Okay, I agree with you there. I did setup slack once and it was a very nice installation. I just had trouble adding more packages to the system, and found that to be incredibly annoying. Which really makes me wonder about people that claim that they find slackware the easiest of the distros to update.
I have run into my share of troubles with apt-get, apt-get might be one of the hardest yet easiest things about debian. That is, when it's working fine, it works ever so wonderfully. But every now and then you might hit a snag which requires some advanced features of apt-get to fix some of the problems.
I've been slowly building up my apt-get understanding, and now I have a decent system that's doing what I want it to be doing. I've certainly had to RTFM a few times when things go wrong. But, like any sort of system, once you understand it and become 311t with it, it's a snap to operate.
But, definitely yes, there are a few rough edges that should be ironed out. And, dselect is the biggest piece of crap I've ever used, when I install debian now I totally bypass dselect and just apt-get everything. so much saner.
Sure Debian's got 10k packages, but it seems that everything I need isn't there, isn't complete, or is old, even in the unstable tree.
Well, apt-get.org has gone online recently, which contains pre-release.debs that haven't yet made it into unstable. You can go here to find alot of software packages.
I do know that mplayer is there, along with the w32 codecs, which I have running on my machine and works very nicely. I don't know about the other packages you were looking for.
BTW, do you really find it easier downloading several tarballs, unpacking, doing the./configure, make, make_install, for each package? Or is this somehow automated in slackware? I find possibly editing sources.list, doing "apt-get update" and "apt-get install mplayer-686" to be incredibly simple.
Do you really find the manual install easier? I can totally see someone preferring it to keep very up-to-date and control all level of installation, but EASIER?
Just curious. I've run slackware before, but found it a PITA to admin over debian, so I switched back.
Hi, I just finished Dune 8 days ago. I've heard some say that the whole series kind of slides downhill from the first one, but do you still recommend reading the 7 by Herbert?
Regarding his son and the prequels, I'm somewhat of an elitist purist, thinking it somewhat blasphemous for someone else to continue another's masterpiece, even if it is their progeny.
Yeah, I understand the original parent's intent in posting, my response wasn't to him/her per se, just a general "blowing off steam" about MPAA claiming it's stealing when in fact it's not at all.
I dunno, the parent post seemed like a good place to do it...
Did it really get better? I read 1 and really liked it, then into 2 and 3, and it felt more and more anticlimactic. I just couldn't get myself interested in the story anymore.
FWIW, I find myself exactly opposite of my friends, who said they had to force themselves through book 1, but after that they were hooked.
well, jokes are usually funny, and sarcasm usually has some hint of humor or cleverness to it.
as to why i bothered replying, well there probably just might be a few slashdotters who actually believe the MPAA's arguments, etc. So whatever, if 5 minutes of my time can possibly help someone see a different viewpoint, then I'm all for it. If I wasted 5 minutes of my time, then so be it.
No, he's guilty of creating a tool that could possibly be used for stealing, but doesn't necessarily have to be used for stealing.
It's more like he's being prosecuted for having invented the crowbar. Suppose all shipments within a country or countries come in boxes that require you to purchase an ACME-brand "crate opener" for you to retrieve your shipped items. However, ACME doesn't provide their brand-named crate-opener in your neck of the woods. You decide that since you bought the crate yourself, you are entitled to the contents. So you invent the crowbar and pry the crate open to reap the sweet sweet goods inside.
But now you've bypassed the purpose of ACME-brand crate-openers, so ACME prosecutes you. They claim that since you can now use your crowbar to open crates that you didn't buy, you are thus guilty of theft.
The whole question really boils down to whether you are entitled to open the crate that you have purchased. And is having possession a tool that MIGHT be used for stealing illegal?
Crowbars can be used to smash windows, pry open doors and crates not belonging to you, and all other sorts of nasty stuff. But they do have legitimate and legal purpose. So, is it illegal for me to possess a crowbar since it can make stealing much easer? Would it have been illegal for me to invent the crowbar (mostly a trivial invention, but still)?
This case is not just a simple black/white issue of stealing.
That said, can someone knowledgeable offer some sort of explanation for why FreeBSD is able to support a higher network load than linux? Is the above link a real unbiased comparison?Does it have anything to do with linux being monolithic kernel? I thought Linux used the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack too, so wouldn't this seem to put them on roughly equal par? Are there any technical reasons the Linux kernel hackers haven't been able to catch up to FreeBSD's abilities?
