for the Linux kernel to use the GPL to make it GNU/Linux?
I'm not talking about peering agreements either. That's just contracts between companies that sell connections. I'm talking about what it meant to be part the internet. And PPP was not "on" the internet. It was a client connection and traffic had to be specified and forwarded just like ISP's do now.
The requirement for being "on" the internet is having your machine (router, computer, whatever, it's all the same) being reachable by two or more physical routes and playing nice by passing on traffic that is bound for machines other than your own. Like you said: PC's who are clients cannot route since they only have one connection. PC's are speaking internet protocol to the internet, but are not "ON" the internet as peers.
"One of the things that initially made the Internet so awesome was that everyone was basically a peer." So, you want to be able to route packets just like all the other peers do? Isn't that what peers on the internet are? The "peer-to-peer" nature of the internet changed when PC's starting getting onto it as clients. Yes, I think the port restictions and filtering are wrong, but citing the "internet should be only peers" is ignoring some basic changes that have happened to the internet...
follow-up question for 2)
why are OSS games considered only a hobby?
I look forward to the day when a dedicated game developer (not in spare time, but to make a game and sell it) include the source code on the install disk...
but I can prolly guess a few answers to my own question...
The concept or driver behind something like Modu is that the basic parts of the phone have become ubiquitous and a standard dock for something like this allows anything to get the common parts of a cell phone added to them: cars can have a standard slot to make then car phones and allow data services (like map downloads for GPS for example), laptops (like the the one here) can get a data cell connection, TV's can work anywhere , etc. This is basically an oversize SIM since you still need an account hardware token to use cell networks. The difference from a SIM is it also takes some of your data with it and can function outside the dock if need be. I'd like them to add PDA functions to it myself since there's a small set of data I'd like to have with me at all times like calendar and notes and such that is useful in conjunction with other devices.
for those that don't remember, Slashdot saw the Modu phone a while back here back in 2008. I thought the idea was intersting then, good to see it in the news again with new ideas. If I remember right, the Modu concept was thought by the same person who thought up USB thumb drives...
So, to be blunt, XMPP/Jabber has never achieved it's goal and it's goal was the same as TFA is wanting for social networking...
The OneSocialWeb looks interesting but what chance is there of it working when we've seen the attempt at IM fail to take off due to non-technical reasons? Is there something which gives it an edge or is different from the XMPP effort?
I know XMPP servers can talk to other server, but my question was more "do they?". Digging some more shows that many do as long as a server supports the matching protocol of the other server, which is better than I had thought. Does the list you linked include only servers that talk to other servers? or just a general list of servers?
Spectrum.im looks intersting, but I couldn't figure out how it works...do you have to create or have separate accounts on the other IM networks?
So, do Jabber servers all talk to each other like email servers? I thought that was the last bit of the equation that didn't take off....I know all ISPs run email servers, but few-to-none run XMPP servers...but if there are other groups that will let users talk to other groups then maybe I just need a better account.
reading the comments I'm confused...Do we want another alternative (another "walled garden" ) but built on open source? Or are we wanting an open version of these network sites? If someone could clear that up I'd know what rally cry to use...
personally I think an open/distributed version that works like email would be great, but that's what Jabber was to be for IM and look how well that worked...
I worry about games in similar ways, but not sure if "realistic" games are what I worry about. I DO think game dev's are putting out to many games based on stuff we have now. Those might be called realistic I guess. I'd rather see less games in game universes based on existing settings, but I include historical based games (WWI, WWII, Old west, medieval, etc.) as well as all the combat games that happen in settings too similar to what we have already, which to me includes all the modern warfare/battlefield/blah blah blah and I also include the futuristic and alternate future games (just like today, but a disaster happens!) that are just today's world with a theme slapped on them (pulse gun instead of pullets, but reacts the same way as bullets...).
When people want more "realism" in games like FPS, physics based games, etc. I don't think realism, I just want the game rules to be consistent. invisible walls, oddball character behavior just to move you to the next section, plot devices that don't fit, all those things count as inconsistent to me (as well as breaking the physics engine for some scripted sequence or boss battle) are the things that tick me off in games. I don't care what weird game rules dev's come up with, as long as they don't change rules to make something more challenging mid-game or to get you in the right place for the story to go where they want it to...
