Not to be a hater, but I recently started converting from Gentoo to Ubuntu. The reason is because on remote servers that I updated, about half the time the Gentoo servers would not come back up correctly. They'd silently (unless you were at the console) drop dead over some random configuration file that Portage screwed up, or worse.
Having used Debian for years, then Ubuntu for a short time, before switching to Gentoo, your reply just doesn't sound entirely clear or correct to me. Any distro that has packages which update the boot-time configuration will "drop dead" on you (on the next reboot at least) if the package maintainer makes a mistake in building the package. This is a quality control issue that applies to all distros, and centers on the competence of packages' maintainers.
Ubuntu has its own problems, but those problems are almost always evident at the time of software update. In other words, with Ubuntu, the package won't even install completely if it's going to hose over.
Oddly enough, this is one of the main reasons that I decided to try Gentoo, and then stayed with it, because in a software-based distro where you build the binaries yourself, you can eliminate the library mismatch/missing problem that can happen with binary distros including Debian/Ubuntu. If it *builds* on your system then you *know* it will find all its correct library dependencies because they were needed for it to compile correctly. If the build fails, then your system is still usable because the old version, of course, doesn't get replaced until the new version can be successfully compiled. As I said above, problems with malfunctioning init scripts can happen on ANY distro. Ubuntu/Debian has no inherent advantage with this issue.
Ubuntu has its own problems, but those problems are almost always evident at the time of software update. In other words, with Ubuntu, the package won't even install completely if it's going to hose over. With Gentoo, it does, and then leaves it to the user to figure it out.
I disagree with this, as it just doesn't match my experience at all. I had Debian and Ubuntu "drop dead" occasionally after an apt update, because of binaries not finding the libraries they needed (do an update to a malformed glibc deb package and watch how much stuff breaks immediately afterward! - fortunately it doesn't happen often - but it does happen, especially for those tracking Debian Sid as I did). I've also had reboot failures because of packages borking the system's configuration/boot-scripts happen on all of them too, Gentoo included. Again, I see no inherient advantage for Ubuntu here, or for that matter any binary-based distro. With Gentoo though (or any source-based distro), you at least avoid the library mismatch/missing problem.
On a home hobby system, that is almost preferable. When I have limited time and I'm remotely administering servers, it's a royal pain in the ass.
It depends on what your servers do of course, but my initial reaction to this statement was "why is he using Ubuntu or Gentoo for a server?". For servers, *especially* for remotely admin'd ones, you should be using something that is rock solid stable and doesn't *require* frequent updating, and both Ubuntu and Gentoo are not really tailored for that. In fact, a large part of Ubuntu's popularity is precisely because it is updated more often then Debian stable is, and with Gentoo, after the initial sync and build, your system doesn't even *have* a concept of being a particular "Gentoo version", as your system is the latest it can be every time you do an emerge update - and *you* decide how often that happens. Actually, from what I've read, most people using Gentoo for servers are doing this for farms of similar machines, where they build it on one machine, test it, then make an image of that working, tested build and copy it to the servers, so they never have the kind of
Joe User will not be excited about 64-bitness until
Depends on which *architecture* we're talking about. In the x86 world, going to 64 bits DOES mean more than just being able to access more memory (which AIUI is all there is to it on the other major platforms), AMD's AMD64 architecture (which Intel has basically copied as their EM64T so they would be compatible) doesn't simply extend the width of the existing registers, it DOUBLES the number of general-purpose AND math registers (from 8 of each to 16 of each), and they've done this without any significant slowdown in the system. In 64bit mode, an x86_64 CPU doesn't switch to 64 bitness by default for *everything*, it still assumes 32 bitness for some stuff (memory pointers of course have to be 64 bit, but immediate data for example remains 32 bit wide by default), and then uses a byte code prefix to an instruction to indicate it is using/referencing 64 bit wide data/registers. So a typical 64bit binary is only 15% to 25% larger than a 32bit binary (rather than the 50%+ as seen on other platforms that went from 32 to 64), and the loss in speed due to having to manage more bits is more than made up for by having more registers available to use.