Sorry to open the door for scores of both Linux and *BSD trolls to jump in with stupid responses like "myOS rox, yourOS sux", but hopefully there will be at least one level-headed response. Thx.
Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one afflicted by the obsession.
My girlfriend was really pissed at me today for playing nethack for a mere 2-3 hours in the afternoon instead of installing our printer and other chores. And of course, now I'm making matters worse by browsing slashdot in the AM.....
Well, actually, the interview with Jaacko Peltonen is from yesterday, and the article by Howard Wen is from two weeks ago, so while Falcon's Eye may have been around for several years, this posting from slashdot is actually quite recent.
Regarding your second point about nethack purists, any nethack player can choose whatever display they want. But if someone wants to look at a pic of a wizard instead of @ then they have that CHOICE.
What did Gnod tell me? I should find and check out the music of "Led Zeppelin". Clicking on related bands, it listed everything from The Who to Green Day to Nine Inch Nails. Talk about running the gamut.
Maybe somehow Gnod can associate bands together by bands that open for each other and musicians that have changed from one band to another (that info should all be online somewhere, like allmusic .
You have no idea what would happen if Israel withdrew from the areas they occupy in violation of UN resolutions
Well, there are LOTS of clues for those willing to examine history. Let's see, before 1967, Israel didn't occupy the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Yet Palestinian and Arab anger was still directed against Israel, including all-too-frequent attacks and skirmishes.
In fact, Gaza was occupied by Egypt, but no Palestinians ever protested against Egyptian occupation. Similarly, West Bank was occupied by Jordan, but nobody protested against Jordanian occupation. Israel, while not occupying anything, was still the target of unified Arab agression. In fact, it was the creation of Israel itself that led to the formation of the Arab League.
Also, interestingly enough, it was BEFORE the Six Day War when Arafat et al formed the Palestinian Liberation Organization, aimed at booting out the Israelis. Hmm, what part of Palestine were they really trying to liberate? (FWIW, Arafat has probably come a long way since his 1960's PLO philosophies).
The fact that there were no bombings during a two year period when Clinton was negotiating toward this withdrawl speaks against your statement.
And let's also examine the fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon 3 years ago, as mandated by the UN, yet this has not reduced hezbollah attacks whatsoever. Actually, this further incensed them as they now rally that since the Israeli's retreated once, they'll retreat all the way into the sea.
And before you or anyone else jumps down my throat, I do not support the occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip, but blindly believing that Palestinian attacks will magically stop if Israel withdraws is history-deficient folly. A significant portion of the Palestinians support hamas, which publically states it's goal is the destruction of the "Jewish state". Other terrorist groups (but not all) have similar goals.
Re:so if two objects are traveling toward the same
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 3, Informative
point at c/2 from opposite directions they both gain infinite mass!?
NO, you cannot look at a relative velocity in a simple Newtonian method, as others have described above.
You can realize this easily by looking at the Lorentz transform of an object in a moving frame as observed from the rest frame, to determine the relative velocity. Or from the moving frame.
Just to get you started, because it looks like you're rather confused, here are the Lorentz transforms. I hope you understand what the Lorentz transforms are. Basically, they let you convert an event occuring at a specific time/place in one frame to the time/place in another frame. We'll assume 1-D systems here, which is essentially true because only the direction of motion is Lorentz-contracted. Note, these formulae convert a moving frame to the rest frame (where the moving frame is moving at velocity v in positive coordinate number relative to the rest frame).
x'=gamma(x+v*t)
t'=gamma(t+v*x/c^2)
Okay, now the fun part. Assume an object moves distance dx in time dt in the moving frame. how far does it move in the rest frame?
Plug in, and then divide and we get our relativistic velocity.
The object in the moving frame moves at velocity dx/dt, so we'll call that velocity u. Thus, we want the speed u as measured in the rest frame.
u'=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2)
That is the formula you should be using. Note that at very small relative velocity between frames, uv/c^2 is practically zero, and hence you can use the Newtonian relative velocity formula u'=u+v. But at appreciable speeds, it's not valid. And plugging in numbers for your v=c/2 example, from one of the incoming reference frames you would see the other frame moving at v=(4/5)c, which is CLOSE to c but definitely LESS THAN c.
