No because you can't store pure heat; plus this is a bad strategy. In theory, you could pump a large amount of heat out of the air and beam it into space using a microwave amplifier array; however efficiency in this sort of system is questionable, and it's unlikely you'll get a wide enough channel.
Consider maximum insolation is about 1334 watts per meter square, with peak daytime insolation easily around 800-1100 on a clear day. Now consider Rhode Island has a land area of 3,140,000,000 square meters. That gives 2,512,000,000,000 watts on a semi-hazy 800W/m^2 day. 2.5TW. A basic heat pump at a COP of 3 would require the output of 2-3 nuclear power plants to drive the mechanism; but we need to use that heat pump (loss) to concentrate energy (loss) that's then forced through an engine (loss) that drives a generator (loss) to drive an amplifier (loss) to drive a transmitter (loss) to beam laser or microwave energy into space. Just to black out Rhode Island.
We could just bleed a small bit of the incoming solar energy; but we'd want to do this everywhere, so the total energy across the earth we want to get rid of is way more than just a 100% black-out of Rhode Island. We actually need a lot of power to do this.
You're better off putting a giant venetian blind up in space to block out some of the sun.
People keep telling me WTC7 wasn't even on fire (...) and that buildings don't drop straight. I keep telling them that, as not-an-engineer and never having studied this, my internal physics modeling engine (I like to simulate physics in my head, it's... odd) shows very, very poor projections for continuously applied stress on anchoring points in a building of that construction. The only real way to build a high rise is to build it so that it stands straight, so that the building's lowest energy state is a straight drop--it should not be "leaning" and held in place because it's bolted the fuck down.
The easiest way to do that is to build the building such that the major outside parts are more inclined to collapse inward; but you ideally want it just stable, not "constantly trying to collapse in on itself" either. Still, if it's stable and flat and you disrupt it, it's going to collapse toward the disruption... so if an internal support collapses, the building will naturally start to collapse inward. I've tried this a lot of ways in my head and this is the best way to build a really fucking tall building if you don't want it to eventually just topple over from the wind. They always collapse inward. If the main supports fail, even if they fail unevenly, the building drops straight.
But people are convinced that a building would just sag and flop over unless it were dropped by a skilled demolition team. Demo teams go through a LOT of effort to make sure buildings drop straight; they don't need to, but they want to make damn sure something that massive doesn't flop on itself. That doesn't preclude the building being designed to collapse straight barring huge effort to make it do something else; it just means the risk is too god damn high because the consequences are severe, so we pay good money to have really smart people make sure these things come down exactly the way we want them to. We also pay good money to have really smart people build them to both stand up and not topple over if they do fail to stand up.
It's all insanity. I can't come up with any non-stupid design that wouldn't self-stabilize in a collapse. It just wouldn't stand for long.
If I were a terrorist, I would pop the pin in the terminal and toss it toward the crowd. Hundreds dead and wounded. A belt with several and a string tied to the pins would work wonders too. Hell, a belt tied to the pins, pull it out from under the jacket and give a good hard swing and grenades go everywhere!
Why would a terrorist want to bring a grenade on a plane?
Not mutually exclusive. The algorithms can be implemented correctly, but will still take more time. The output will be of better quality, of course.
GCC suffers a lot from trying to change the underlying behavior into a static single assignment model when it was already mature. This is a good model, easy to analyze and ensure correctness; but rewriting a hell of a lot of complex code that does complex analysis to instead do the same analysis on a different type of data can result in errors. Initial implementation means understanding the internal representation, understanding the optimization, and understanding manipulation; re-implementation means understanding the old and new internal representations, understanding the optimization, understanding how the optimization is implemented, and understanding the old and new manipulation, and then figure out how to rewrite one piece of code to bring in different data and operate the same logic on it and then perform the same manipulation via a different mechanism.
When you think about it, GCC is a really hard core piece of software and showcases some excellent work. Clang will probably be better quality because they're doing it the best way to start with, and so they can focus on getting it correct the first time instead of trying to rewrite existing correct code into new code that uses a different mechanism without breaking it.
Actually I was paraphrasing the "I think there's some inherent value" quote from an actual researcher whose only reason for wanting to stop the spread of earthworms was that keeping things the way they are is inherently valuable in some unqualified way. He never claimed there would be catastrophic collapse; that's separate, a lot of researchers are saying that the forests may eventually be destroyed by worms changing the nutrient cycle by causing faster consumption of nitrogen resources and integration into the soil, and it's a very vacant and poorly-thought-out position.