So yes, if you just tell Joe User that he can access more memory, and he may just yawn, but tell him that the same applications he's using now will run *faster* (1) on the *same* (2) hardware when recompiled for 64 bit mode, and you'll probably get his full and undivided attention. Of course in the proprietary world of Windows, poor Joe will be expected to pay, possibly through the nose, to get those recompiled versions of software he already has, so it may not be worth it for him, but for Linux folk with access to the source code for most if not all of their system, switching to 64 bit mode is a no-brainer, and some of the distros out there have made it fairly painless to switch.
(1) How much faster of course depends on what the app does. For me the difference between 32 and 64 bit Linux was generally noticable but not dramatically so, but for people doing certain things, like audio/video encoding/decoding (which not only benefits from the extra general purpose registers, but is helped greatly by the extra SIMD math registers), the speed gains in 64 bit mode can be dramatic (150%-200%) on the same hardware.
(2) A lot of people who've bought a computer recently may very well have a 64 bit capable CPU under the hood, an AMD Athlon 64 or one of the EM64T-capable Intel chips, and not know it. Unlike other platforms with 32/64 variations, x86_64 CPUs can perfectly emulate a 32 bit x86 CPU, and will do so by default on power up, if not switched to 64 bit mode by a 64 bit capable OS. And unlike Intel's IA64 fiasco, x86_64 chips are not dramatically more expensive than their older cousins, and mobos for them are not significantly more expensive or complex either. The majority of mid-range and up chips being made by AMD and Intel now are 64 bit capable, even if they are not being bought for that reason or used in that capacity. While it is true that the switch from 32 to 64 will not give us quite the dramatic improvements that going from 16 to 32 gave us, it will also not be nearly as expensive or complicated as the 16->32 transition was, and I think the shift to x86_64 will happen more quickly than many people believe because of this.
What is probably most surprising is how theming affects the way people view a desktop environment.
BINGO.:) You can tell the typical trolls, AC or otherwise, by their comments about appearance. The AC you responded to made a reference to KDE having a "resemblance to the former champion from Redmond", for example. This is a dead give-away that the AC hasn't actually used KDE and is merely "stirring the pot", hoping to get a fight started. The truth is you can make KDE look, and in many ways act, like just about any other OS out there, or not at all. That's where the real difference between KDE and GNOME now lies: KDE is far more customizable than GNOME, but because of that, also more complex. It appeals to power-users, or folks who disagree with what the "majority of users" (whoever the hell they are) believe a DE should look and act like. This also means, however, that GNOME and KDE are not in direct conflict with one another any more. To use the evolution analogy they are no longer competing for the same limited resources: they have evolved to serve different "ecosystems", where the existence of one no longer implies a threat to the existence of the other. The GNOME and KDE devs eventually stopped fighting amongst themselves as this shift slowly but inexorably happened over time.
The future is not KDE vs. Gnome but both.
Yep, and I'm amused by those who are suprised that these two groups have found areas within which they can cooperate. Nature is full of examples of different species, which aren't directly competing with each other, cooperating for their own mutual benefit. Happens all the time. *Yawn*.
Oh, but the trolls want to see blood! Cooperation is boring, dammit, CONFLICT is where the FUN is! Ohhh, how disappointed they must be that this "fight" within the FOSS community ended without the buckets of spilt blood they hoped for. As a last resort they could (try to) resurrect the old RMS emacs vs. Lucid emacs bloodfeud(1), but, AHA!, luckily for them there's always the "Copyright vs. Piracy" and "Windoz SUX", flame wars to feed their lust for conflict!
(1) I thought of mentioning vim here, but I suspect there are too many youngsters on/. now that wouldn't know what I was talking about.:) (2)
(2) Then there is my own fear that the blood-letting from that particular feud will never end, as long as survivors, refugees, pagans, priests and warriors from that war still live among us. Some wounds just go too deep to be forgotten. May all the victims of that little-known Holocaust now rest in peace. AMEN.
Oil is formed from decayed organisms, of which there are a notable lack in the asteroid belt
Ever heard of methane? That building block of "natural gas" that is found throughout the universe? Ever heard of one of Saturn's moons called Titan? One *gigantic* methane gas station right in our own backyard. Now obviously we don't have the ability to "mine" Titan yet or in the foreseeable future, but there are plenty of sources of energy out there besides organically created fossil fuel, and in VAST quantities.