Happy New Year to all you other folks on slashdot, It's 4am here, and i'm not sober yet, but my girlfriend is still talking to her family in El Salvador so I'm still browsing/. yay...
Has anybody actually WON the super pitfall for NES? It seemed like a game designed by somebody on a bad acid trip, it was really bizarre and random, without much of a semblence to 'order' that alot of other games had.
There were too many unknown weirdness factors with this game that luckily I didn't spend TOO much time with it...
I unfortunately spent many hours in 1st and 2nd grade playing Atari pacman. The thing I hated most was that all of the fruits (cherry, pretzel, key) were replaced by an unknown rectangle (actually two concentric rectangles of different shades of brown).
My friends and I used to joke around that it was a Bonker (remember Bonkers candy? "Bonker's Bonks you Out!" was kind of like that, two concentric candy flavors).
As a poster above pointed out, you can get some more info about the Raëlians here .
Choice quote from that article:
"Apparently, the Raëlians are not bothered by the rather absurd image of a race of superior beings working for thousands of years in a laboratory to create all our insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, etc., not to mention all their lovelies that have gone extinct. Why would any beings do such a thing? And why would they wait 25,000 years to reveal their handiwork to a French race car driver who spots their UFO in a volcano? And then tell him that the message is to clone ourselves so we can be immortal. Then again, is this story any stranger than the ones in the Bible?"
Granted, warning unsuspecting users of obscene
links isn't exactly on the subject, but come on, modding me down as off-topic for warning others? At least mod the friggin' parent post. Sheesh.
I thought that when you win, you play the subsequent game without the helmet, with long hair. But if you win quickly enough, then you play the next game in yellow spandex, or similar. at least that's what i vaguely remember.
Defense Command, I loved that game. Well, actually no, it was okay. I liked Eliminator and Sea Dragon (I think those were the names) more. But Defense Command was pretty cool.
Yeah, I had the speaker hack attached to my computer, so I definitely got to hear them say the "Prepare to die, human!" part. Didn't it only do that when you shoot that giant spider-looking mother ship that drops those little people that you protect off?
It's amazing, when you think about it. That sound is entirely 1-bit. Who the hell would think that a single-bit DAC could make any sounds remotly resembling speech?
When are they going to start one of these journals for physics! (I guess there is Arxiv [arxiv.org].)
Wow, I didn't know they changed names (to a more PC system, or to bypass nanny-ware, I guess) to arXiv. I was going to point you to the XXX site on the net where geeks actually contribute the most to the action. But apparently these sites are one and the same.
Yeah, but they also send you a number of preprints of your article, which were very handy for sending to colleagues and interested students, back before the internet. Are there any journals you're aware of that still demand payment by the authors? I know some request it, but do not demand it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have run into my share of troubles with apt-get, apt-get might be one of the hardest yet easiest things about debian. That is, when it's working fine, it works ever so wonderfully. But every now and then you might hit a snag which requires some advanced features of apt-get to fix some of the problems.
I've been slowly building up my apt-get understanding, and now I have a decent system that's doing what I want it to be doing. I've certainly had to RTFM a few times when things go wrong. But, like any sort of system, once you understand it and become 311t with it, it's a snap to operate.
But, definitely yes, there are a few rough edges that should be ironed out. And, dselect is the biggest piece of crap I've ever used, when I install debian now I totally bypass dselect and just apt-get everything. so much saner.
Well, apt-get.org has gone online recently, which contains pre-release .debs that haven't yet made it into unstable. You can go here to find alot of software packages.
I do know that mplayer is there, along with the w32 codecs, which I have running on my machine and works very nicely. I don't know about the other packages you were looking for.
BTW, do you really find it easier downloading several tarballs, unpacking, doing the ./configure, make, make_install, for each package? Or is this somehow automated in slackware? I find possibly editing sources.list, doing "apt-get update" and "apt-get install mplayer-686" to be incredibly simple.
Do you really find the manual install easier? I can totally see someone preferring it to keep very up-to-date and control all level of installation, but EASIER?
Just curious. I've run slackware before, but found it a PITA to admin over debian, so I switched back.