There doesn't have to be a negative....all that is means (being inactive due to evolution) is that some ancestor which had it deactivated for some reason, like mutation, survived. basically, having it deactivated didn't result in the organism not surviving...or that some other trait had a bigger impact on survival than the dis-advantage of regeneration being disabled.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but the more I read through and think about the factors playing into this, I can't help but visualize that we got channels as a means of getting programs to people: that is, a "channel" is a distributor. The you have networks which have several channels. Aren't Cable companies doing the exact same thing as the networks? Is that the problem with this arrangement? TWO distributors, one feeding into the other fighting each other because they are also competing with each other.
I keep wondering what TV would look like with only one of those (get rid of one, I don't care which) : you have several "paths" into your TV (channels ) and some company grouping programs into those channels and that's it? not the networks deciding how to group programs then cable companies working to group them again so they can make money too...and trying to get by with a fast one on the ones that grouped it first and the networks not trying to force profits out of the downstream companies...
but then again, that would take the networks allowing someone to bypass them (that's worked SO well with companies like RIAA, etc.) or the cableco's being happy with just being a pipe, which limit's their profit (which has worked SO well when we try to get ISP's that get out of the way and let us use the connections they sold us). Like most things, the internet lets us get almost there (we get the stuff we need without a distributor/middleman) but between the extra work to get it (harder than turning on a TV or putting in a CD) and companies trying to kill it, it's still not "taking over"
Based on the short summary article, they just found DNA similar to a specific virus sequences (which infects neurons) . Did anyone consider the opposite theory ? Instead of the DNA coming from the virus, isn't it possible the virus came from our DNA? Or maybe the virus is a left-over or damaged piece of a larger puzzle (since this virus is found is many animals, maybe it palys a part in many animals interacting with each other...)
just a thought...
Are you implying Skynet went.....odd AFTER it was modded?
guess I was wrong about the modders of the world becoming the resistance and humanities hope....
another factor or maybe just more on this factor is turn-around time (physical lag ) . When a sub breaks or shows some design flaw, there's a port that's easy to get to (relative to space anyway...) that affects how you handle those issues...for IIS, or anything you put up there, once it's up, it isn't coming down. that impacts how you handle stuff before you put it up and how you maintain. I called it physical lag since it sounds like the same headache of working on a remote computer: if the link is laggy, you may hesitate to try complicated stuff or use solutions that involve using the link (like sending install files ). I think that plays a part in how quickly designs evolve/improve for space exploration. they go slower since it's such a pain to work on it, even without the cost of doing the work.(not just laziness, but the mental effort/cost is higher)
I already have a store-bought version of this on my PC! It doesn't use USB though...it uses cat5 as the bus and does much more than their hobby version....the box says "broadband router" but I'm a techy person...I read the specs and figured out what it REALLY was....
But your comment started by saying regenerative brakes are less efficient....you're talking about driving more effieiently in general, with no reference to regenerative brakes. if you added regenerative brakes to the driving style you describe, you're efficiency would improve since you are recovering what little energy you are throwing away when slowing down...and using compression to slow down BTW also throws the energy away, it i is just used to compress the cylinder which causes extra heat and mechanical wear. To my mind it would be better to actually hit the breaks in the cases you describe to recover energy for use later instead of using your engine to slow down, but the actual energy saved would depend on how the regenerative brakes work in terms of the amount recovered under which conditions (better recovery when braking hard or lightly, method of recover and mechanical wear and loss when recovering, etc.)
so, your method of driving is most likely more efficient than someone driving a car with regenerative brakes now, but that is comparison of driving method, not due to the brakes...
Slashdot Mirror
I always assumed (based on the original 3 movies...in MY world, those are the Star Wars universe :) that the light saber was just a different take on the common blaster. like a swordsman looks down on a gun (no skill needed, just point, runs out of ammo, mechanically wears out, etc.), The Jedis look down on blasters. Anyone with that level of skill wants a weapon that extends and compliments that skill instead of a machine that does your work for you. . I didn't need the saber to be a special unknown technology to be unique. The comment in the 3rd movie about his skills being complete worried me some, but I figure that just shows you've been motivated enough to figure out how to make a weapon that fits your skills, and since only Jedi's get irritated at blasters for being crude and limited, all the sabers are hand-made on a one by one basis. Technology was always background in the first 3 movies, it was assumed everyone COULD build those things, but only some people were interested in actually getting into the details of 'em (i.e. grunt work).
The light saber wasn't special by itself until the later 3 movies, which by then Lucas was so in love with his genius of scifi, no one could tell him to leave it be. His ideas of what the story SHOULD have been was always naive in my opinion....been done before and done better.