There are some carbonaceous asteroids up there, but not many, and those that do exist have a small proportion of organic materials
First, stop thinking about fossil fuel, and start thinking about the basic *components* of fossil fuel, aka hydrocarbons. Those are available for the taking, its only a question of the economics of getting there, processing the asteroid ore for the stuff we want, and getting it back to Earth. Second, you may want to read this and othersimilararticles, before you start implying that most asteroids are worthless lumps of dirt. Note: Around 30-40% of those "asteroids" are actually "orbit-captured" comets. Comets have more "volatiles", the lighter elements that can be used for fuel, then even God apparently knew what to do with, which may be why he just left them scattered all over creation.:) Also, even the homogeneous asteroids from our own system will have volatiles of their own embedded within them, just not as much as a comet.
And even if there were huge sources of energy-rich material up there, the costs involved in getting to it, mining it, and getting it back to earth would be... astronomical, if you'll pardon the pun.
But would still end up being worthwhile if your return-on-investment was astronomical too, if you'll pardon *my* pun.:)
Seriously, just google "asteroid mining" and start reading. There is a reason there is so much interest in the idea of getting at the Near Earth Asteroids. Perhaps one reason is that one of them, which is metal rich, is estimated to be worth 30 trillion USD (2001 dollar value). Yes, I said TRILLION, not billion, but this assumes, of course, that you sell it slowly over time, not all at once!. As for all that methane on Titan....
100% pure pie-in-the-sky. We have no way of GETTING anywhere else in the galaxy in anything like a reasonable amount of time.
Let me guess, you're not much of a Star Trek fan are you?:) I don't believe the OP was talking about the immediate future on this... Time, and humanity's relentless pursuit of knowledge, tends to often make the "impossible" merely "difficult" 4 or 5 decades later, and then "routine" in another century.
I mean they said the same thing about trans-Atlantic travel before the age of the iron-hulled, steam-driven ships. They said the same thing about trans-Continental travel before the locomotive and auto. The airplane then came along and made all that had come before out to be mere slugs. Then they said the same about the sound speed barrier before Yeager and the X1. Finally it was ditto with a Moon landing before the Apollo missions, and here you are saying the exact same thing about the next great leap humanity will take. No surprise here, its always been the pessimists that provided the prime motivation for humanity's optimists.:) My response: if humanity doesn't manage to kill itself off in the next century, then my bet is on humanity taking this next step in 2 or 3 centuries. Besides, what is a "reasonable amount of time" to pilgrims leaving Earth forever fo
Yes it is. Music is now in a digital format that is "good enough" for 99% of music listeners... and music in digital format is just data that can be copied and archived and passed around at no cost. I have absolutely no need to repurchase the music I have now in ogg format on my hard drive, because the quality is already beyond what my ears can discern. There will be no more format transitions in the future as the ones you referred to, its all digital now, and the storage medium no longer matters (except to the RIAA).
The reason we're in so much trouble currently is that a faction within the Republican party has hijacked its agenda.
This is the only thing in your post I agree with.
What a lot of this "they're all the same" mantra sounds to me like is Republican apologists desparately trying to prevent the public from taking their anger out on the Republican party for Bush Jr. The problem of course is that it is the Reps who put an unqualified man on their ticket, and did absolutely no oversight on his admin after getting in office, and then defending him as his incomptentence and arrogance gets Americans killed and puts the Constitution in danger. So you're trying to hide the scary truth from people by repeating this mantra over and over, aka the Big Lie:
This really isn't Republican vs Democrat, left vs right, donkey vs elephant, yadda yadda yadda.
Before the Religious Right takeover of the Rep party, I would have agreed with you and the others that the Dems and Reps acted similarly, but not any more. Now your vote between Dem and Rep DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, at least until such time as classical conservatives can retake their party.
Sorry, but this Big Lie mantra isn't going to work anymore, just as many of Rove's other Big Lie mantras are starting to wear real thin on an increasingly cynical population, especially given the fact that Bush Jr. is going to inflict a lot more damage on our country in the 2.5 years he has left, and the Reps as you say, won't stop him.
The fear for nuclear power has nothing to do with reason, so no amount of reason is going to change it.
A millenia ago our ancestors cowered in caves during thunderstorms, believing lightening to be the act of spirits who were angry with them for some reason. We've come a long way since then. Ignorance is emminently fixable.