Regarding his son and the prequels, I'm somewhat of an elitist purist, thinking it somewhat blasphemous for someone else to continue another's masterpiece, even if it is their progeny.
Yeah, I understand the original parent's intent in posting, my response wasn't to him/her per se, just a general "blowing off steam" about MPAA claiming it's stealing when in fact it's not at all.
I dunno, the parent post seemed like a good place to do it...
FWIW, I find myself exactly opposite of my friends, who said they had to force themselves through book 1, but after that they were hooked.
well, jokes are usually funny, and sarcasm usually has some hint of humor or cleverness to it.
as to why i bothered replying, well there probably just might be a few slashdotters who actually believe the MPAA's arguments, etc. So whatever, if 5 minutes of my time can possibly help someone see a different viewpoint, then I'm all for it. If I wasted 5 minutes of my time, then so be it.
No, he's guilty of creating a tool that could possibly be used for stealing, but doesn't necessarily have to be used for stealing.
It's more like he's being prosecuted for having invented the crowbar. Suppose all shipments within a country or countries come in boxes that require you to purchase an ACME-brand "crate opener" for you to retrieve your shipped items. However, ACME doesn't provide their brand-named crate-opener in your neck of the woods. You decide that since you bought the crate yourself, you are entitled to the contents. So you invent the crowbar and pry the crate open to reap the sweet sweet goods inside.
But now you've bypassed the purpose of ACME-brand crate-openers, so ACME prosecutes you. They claim that since you can now use your crowbar to open crates that you didn't buy, you are thus guilty of theft.
The whole question really boils down to whether you are entitled to open the crate that you have purchased. And is having possession a tool that MIGHT be used for stealing illegal?
Crowbars can be used to smash windows, pry open doors and crates not belonging to you, and all other sorts of nasty stuff. But they do have legitimate and legal purpose. So, is it illegal for me to possess a crowbar since it can make stealing much easer? Would it have been illegal for me to invent the crowbar (mostly a trivial invention, but still)?
This case is not just a simple black/white issue of stealing.
Sorry to open the door for scores of both Linux and *BSD trolls to jump in with stupid responses like "myOS rox, yourOS sux", but hopefully there will be at least one level-headed response. Thx.
My girlfriend was really pissed at me today for playing nethack for a mere 2-3 hours in the afternoon instead of installing our printer and other chores. And of course, now I'm making matters worse by browsing slashdot in the AM.....
Just found this tree diagram which describes the state of evolution from Rogue to Nethack.
I noticed that bug just now, but it has been working correctly for me before. maybe some new bugs in the slashcode?
I just tried that, but to no avail. still told me to remove the junk characters.
Well, actually, the interview with Jaacko Peltonen is from yesterday, and the article by Howard Wen is from two weeks ago, so while Falcon's Eye may have been around for several years, this posting from slashdot is actually quite recent.
Regarding your second point about nethack purists, any nethack player can choose whatever display they want. But if someone wants to look at a pic of a wizard instead of @ then they have that CHOICE.
- Jimmy McGriff
- The Doors
- Deep Purple
(In case you can't tell, I play keyboards).What did Gnod tell me? I should find and check out the music of "Led Zeppelin". Clicking on related bands, it listed everything from The Who to Green Day to Nine Inch Nails. Talk about running the gamut.
Maybe somehow Gnod can associate bands together by bands that open for each other and musicians that have changed from one band to another (that info should all be online somewhere, like allmusic .
Well, there are LOTS of clues for those willing to examine history. Let's see, before 1967, Israel didn't occupy the West Bank or Gaza Strip. Yet Palestinian and Arab anger was still directed against Israel, including all-too-frequent attacks and skirmishes.
In fact, Gaza was occupied by Egypt, but no Palestinians ever protested against Egyptian occupation. Similarly, West Bank was occupied by Jordan, but nobody protested against Jordanian occupation. Israel, while not occupying anything, was still the target of unified Arab agression. In fact, it was the creation of Israel itself that led to the formation of the Arab League.
Also, interestingly enough, it was BEFORE the Six Day War when Arafat et al formed the Palestinian Liberation Organization, aimed at booting out the Israelis. Hmm, what part of Palestine were they really trying to liberate? (FWIW, Arafat has probably come a long way since his 1960's PLO philosophies).