I fail in reading comprehension....wasn't until I had clicked "Submit' that the control-Z part sunk in... :) I would have assumed that suspending X itself would have caused all the apps in the session to freak, if I'd thought about it. Now I know better ;)
good trick to keep in the back of my mind
So, is it just Slack that still keeps VT 6 open even when using *DM or do they all still do that? Unless I'm spoiled by my slack, you can pull that trick you're talking about regardless of the run level (i.e. the normal run level for most is the graphical login...)
so, chances are someone can pull the same trick on people like you too...
So, when I lean one way or the other in FPS's trying to look around a corner, it might be useful instead of just funny looking?
...
more likely it'd be useful and funny looking, I'd guess....but at least some improvement
If MS is a puppy, then someone needs to get it's attention and tell it to QUIT SNAPPING AT PEOPLE!
So, don't kick puppies, but how would you train a nasty one?
"'There are many goodies in Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux " , really? wouldn't it be more a accurate to write it "GNU/Debian 6.0 Linux' or is it enough for the Linux kernel to use the GPL to make it GNU/Linux?
so, I'm wondering if this is better or worse than the method used by traditional hovercraft? more efficient? less? safer in rough seas?
I'm not talking about peering agreements either. That's just contracts between companies that sell connections. I'm talking about what it meant to be part the internet. And PPP was not "on" the internet. It was a client connection and traffic had to be specified and forwarded just like ISP's do now.
The requirement for being "on" the internet is having your machine (router, computer, whatever, it's all the same) being reachable by two or more physical routes and playing nice by passing on traffic that is bound for machines other than your own. Like you said: PC's who are clients cannot route since they only have one connection. PC's are speaking internet protocol to the internet, but are not "ON" the internet as peers.
"One of the things that initially made the Internet so awesome was that everyone was basically a peer."
So, you want to be able to route packets just like all the other peers do? Isn't that what peers on the internet are? The "peer-to-peer" nature of the internet changed when PC's starting getting onto it as clients. Yes, I think the port restictions and filtering are wrong, but citing the "internet should be only peers" is ignoring some basic changes that have happened to the internet...
follow-up question for 2)
why are OSS games considered only a hobby?
I look forward to the day when a dedicated game developer (not in spare time, but to make a game and sell it) include the source code on the install disk...
but I can prolly guess a few answers to my own question...
The concept or driver behind something like Modu is that the basic parts of the phone have become ubiquitous and a standard dock for something like this allows anything to get the common parts of a cell phone added to them: cars can have a standard slot to make then car phones and allow data services (like map downloads for GPS for example), laptops (like the the one here) can get a data cell connection, TV's can work anywhere , etc. This is basically an oversize SIM since you still need an account hardware token to use cell networks. The difference from a SIM is it also takes some of your data with it and can function outside the dock if need be. I'd like them to add PDA functions to it myself since there's a small set of data I'd like to have with me at all times like calendar and notes and such that is useful in conjunction with other devices.
for those that don't remember, Slashdot saw the Modu phone a while back here back in 2008. I thought the idea was intersting then, good to see it in the news again with new ideas. If I remember right, the Modu concept was thought by the same person who thought up USB thumb drives...
So, to be blunt, XMPP/Jabber has never achieved it's goal and it's goal was the same as TFA is wanting for social networking...
The OneSocialWeb looks interesting but what chance is there of it working when we've seen the attempt at IM fail to take off due to non-technical reasons? Is there something which gives it an edge or is different from the XMPP effort?
I know XMPP servers can talk to other server, but my question was more "do they?". Digging some more shows that many do as long as a server supports the matching protocol of the other server, which is better than I had thought. Does the list you linked include only servers that talk to other servers? or just a general list of servers?
Spectrum.im looks intersting, but I couldn't figure out how it works...do you have to create or have separate accounts on the other IM networks?
So, do Jabber servers all talk to each other like email servers? I thought that was the last bit of the equation that didn't take off....I know all ISPs run email servers, but few-to-none run XMPP servers...but if there are other groups that will let users talk to other groups then maybe I just need a better account.
reading the comments I'm confused...Do we want another alternative (another "walled garden" ) but built on open source? Or are we wanting an open version of these network sites? If someone could clear that up I'd know what rally cry to use...
personally I think an open/distributed version that works like email would be great, but that's what Jabber was to be for IM and look how well that worked...