It still doesn't help. Alito's dissent ignores the "real-world" problems of spousal notification demonstrated to the court in testimony, that the court's majority goes into in detail above your link. Perhaps you would help yourself understand the other side by reading that court opinion from the top.
Alito completely ignores the real-world situations this law would create, and goes to on to oppose it based on legal technicalities, and a deliberate reading of Justice OConner's previous work very differently from how the majority in this case (2 other judges) read it (see their response to Alito's dissent in the earlier section).
To me, deliberately ignoring the real-world consequences of your actions is the mark of a fundamentalist. Alito apparently his no more use for the "reality-based community" than Bush Jr. does.
It was to bring Iraq withdrawal to official debate.
Correction: It was to bring immediate and unconditional Iraq withdrawal to official debate.
The difference between "immediate" and "phased" withdrawal was the obvious point of contention that is completely lost on you apparently. So the Repugs "silenced" Murtha by introducing a resolution for immediate, unconditional withdrawal in Murtha's name that Murtha himself never advocated or favored. Of course Murtha voted against it, it was never his plan. Yet another obvious lie by the Repugs, and here you are, Mr Chipmonk, defending it. Your/. handle, it seems, is most appropiate. You'll eat anything that Fox News spoon-feeds you...
PS: Be very carefull in your attempt to SwiftBoat John Murtha. Murtha was a career Marine, and a Marine to the *bone*, hell he was a DI for Heaven's sakes, and the Corps doesn't just let *anybody* become a DI in their outfit. There are a *LOT* of vets out there that know there is a world of difference between John Murtha and John Kerry once you get past their first name, so be advised that you fuck with John Murtha at your own mortal peril, you twit.
All of that money cycles back through the global economy, so yes, eventually it's all returned.
But returned to *whom* is the relevent question. Do I believe that my tax money was well spent on no-bid contracts for Haliburton in Iraq? Hell no.
Now that I'm witnessing the worst excessess of a *Republican* Administration (which followed a Dem Admin that actually did cut spending) after listening to them talk endlessly about fiscal responsibility, I'm beginning to become a big fan of the classical conservative theory of "Starving the Beast", since the Beast always appears voracious no matter who is in office. What's good for the Goose...
PS: if you think all of the 8 billion per month we are spending for, *and in*, Iraq will come back to us eventually, I've got some prime, valuable real estate with a gorgeous view of the Mississippi River in New Orleans I'd like to sell you...
I really don't understand why the USA stops felons from voting
Its an outgrowth of the "War on Crime" and the Punishment/Vengence mentality currently in vogue (even though we know the harsher you make the prisons, the more dangerous the prisoners are to society once released).
We Americans love our wars apparently, War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Poverty. You and I know that these "wars" can never be "won", but it sounds good in 7 second sound bites, and a lot of naive people here go for it, so the "war" rhetoric continues to be used. To the simple-minded, or the naive who want to remain willfully ignorant, its impossible to explain to them why the War on Drugs is actually hurting the War on Crime, for example. Like non-violent drug offenders taking up space in prisons that should be reserved for the most violent and dangerous criminals.
Only in America (which has a higher percentage of its population incarcerated then the USSR at its end) are there non-violent drug-related offences that get mandatory prison sentences that are longer than the sentences for many *violent* crimes. Oh, and when we let them out, we won't let them vote either. That last little act of meaningless vengence will certainly turn those hard core criminals right around and get them to straighten up their lives. Yea, right.
This is what happens when you conduct your political discourse via 30-second TV commercials, where facts are optional, and calm rational thought is recognized as a weakness.
When our democracy finally dies, I hope the rest of the world will at least remember that we Americans *started out* with the best of intentions. Sigh.
That's kinda the point. Bush used the same justification that Clinton used to authorize that warrent.
No, the point is that what the Clinton Admin did at the time (the physical search) was not prohibited by FISA law at that time. The Clinton administration latter supported an amendment to FISA that added physical searches to the FISA controls. Once that change was made, the Clinton Admin didn't authorize physical searches without court approval. The Clinton Admin never deliberately violated the FISA law, Bush did and is continuing to do so and he says he can do so "legally". If a President can "legally" ignore the FISA law, then he can "legally" ignore ANY LAW HE WANTS TO, which is clearly not supported anywhere in our Constitution. Yea, that document, you know the one I'm talking about, the one Bush says is just "a piece of paper".