It is said that ice ages caused the extinction of north america's earth worms, and the re-introduction of european nightcrawlers is destroying our forests by causing a change in the topsoil chemistry.
I say scientists are dumb. Okay, so some worms will till the soil, the nitrogen balance changes, leaves decay faster. These large shifts will impact how seedlings grow and thrive; over time, new seedlings which thrive better in an ecosystem with earthworms will outcompete the ones that take best to a worm-free system. Give it a few hundred years and the forests will change over--not suddenly and catastrophically collapse.
Scientists aren't even arguing that forests will collapse or mass extinctions will occur; I've seen arguments like "We need to slow the progression and spread of worms to keep some areas as they are, because there's some inherent value in that." Inherent value? A non-important ecological evolution and you want to lock that shit down and freeze state to as-it-is-now? You're arguing that growth and adaptation are not value; stagnation and stasis are value. Stagnation and stasis in the biosphere will weaken it and expose it to greater risk of failure under stress!
Humans fear change. Extinction of a species of which there are 30 alive on the planet and have been at most 250 alive on the planet in the past 500 years and they do nothing except nibble on some leaves of no plant in particular would be seen as a devastating catastrophe.
In school there was something called "The Ice Age" which we were told was some point in time before civilization when the entire earth was a huge ball of ice, after the dinosaurs died.
The best part is I noticed a piece of keystone technology* that allows me to pull this off, and people keep telling me it can't be done. What they don't get is, as you said, the sun eventually will burn out; but also, the sun is heating the whole of the earth, using the oceans as a huge thermal storage tank, and the air as a massive and highly fluid transport mechanism.
Heat pumping the energy from ambient air is a viable strategy, but it's limited because of loss--compressors operate at lower efficiency (lower % of carnot) when it's colder or hotter, for example. Technologies that are unaffected by exact temperature (only differential) and can be made to run in reverse (i.e. you're pumping heat from the hotter area to the colder area, always) can get pretty damn close to breaking unity.
Fancy stuff, but when it comes down to it you're talking about a battery and a solar panel, with a motor that turns a clock movement. Solar powered Big Ben would be quickly accepted as doable; whereas a system that i.e. lets you drive a car around by sucking energy from the ambient air would be imagined as some kind of fantasy technology that can't exist because it will violate the laws of thermodynamics. It's no different, but such things will be seen as some kind of ridiculous "perpetual motion magic" by luddites who haven't considered that putting it in space or on the moon would make it cease function.
I keep trying to build these things. Not because they'll work, but because it's fun to see how close you can get. New technology is actually making for things that could really work, though.
*Quantum tunneling diodes act as ridiculously efficient heat pumps. 55% of Carnot versus 45% for a good compressor; but they work between 0K and whatever temperature starts to damage the material they're made of, whereas a compressor is efficient at an ideal temperature and loses efficiency as the absolute temperature gets hotter/colder. They're small and cheap to produce, but so far nobody's gotten good yield--you make a 10cm^2 device and it works, but only 1% of the area works so 0.1cm^2 and it doesn't do anything useful except get a little cold while consuming less power than a comparable compressor (and operating much more efficiently than such a tiny compressor would). The applications of small, efficient, easily-manufactured, high-density heat pumps are far-reaching--you could efficiently run a kitchen oven on these with 1/3 to 1/5 the power of an electric oven, or boost the efficiency of compressed-air-driven engines by a factor of 10 (the air source gets cold, so you're heat pumping from hot to cold, which has a huge COP), and so on. That's disruptive and keystone technology; we haven't quite fully grasped the applications of moving energy around directly yet, and when we do it'll be extremely similar to what happened when we invented electricity.
It's faster because it doesn't support as much optimization. Some analysis simply isn't implemented. That isn't to say it won't be faster when it's on even footing; just that right now huge swaths of algorithms are missing, so the output code doesn't perform as well but it does get produced in much less time.
It's just heat. If you open a microwave and run the magnetron, you won't get cancer; you'll get burned. This is the same kind of burn as sticking your face in a boiling pot of water, which won't cause cancer either.