I worry about games in similar ways, but not sure if "realistic" games are what I worry about. I DO think game dev's are putting out to many games based on stuff we have now. Those might be called realistic I guess. I'd rather see less games in game universes based on existing settings, but I include historical based games (WWI, WWII, Old west, medieval, etc.) as well as all the combat games that happen in settings too similar to what we have already, which to me includes all the modern warfare/battlefield/blah blah blah and I also include the futuristic and alternate future games (just like today, but a disaster happens!) that are just today's world with a theme slapped on them (pulse gun instead of pullets, but reacts the same way as bullets...).
When people want more "realism" in games like FPS, physics based games, etc. I don't think realism, I just want the game rules to be consistent. invisible walls, oddball character behavior just to move you to the next section, plot devices that don't fit, all those things count as inconsistent to me (as well as breaking the physics engine for some scripted sequence or boss battle) are the things that tick me off in games. I don't care what weird game rules dev's come up with, as long as they don't change rules to make something more challenging mid-game or to get you in the right place for the story to go where they want it to...
There doesn't have to be a negative....all that is means (being inactive due to evolution) is that some ancestor which had it deactivated for some reason, like mutation, survived. basically, having it deactivated didn't result in the organism not surviving...or that some other trait had a bigger impact on survival than the dis-advantage of regeneration being disabled.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but the more I read through and think about the factors playing into this, I can't help but visualize that we got channels as a means of getting programs to people: that is, a "channel" is a distributor. The you have networks which have several channels. Aren't Cable companies doing the exact same thing as the networks? Is that the problem with this arrangement? TWO distributors, one feeding into the other fighting each other because they are also competing with each other.
I keep wondering what TV would look like with only one of those (get rid of one, I don't care which) : you have several "paths" into your TV (channels ) and some company grouping programs into those channels and that's it? not the networks deciding how to group programs then cable companies working to group them again so they can make money too...and trying to get by with a fast one on the ones that grouped it first and the networks not trying to force profits out of the downstream companies...
but then again, that would take the networks allowing someone to bypass them (that's worked SO well with companies like RIAA, etc.) or the cableco's being happy with just being a pipe, which limit's their profit (which has worked SO well when we try to get ISP's that get out of the way and let us use the connections they sold us). Like most things, the internet lets us get almost there (we get the stuff we need without a distributor/middleman) but between the extra work to get it (harder than turning on a TV or putting in a CD) and companies trying to kill it, it's still not "taking over"
Based on the short summary article, they just found DNA similar to a specific virus sequences (which infects neurons) . Did anyone consider the opposite theory ? Instead of the DNA coming from the virus, isn't it possible the virus came from our DNA? Or maybe the virus is a left-over or damaged piece of a larger puzzle (since this virus is found is many animals, maybe it palys a part in many animals interacting with each other...)
just a thought...
Are you implying Skynet went.....odd AFTER it was modded?
guess I was wrong about the modders of the world becoming the resistance and humanities hope....
there are some practical uses for omniwheels...
another factor or maybe just more on this factor is turn-around time (physical lag ) . When a sub breaks or shows some design flaw, there's a port that's easy to get to (relative to space anyway...) that affects how you handle those issues...for IIS, or anything you put up there, once it's up, it isn't coming down. that impacts how you handle stuff before you put it up and how you maintain. I called it physical lag since it sounds like the same headache of working on a remote computer: if the link is laggy, you may hesitate to try complicated stuff or use solutions that involve using the link (like sending install files ). I think that plays a part in how quickly designs evolve/improve for space exploration. they go slower since it's such a pain to work on it, even without the cost of doing the work.(not just laziness, but the mental effort/cost is higher)
I already have a store-bought version of this on my PC! It doesn't use USB though...it uses cat5 as the bus and does much more than their hobby version....the box says "broadband router" but I'm a techy person...I read the specs and figured out what it REALLY was....
But your comment started by saying regenerative brakes are less efficient....you're talking about driving more effieiently in general, with no reference to regenerative brakes. if you added regenerative brakes to the driving style you describe, you're efficiency would improve since you are recovering what little energy you are throwing away when slowing down...and using compression to slow down BTW also throws the energy away, it i is just used to compress the cylinder which causes extra heat and mechanical wear. To my mind it would be better to actually hit the breaks in the cases you describe to recover energy for use later instead of using your engine to slow down, but the actual energy saved would depend on how the regenerative brakes work in terms of the amount recovered under which conditions (better recovery when braking hard or lightly, method of recover and mechanical wear and loss when recovering, etc.)
so, your method of driving is most likely more efficient than someone driving a car with regenerative brakes now, but that is comparison of driving method, not due to the brakes...