It isn't supposed to in a literal sense. You can't both possess and consume an item since by consuming it you lose possession, but guess what the "meaning" of the cliche is? It is to say that what you want is impossible, and simultaneously possessing and consuming something is... impossible.
XGL will be a client to OpenGL and will do ALL of its work in 3D. OpenGL can be used for *both* 3D and 2D. Just think of 2D as 3D with one dimension fixed, i.e. an x, y, and z where z is always 0. That's why the summary mentions that the advanced 3D cores on today's video cards can do everything that 2D does and usually do it faster. The 3D pipelines on today's cards are now much more powerful than the circuitry set aside for 2D.
not just as simple as pulling America out of Iraq and ceasing all support for Israel.
I never said ceasing support for Israel, but pushing both sides back to the peace table, and doing anything to facilitate peace, like loans/investments for civilian development in Palestine, especially Gaza, as well as help to Israel.
As for Iraq, I just disagree. Whether we're there for another month or 10 years, our kids will continue dying, and the moment we pull out, whether next month or 10 years from now, Iraq will simply implode. It was an artificial creation of British and French colonial powers, who drew arbitrary lines on the map without any thought to the different tribes and religions they were bisecting. Like Vietnam, our presence can't secure a victory, only hold off the inevitable end-game, which is either civil war or a radical Islamic state.
And make no mistake, there will be no peace there whether with our without America involved.
On the contrary, I believe the mistake is assuming no peace is possible. Don't let the religious rhetoric of the last 20 years fool you, that conflict is all about LAND. That the religious extremists are the ones yelling the loudest right now is only an indication how unresolved conflicts can appear to morph into something much bigger if allowed to fester. Polls in Palestine show that most of them are willing to give up their "jihad" in exchange for their land back and their own state, and polls in Israel show that most are ready and willing to trade land for peace. The solution is there, but first you have to clear away the religious extremism (on ALL sides) to see it. I'm not saying it will be easy but it can be done, because just as many Palestinians want peace as Israelis.
even if we did do the above, we and the world would still be a target for the current extreme Islamic leaders and nations.
If "extreme Islamic leaders" == "terrorists" then yes. Once created, these folks can only really be dealt with by killing them. However, in terms of nations and religious leaders not participating in terrorism, then I disagree. Iran has the most extremist Islamic government, but this extremism is not shared by its people. For the same reasons I predicted Iraq would turn into another Vietnam when we invaded, I (and many others, BTW - including Iranians) believe the "problem" in Iran will be solved shortly by the Iranians themselves. The hardliners in Iran are all old men now, and out of touch with a very young Iranian population; in less than a generation they'll all be dead, and when they die so to does Iran's Islamic extremist government. Iran's young people have clearly showed they are not interested in continuing along the path the old leaders chose to follow.
PS: The issue of Iran and nukes is not as straightforward as Bush wants you to think. In actuality, having a nuclear capability is the one thing most Iranians DO agree with. For them this isn't about terrorism (or using their nukes in an aggressive way), its about national pride, and anger that they can't join the artificially created "nuclear club" because the didn't get there "quickly enough". Same issue as in Pakistan and India. There are now 4 nations outside of the NNPT who have nukes, Iran is just one of a half dozen who are a year or less away (its an open secret that Brazil could have nukes in ~3 months, they've just held off taking the last few steps, but could rapidly do so at any time). Bottom line is nuclear non-proliferation has simply failed, there are still hotspots in the world where nuclear weapons would be sought after no matter what because of the local situation (Korean peninsula, India-Pakistan-China). Besides, I think North Korea would be more likely to actually use their nukes, or sell them, than Iran would. NK's current enemy, South Korea, doesn't have nukes, but everyone knows Iran's enemy, Israel, does (several hundred, with the missiles
Is this being done only on color printers, do you know? Are B&W lasers still safe? Might be kinda important to know before I send my rather long Manifesto to the NYT along with my first threat....
Oh, I get it, *redundant* bits. Whenever the FCC's software discovers an unset regulation bit, the parity flag is moved to the evil bit to indicate an error condition. Ok, I got it now.
They may have been spying, but if their target was a US citizen they could do very little with the information (to use the info against the person in court would require revealing how they got it) until King George made it legal to spy on US citizens without judicial approval. Of course at this point I wouldn't be surprised if King George has authorized the CIA to "disappear" Americans too. That's probably next.