Not really. Water is polar and will align itself with radio waves. At 2.45GHz (or any frequency really), the molecules flip back and forth; there's less absorption higher/lower, so the specific frequency band is actually pretty optimal. Higher frequencies mean more power, but less absorption (meaning less flipping back and forth), so less heat and more waste power.
Terrestrial perpetual motion is doable. In the event that you devise a system that can charge itself via ambient energy, the battery is hidden up in the sky where nobody can look for very long.
Now understand that this is 200 non-fatal burns out of 22 million people in Australia every year. Some folks watched this and went, "Oh my god! We need electric blankets instead, so dangerous!" Notice that there's over 5,000 fatal deaths from electric blanket failure in the UK every year--62 million people--which translates to about 1,600 potential fatalities in Australia based on population and assuming similar usage.
It's a small number, and not an alarming one. Making a TV special about how dangerous stuff like this is just gets the public to do even stupider things and wastes time and money.
Mostly visibility and impact, in this case. The change to Wayland vs. Xorg will be largely a non-issue for most people--except programmers. Of course the Wayland vs Mir thing means the change is to one or the other API (or a compatibility layer...), and determines what graphics display is in the way. In the end it probably won't make a difference. KDE vs. Gnome is right there in your face, all the time.
More to the point, this is less "I want $THING" and more "I want to write my own because this one doesn't have my name on it and doesn't showcase how much great awesome I've done!" Canonical didn't just make one fork of something; they've persisted in making their own everything, to the point that some of us are waiting for a new microkernel from Canonical with a Linux compatibility layer slowly vanishing into brand new Canonical code. It was great when they replaced sys5init with Upstart, or created a better installer than straight d-i, which was an improvement; but then they started writing their own DEs, their own display managers, their own display servers, their own DVCSes, etc. It's now a huge game of "WE MUST BE DIFFERENT! WE MUST BE US!"
Upstart was written before systemd started; Fedora and RHEL used Upstart for a while. Newer, better has come along.
Unity was a quick response to Gnome Shell, which was available as a functional pre-release in 2009 3 months before Unity. Gnome Shell was up-and-coming and Canonical headed it off. The big move to Unity was highly politicized as "Oh no! Gnome is changing! People hate that! They will be angry at the new Gnome interface!... Unity!!!!" It was integrated into the distribution as the primary desktop environment one release prior to integration of Gnome Shell, when Gnome Shell was already released and stable.
Mir came about well into the Wayland development cycle, citing "Wayland is coming too slowly. And we don't like it."
Bzr is the third generation of a number of unrelated pieces of software. The original Bzr, now renamed Bazaar, was a slow bloated piece of shit that didn't work right at all. The current Bzr started pretty bad, and has been improved; it was easily surpassed by Git at one point, but had caught up. There was also Mercurial and darcs, but that's not really of much import. The reason Bzr isn't more popular isn't that it's not great; it's that Git was better way before Bzr was usable.
Launchpad took forever to become open source, but that's not really a huge issue. It's sensible, but it is on their laundry list of stuff they've written that's not the same as everything that was already out there. To be fair, all other stuff out there sucks; I'd like to have Launchpad with Git integration (it'll import a Git repo by converting it to Bzr, rather than actually integrating with Git), or something like Gitlab but in Python instead of Ruby (running Ruby apps is really fucking hard; it's like the old days of wild wild Java west when nothing worked unless you were a Dark Invoker, and even then only one app per server... look up RVM and such to get an idea).
He means a total NIH mentality. Ubuntu won't use systemd because they wrote Upstart, which is functionally inferior to systemd. Ubuntu ships with Unity, which they wrote, and is functionally inferior to Gnome-Shell. Ubuntu decided Wayland is not here right now and for some reason they absolutely must move off X11 now, so rather than supplying code to Wayland they've decided to write Mir from scratch. Ubuntu uses Canonical-developed Bzr, not Git, with their own Launchpad management system developed in-house.
Slashdot Mirror
No because you can't store pure heat; plus this is a bad strategy. In theory, you could pump a large amount of heat out of the air and beam it into space using a microwave amplifier array; however efficiency in this sort of system is questionable, and it's unlikely you'll get a wide enough channel.