The fact that there were no bombings during a two year period when Clinton was negotiating toward this withdrawl speaks against your statement.
And let's also examine the fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon 3 years ago, as mandated by the UN, yet this has not reduced hezbollah attacks whatsoever. Actually, this further incensed them as they now rally that since the Israeli's retreated once, they'll retreat all the way into the sea.
And before you or anyone else jumps down my throat, I do not support the occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip, but blindly believing that Palestinian attacks will magically stop if Israel withdraws is history-deficient folly. A significant portion of the Palestinians support hamas, which publically states it's goal is the destruction of the "Jewish state". Other terrorist groups (but not all) have similar goals.
NO, you cannot look at a relative velocity in a simple Newtonian method, as others have described above.
You can realize this easily by looking at the Lorentz transform of an object in a moving frame as observed from the rest frame, to determine the relative velocity. Or from the moving frame.
Just to get you started, because it looks like you're rather confused, here are the Lorentz transforms. I hope you understand what the Lorentz transforms are. Basically, they let you convert an event occuring at a specific time/place in one frame to the time/place in another frame. We'll assume 1-D systems here, which is essentially true because only the direction of motion is Lorentz-contracted. Note, these formulae convert a moving frame to the rest frame (where the moving frame is moving at velocity v in positive coordinate number relative to the rest frame).
x'=gamma(x+v*t)
t'=gamma(t+v*x/c^2)
Okay, now the fun part. Assume an object moves distance dx in time dt in the moving frame. how far does it move in the rest frame? Plug in, and then divide and we get our relativistic velocity.
dx'/dt'=(dx+v*dt)/(dt+v*dx/c^2)= (dx/dt+v)/(1+v*dx/dt/c^2)
The object in the moving frame moves at velocity dx/dt, so we'll call that velocity u. Thus, we want the speed u as measured in the rest frame.
u'=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2)
That is the formula you should be using. Note that at very small relative velocity between frames, uv/c^2 is practically zero, and hence you can use the Newtonian relative velocity formula u'=u+v. But at appreciable speeds, it's not valid. And plugging in numbers for your v=c/2 example, from one of the incoming reference frames you would see the other frame moving at v=(4/5)c, which is CLOSE to c but definitely LESS THAN c.
Happy New Year to all you other folks on slashdot, It's 4am here, and i'm not sober yet, but my girlfriend is still talking to her family in El Salvador so I'm still browsing /. yay...
There were too many unknown weirdness factors with this game that luckily I didn't spend TOO much time with it...
My friends and I used to joke around that it was a Bonker (remember Bonkers candy? "Bonker's Bonks you Out!" was kind of like that, two concentric candy flavors).
Choice quote from that article:
"Apparently, the Raëlians are not bothered by the rather absurd image of a race of superior beings working for thousands of years in a laboratory to create all our insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, etc., not to mention all their lovelies that have gone extinct. Why would any beings do such a thing? And why would they wait 25,000 years to reveal their handiwork to a French race car driver who spots their UFO in a volcano? And then tell him that the message is to clone ourselves so we can be immortal. Then again, is this story any stranger than the ones in the Bible?"
Granted, warning unsuspecting users of obscene links isn't exactly on the subject, but come on, modding me down as off-topic for warning others? At least mod the friggin' parent post. Sheesh.
should have thought before clicking on an AC link
I thought that when you win, you play the subsequent game without the helmet, with long hair. But if you win quickly enough, then you play the next game in yellow spandex, or similar. at least that's what i vaguely remember.
Yeah, I had the speaker hack attached to my computer, so I definitely got to hear them say the "Prepare to die, human!" part. Didn't it only do that when you shoot that giant spider-looking mother ship that drops those little people that you protect off?
It's amazing, when you think about it. That sound is entirely 1-bit. Who the hell would think that a single-bit DAC could make any sounds remotly resembling speech?
Wow, I didn't know they changed names (to a more PC system, or to bypass nanny-ware, I guess) to arXiv. I was going to point you to the XXX site on the net where geeks actually contribute the most to the action. But apparently these sites are one and the same.
Yeah, but they also send you a number of preprints of your article, which were very handy for sending to colleagues and interested students, back before the internet. Are there any journals you're aware of that still demand payment by the authors? I know some request it, but do not demand it.