I'm not sure if I understand you. With "trusted computing", your computer is only trusted if its running (proprietary) Windows, so for everyone wanting to use Linux/BSD this is far worse than having to pay for Windows when you buy your machine even if you never use it. If Microsoft's idea of TC were mandated, it would make all open source operating systems unusable, never mind the issue of open source applications on Windows.
Does anyone know the best video card with usable Free drivers?
For 3D hardware acceleration, the answer is *no one*. Contrary to popular belief, the 3D acceleration component of ATI's cards has never been "Free", i.e. no internal specs or driver source code on their 3D hardware engine, just as with Nvidia. *No* company with competitive 3D acceleration hardware has opened up their specs. For 2D there are older cards, some from Matrox, that have their specs open, but they're really open only because they're so old and obsolete (no 3D).
Until the graphics market ends up defining some standard interface to a video card's features, and the technology race stabilizes enough to allow the card makers to put most of the driver intelligence on the card rather than in a software-based driver, I don't see any opening up of the video cards in the near future. Too much of their card's hardware internals can be seen from the driver source, and they don't want their competitors to see that.
Slashdot Mirror
Having used Debian for years, then Ubuntu for a short time, before switching to Gentoo, your reply just doesn't sound entirely clear or correct to me. Any distro that has packages which update the boot-time configuration will "drop dead" on you (on the next reboot at least) if the package maintainer makes a mistake in building the package. This is a quality control issue that applies to all distros, and centers on the competence of packages' maintainers.
Oddly enough, this is one of the main reasons that I decided to try Gentoo, and then stayed with it, because in a software-based distro where you build the binaries yourself, you can eliminate the library mismatch/missing problem that can happen with binary distros including Debian/Ubuntu. If it *builds* on your system then you *know* it will find all its correct library dependencies because they were needed for it to compile correctly. If the build fails, then your system is still usable because the old version, of course, doesn't get replaced until the new version can be successfully compiled. As I said above, problems with malfunctioning init scripts can happen on ANY distro. Ubuntu/Debian has no inherent advantage with this issue.
I disagree with this, as it just doesn't match my experience at all. I had Debian and Ubuntu "drop dead" occasionally after an apt update, because of binaries not finding the libraries they needed (do an update to a malformed glibc deb package and watch how much stuff breaks immediately afterward! - fortunately it doesn't happen often - but it does happen, especially for those tracking Debian Sid as I did). I've also had reboot failures because of packages borking the system's configuration/boot-scripts happen on all of them too, Gentoo included. Again, I see no inherient advantage for Ubuntu here, or for that matter any binary-based distro. With Gentoo though (or any source-based distro), you at least avoid the library mismatch/missing problem.
It depends on what your servers do of course, but my initial reaction to this statement was "why is he using Ubuntu or Gentoo for a server?". For servers, *especially* for remotely admin'd ones, you should be using something that is rock solid stable and doesn't *require* frequent updating, and both Ubuntu and Gentoo are not really tailored for that. In fact, a large part of Ubuntu's popularity is precisely because it is updated more often then Debian stable is, and with Gentoo, after the initial sync and build, your system doesn't even *have* a concept of being a particular "Gentoo version", as your system is the latest it can be every time you do an emerge update - and *you* decide how often that happens. Actually, from what I've read, most people using Gentoo for servers are doing this for farms of similar machines, where they build it on one machine, test it, then make an image of that working, tested build and copy it to the servers, so they never have the kind of
Depends on which *architecture* we're talking about. In the x86 world, going to 64 bits DOES mean more than just being able to access more memory (which AIUI is all there is to it on the other major platforms), AMD's AMD64 architecture (which Intel has basically copied as their EM64T so they would be compatible) doesn't simply extend the width of the existing registers, it DOUBLES the number of general-purpose AND math registers (from 8 of each to 16 of each), and they've done this without any significant slowdown in the system. In 64bit mode, an x86_64 CPU doesn't switch to 64 bitness by default for *everything*, it still assumes 32 bitness for some stuff (memory pointers of course have to be 64 bit, but immediate data for example remains 32 bit wide by default), and then uses a byte code prefix to an instruction to indicate it is using/referencing 64 bit wide data/registers. So a typical 64bit binary is only 15% to 25% larger than a 32bit binary (rather than the 50%+ as seen on other platforms that went from 32 to 64), and the loss in speed due to having to manage more bits is more than made up for by having more registers available to use.