Consider maximum insolation is about 1334 watts per meter square, with peak daytime insolation easily around 800-1100 on a clear day. Now consider Rhode Island has a land area of 3,140,000,000 square meters. That gives 2,512,000,000,000 watts on a semi-hazy 800W/m^2 day. 2.5TW. A basic heat pump at a COP of 3 would require the output of 2-3 nuclear power plants to drive the mechanism; but we need to use that heat pump (loss) to concentrate energy (loss) that's then forced through an engine (loss) that drives a generator (loss) to drive an amplifier (loss) to drive a transmitter (loss) to beam laser or microwave energy into space. Just to black out Rhode Island.
We could just bleed a small bit of the incoming solar energy; but we'd want to do this everywhere, so the total energy across the earth we want to get rid of is way more than just a 100% black-out of Rhode Island. We actually need a lot of power to do this.
You're better off putting a giant venetian blind up in space to block out some of the sun.
People keep telling me WTC7 wasn't even on fire (...) and that buildings don't drop straight. I keep telling them that, as not-an-engineer and never having studied this, my internal physics modeling engine (I like to simulate physics in my head, it's ... odd) shows very, very poor projections for continuously applied stress on anchoring points in a building of that construction. The only real way to build a high rise is to build it so that it stands straight, so that the building's lowest energy state is a straight drop--it should not be "leaning" and held in place because it's bolted the fuck down.
The easiest way to do that is to build the building such that the major outside parts are more inclined to collapse inward; but you ideally want it just stable, not "constantly trying to collapse in on itself" either. Still, if it's stable and flat and you disrupt it, it's going to collapse toward the disruption... so if an internal support collapses, the building will naturally start to collapse inward. I've tried this a lot of ways in my head and this is the best way to build a really fucking tall building if you don't want it to eventually just topple over from the wind. They always collapse inward. If the main supports fail, even if they fail unevenly, the building drops straight.
But people are convinced that a building would just sag and flop over unless it were dropped by a skilled demolition team. Demo teams go through a LOT of effort to make sure buildings drop straight; they don't need to, but they want to make damn sure something that massive doesn't flop on itself. That doesn't preclude the building being designed to collapse straight barring huge effort to make it do something else; it just means the risk is too god damn high because the consequences are severe, so we pay good money to have really smart people make sure these things come down exactly the way we want them to. We also pay good money to have really smart people build them to both stand up and not topple over if they do fail to stand up.
It's all insanity. I can't come up with any non-stupid design that wouldn't self-stabilize in a collapse. It just wouldn't stand for long.
If I were a terrorist, I would pop the pin in the terminal and toss it toward the crowd. Hundreds dead and wounded. A belt with several and a string tied to the pins would work wonders too. Hell, a belt tied to the pins, pull it out from under the jacket and give a good hard swing and grenades go everywhere!
Why would a terrorist want to bring a grenade on a plane?
How did that work when Obama had a Democrat house and senate?
You don't find it disturbing that a criminal is our greatest hero of the age, specifically because he's a criminal?
Look, you've obviously been around Wikipedia a lot; but you have a lot to learn about how public school operates.
Not mutually exclusive. The algorithms can be implemented correctly, but will still take more time. The output will be of better quality, of course.
GCC suffers a lot from trying to change the underlying behavior into a static single assignment model when it was already mature. This is a good model, easy to analyze and ensure correctness; but rewriting a hell of a lot of complex code that does complex analysis to instead do the same analysis on a different type of data can result in errors. Initial implementation means understanding the internal representation, understanding the optimization, and understanding manipulation; re-implementation means understanding the old and new internal representations, understanding the optimization, understanding how the optimization is implemented, and understanding the old and new manipulation, and then figure out how to rewrite one piece of code to bring in different data and operate the same logic on it and then perform the same manipulation via a different mechanism.
When you think about it, GCC is a really hard core piece of software and showcases some excellent work. Clang will probably be better quality because they're doing it the best way to start with, and so they can focus on getting it correct the first time instead of trying to rewrite existing correct code into new code that uses a different mechanism without breaking it.
Actually I was paraphrasing the "I think there's some inherent value" quote from an actual researcher whose only reason for wanting to stop the spread of earthworms was that keeping things the way they are is inherently valuable in some unqualified way. He never claimed there would be catastrophic collapse; that's separate, a lot of researchers are saying that the forests may eventually be destroyed by worms changing the nutrient cycle by causing faster consumption of nitrogen resources and integration into the soil, and it's a very vacant and poorly-thought-out position.