So yes, if you just tell Joe User that he can access more memory, and he may just yawn, but tell him that the same applications he's using now will run *faster* (1) on the *same* (2) hardware when recompiled for 64 bit mode, and you'll probably get his full and undivided attention. Of course in the proprietary world of Windows, poor Joe will be expected to pay, possibly through the nose, to get those recompiled versions of software he already has, so it may not be worth it for him, but for Linux folk with access to the source code for most if not all of their system, switching to 64 bit mode is a no-brainer, and some of the distros out there have made it fairly painless to switch.
(1) How much faster of course depends on what the app does. For me the difference between 32 and 64 bit Linux was generally noticable but not dramatically so, but for people doing certain things, like audio/video encoding/decoding (which not only benefits from the extra general purpose registers, but is helped greatly by the extra SIMD math registers), the speed gains in 64 bit mode can be dramatic (150%-200%) on the same hardware.
(2) A lot of people who've bought a computer recently may very well have a 64 bit capable CPU under the hood, an AMD Athlon 64 or one of the EM64T-capable Intel chips, and not know it. Unlike other platforms with 32/64 variations, x86_64 CPUs can perfectly emulate a 32 bit x86 CPU, and will do so by default on power up, if not switched to 64 bit mode by a 64 bit capable OS. And unlike Intel's IA64 fiasco, x86_64 chips are not dramatically more expensive than their older cousins, and mobos for them are not significantly more expensive or complex either. The majority of mid-range and up chips being made by AMD and Intel now are 64 bit capable, even if they are not being bought for that reason or used in that capacity. While it is true that the switch from 32 to 64 will not give us quite the dramatic improvements that going from 16 to 32 gave us, it will also not be nearly as expensive or complicated as the 16->32 transition was, and I think the shift to x86_64 will happen more quickly than many people believe because of this.
BINGO.
Yep, and I'm amused by those who are suprised that these two groups have found areas within which they can cooperate. Nature is full of examples of different species, which aren't directly competing with each other, cooperating for their own mutual benefit. Happens all the time. *Yawn*.
Oh, but the trolls want to see blood! Cooperation is boring, dammit, CONFLICT is where the FUN is! Ohhh, how disappointed they must be that this "fight" within the FOSS community ended without the buckets of spilt blood they hoped for. As a last resort they could (try to) resurrect the old RMS emacs vs. Lucid emacs bloodfeud(1), but, AHA!, luckily for them there's always the "Copyright vs. Piracy" and "Windoz SUX", flame wars to feed their lust for conflict!
(1) I thought of mentioning vim here, but I suspect there are too many youngsters on
(2) Then there is my own fear that the blood-letting from that particular feud will never end, as long as survivors, refugees, pagans, priests and warriors from that war still live among us. Some wounds just go too deep to be forgotten. May all the victims of that little-known Holocaust now rest in peace. AMEN.
Ever heard of methane? That building block of "natural gas" that is found throughout the universe? Ever heard of one of Saturn's moons called Titan? One *gigantic* methane gas station right in our own backyard. Now obviously we don't have the ability to "mine" Titan yet or in the foreseeable future, but there are plenty of sources of energy out there besides organically created fossil fuel, and in VAST quantities.
First, stop thinking about fossil fuel, and start thinking about the basic *components* of fossil fuel, aka hydrocarbons. Those are available for the taking, its only a question of the economics of getting there, processing the asteroid ore for the stuff we want, and getting it back to Earth. Second, you may want to read this and other similar articles, before you start implying that most asteroids are worthless lumps of dirt. Note: Around 30-40% of those "asteroids" are actually "orbit-captured" comets. Comets have more "volatiles", the lighter elements that can be used for fuel, then even God apparently knew what to do with, which may be why he just left them scattered all over creation. :) Also, even the homogeneous asteroids from our own system will have volatiles of their own embedded within them, just not as much as a comet.