The charts show an average change of some 0.2 degrees kelvin deviation from mean over decades, so yeah. Relatively small temperature changes.
Also saber toothed animals.
It is said that ice ages caused the extinction of north america's earth worms, and the re-introduction of european nightcrawlers is destroying our forests by causing a change in the topsoil chemistry.
I say scientists are dumb. Okay, so some worms will till the soil, the nitrogen balance changes, leaves decay faster. These large shifts will impact how seedlings grow and thrive; over time, new seedlings which thrive better in an ecosystem with earthworms will outcompete the ones that take best to a worm-free system. Give it a few hundred years and the forests will change over--not suddenly and catastrophically collapse.
Scientists aren't even arguing that forests will collapse or mass extinctions will occur; I've seen arguments like "We need to slow the progression and spread of worms to keep some areas as they are, because there's some inherent value in that." Inherent value? A non-important ecological evolution and you want to lock that shit down and freeze state to as-it-is-now? You're arguing that growth and adaptation are not value; stagnation and stasis are value. Stagnation and stasis in the biosphere will weaken it and expose it to greater risk of failure under stress!
Humans fear change. Extinction of a species of which there are 30 alive on the planet and have been at most 250 alive on the planet in the past 500 years and they do nothing except nibble on some leaves of no plant in particular would be seen as a devastating catastrophe.
In school there was something called "The Ice Age" which we were told was some point in time before civilization when the entire earth was a huge ball of ice, after the dinosaurs died.
So new evidence is that climate change and not human encroachment caused the extinction of a species 30,000 years ago?
Suck it, deniers.
The show was silly enough, with a strong message about the dangers of lighting candles in such a situation
The best part is I noticed a piece of keystone technology* that allows me to pull this off, and people keep telling me it can't be done. What they don't get is, as you said, the sun eventually will burn out; but also, the sun is heating the whole of the earth, using the oceans as a huge thermal storage tank, and the air as a massive and highly fluid transport mechanism.
Heat pumping the energy from ambient air is a viable strategy, but it's limited because of loss--compressors operate at lower efficiency (lower % of carnot) when it's colder or hotter, for example. Technologies that are unaffected by exact temperature (only differential) and can be made to run in reverse (i.e. you're pumping heat from the hotter area to the colder area, always) can get pretty damn close to breaking unity.
Fancy stuff, but when it comes down to it you're talking about a battery and a solar panel, with a motor that turns a clock movement. Solar powered Big Ben would be quickly accepted as doable; whereas a system that i.e. lets you drive a car around by sucking energy from the ambient air would be imagined as some kind of fantasy technology that can't exist because it will violate the laws of thermodynamics. It's no different, but such things will be seen as some kind of ridiculous "perpetual motion magic" by luddites who haven't considered that putting it in space or on the moon would make it cease function.
I keep trying to build these things. Not because they'll work, but because it's fun to see how close you can get. New technology is actually making for things that could really work, though.
*Quantum tunneling diodes act as ridiculously efficient heat pumps. 55% of Carnot versus 45% for a good compressor; but they work between 0K and whatever temperature starts to damage the material they're made of, whereas a compressor is efficient at an ideal temperature and loses efficiency as the absolute temperature gets hotter/colder. They're small and cheap to produce, but so far nobody's gotten good yield--you make a 10cm^2 device and it works, but only 1% of the area works so 0.1cm^2 and it doesn't do anything useful except get a little cold while consuming less power than a comparable compressor (and operating much more efficiently than such a tiny compressor would). The applications of small, efficient, easily-manufactured, high-density heat pumps are far-reaching--you could efficiently run a kitchen oven on these with 1/3 to 1/5 the power of an electric oven, or boost the efficiency of compressed-air-driven engines by a factor of 10 (the air source gets cold, so you're heat pumping from hot to cold, which has a huge COP), and so on. That's disruptive and keystone technology; we haven't quite fully grasped the applications of moving energy around directly yet, and when we do it'll be extremely similar to what happened when we invented electricity.
It's faster because it doesn't support as much optimization. Some analysis simply isn't implemented. That isn't to say it won't be faster when it's on even footing; just that right now huge swaths of algorithms are missing, so the output code doesn't perform as well but it does get produced in much less time.
It's just heat. If you open a microwave and run the magnetron, you won't get cancer; you'll get burned. This is the same kind of burn as sticking your face in a boiling pot of water, which won't cause cancer either.
Not really. Water is polar and will align itself with radio waves. At 2.45GHz (or any frequency really), the molecules flip back and forth; there's less absorption higher/lower, so the specific frequency band is actually pretty optimal. Higher frequencies mean more power, but less absorption (meaning less flipping back and forth), so less heat and more waste power.
Yes, also we need to prepare for the Borg threat. First, we'll bomb Sweden.
Terrestrial perpetual motion is doable. In the event that you devise a system that can charge itself via ambient energy, the battery is hidden up in the sky where nobody can look for very long.
I want you to watch this video.
Now understand that this is 200 non-fatal burns out of 22 million people in Australia every year. Some folks watched this and went, "Oh my god! We need electric blankets instead, so dangerous!" Notice that there's over 5,000 fatal deaths from electric blanket failure in the UK every year--62 million people--which translates to about 1,600 potential fatalities in Australia based on population and assuming similar usage.
It's a small number, and not an alarming one. Making a TV special about how dangerous stuff like this is just gets the public to do even stupider things and wastes time and money.
Mostly visibility and impact, in this case. The change to Wayland vs. Xorg will be largely a non-issue for most people--except programmers. Of course the Wayland vs Mir thing means the change is to one or the other API (or a compatibility layer...), and determines what graphics display is in the way. In the end it probably won't make a difference. KDE vs. Gnome is right there in your face, all the time.
More to the point, this is less "I want $THING" and more "I want to write my own because this one doesn't have my name on it and doesn't showcase how much great awesome I've done!" Canonical didn't just make one fork of something; they've persisted in making their own everything, to the point that some of us are waiting for a new microkernel from Canonical with a Linux compatibility layer slowly vanishing into brand new Canonical code. It was great when they replaced sys5init with Upstart, or created a better installer than straight d-i, which was an improvement; but then they started writing their own DEs, their own display managers, their own display servers, their own DVCSes, etc. It's now a huge game of "WE MUST BE DIFFERENT! WE MUST BE US!"
Are we cool yet?
Upstart was written before systemd started; Fedora and RHEL used Upstart for a while. Newer, better has come along.
Unity was a quick response to Gnome Shell, which was available as a functional pre-release in 2009 3 months before Unity. Gnome Shell was up-and-coming and Canonical headed it off. The big move to Unity was highly politicized as "Oh no! Gnome is changing! People hate that! They will be angry at the new Gnome interface! ... Unity!!!!" It was integrated into the distribution as the primary desktop environment one release prior to integration of Gnome Shell, when Gnome Shell was already released and stable.
Mir came about well into the Wayland development cycle, citing "Wayland is coming too slowly. And we don't like it."
Bzr is the third generation of a number of unrelated pieces of software. The original Bzr, now renamed Bazaar, was a slow bloated piece of shit that didn't work right at all. The current Bzr started pretty bad, and has been improved; it was easily surpassed by Git at one point, but had caught up. There was also Mercurial and darcs, but that's not really of much import. The reason Bzr isn't more popular isn't that it's not great; it's that Git was better way before Bzr was usable.
Launchpad took forever to become open source, but that's not really a huge issue. It's sensible, but it is on their laundry list of stuff they've written that's not the same as everything that was already out there. To be fair, all other stuff out there sucks; I'd like to have Launchpad with Git integration (it'll import a Git repo by converting it to Bzr, rather than actually integrating with Git), or something like Gitlab but in Python instead of Ruby (running Ruby apps is really fucking hard; it's like the old days of wild wild Java west when nothing worked unless you were a Dark Invoker, and even then only one app per server... look up RVM and such to get an idea).
He means a total NIH mentality. Ubuntu won't use systemd because they wrote Upstart, which is functionally inferior to systemd. Ubuntu ships with Unity, which they wrote, and is functionally inferior to Gnome-Shell. Ubuntu decided Wayland is not here right now and for some reason they absolutely must move off X11 now, so rather than supplying code to Wayland they've decided to write Mir from scratch. Ubuntu uses Canonical-developed Bzr, not Git, with their own Launchpad management system developed in-house.
Petty bickering is more of Ubuntu going, "Wayland isn't coming fast enough... let's create our own instead of helping!" Waste of resources, Ubuntu.