But would still end up being worthwhile if your return-on-investment was astronomical too, if you'll pardon *my* pun. :)
Seriously, just google "asteroid mining" and start reading. There is a reason there is so much interest in the idea of getting at the Near Earth Asteroids. Perhaps one reason is that one of them, which is metal rich, is estimated to be worth 30 trillion USD (2001 dollar value). Yes, I said TRILLION, not billion, but this assumes, of course, that you sell it slowly over time, not all at once!. As for all that methane on Titan....
Let me guess, you're not much of a Star Trek fan are you? :) I don't believe the OP was talking about the immediate future on this... Time, and humanity's relentless pursuit of knowledge, tends to often make the "impossible" merely "difficult" 4 or 5 decades later, and then "routine" in another century.
:) My response: if humanity doesn't manage to kill itself off in the next century, then my bet is on humanity taking this next step in 2 or 3 centuries. Besides, what is a "reasonable amount of time" to pilgrims leaving Earth forever fo
I mean they said the same thing about trans-Atlantic travel before the age of the iron-hulled, steam-driven ships. They said the same thing about trans-Continental travel before the locomotive and auto. The airplane then came along and made all that had come before out to be mere slugs. Then they said the same about the sound speed barrier before Yeager and the X1. Finally it was ditto with a Moon landing before the Apollo missions, and here you are saying the exact same thing about the next great leap humanity will take. No surprise here, its always been the pessimists that provided the prime motivation for humanity's optimists.
Holy Water is known to accomplish the same thing....
:)
Sorry, can't help myself. Some games, once you've played them, you can simply never get out of your mind afterwords (NetHack in this case).
Yes it is. Music is now in a digital format that is "good enough" for 99% of music listeners... and music in digital format is just data that can be copied and archived and passed around at no cost. I have absolutely no need to repurchase the music I have now in ogg format on my hard drive, because the quality is already beyond what my ears can discern. There will be no more format transitions in the future as the ones you referred to, its all digital now, and the storage medium no longer matters (except to the RIAA).
+1, Funny (Sorry, virtual mod points are all that I have available atm)
Oh come on you Congressional critter lovers, this was funny! Really!
This is the only thing in your post I agree with.
What a lot of this "they're all the same" mantra sounds to me like is Republican apologists desparately trying to prevent the public from taking their anger out on the Republican party for Bush Jr. The problem of course is that it is the Reps who put an unqualified man on their ticket, and did absolutely no oversight on his admin after getting in office, and then defending him as his incomptentence and arrogance gets Americans killed and puts the Constitution in danger. So you're trying to hide the scary truth from people by repeating this mantra over and over, aka the Big Lie:
Before the Religious Right takeover of the Rep party, I would have agreed with you and the others that the Dems and Reps acted similarly, but not any more. Now your vote between Dem and Rep DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, at least until such time as classical conservatives can retake their party.
Sorry, but this Big Lie mantra isn't going to work anymore, just as many of Rove's other Big Lie mantras are starting to wear real thin on an increasingly cynical population, especially given the fact that Bush Jr. is going to inflict a lot more damage on our country in the 2.5 years he has left, and the Reps as you say, won't stop him.
A millenia ago our ancestors cowered in caves during thunderstorms, believing lightening to be the act of spirits who were angry with them for some reason. We've come a long way since then. Ignorance is emminently fixable.
It still doesn't help. Alito's dissent ignores the "real-world" problems of spousal notification demonstrated to the court in testimony, that the court's majority goes into in detail above your link. Perhaps you would help yourself understand the other side by reading that court opinion from the top.
Alito completely ignores the real-world situations this law would create, and goes to on to oppose it based on legal technicalities, and a deliberate reading of Justice OConner's previous work very differently from how the majority in this case (2 other judges) read it (see their response to Alito's dissent in the earlier section).
To me, deliberately ignoring the real-world consequences of your actions is the mark of a fundamentalist. Alito apparently his no more use for the "reality-based community" than Bush Jr. does.
Correction: It was to bring immediate and unconditional Iraq withdrawal to official debate.
The difference between "immediate" and "phased" withdrawal was the obvious point of contention that is completely lost on you apparently. So the Repugs "silenced" Murtha by introducing a resolution for immediate, unconditional withdrawal in Murtha's name that Murtha himself never advocated or favored. Of course Murtha voted against it, it was never his plan. Yet another obvious lie by the Repugs, and here you are, Mr Chipmonk, defending it. Your
PS: Be very carefull in your attempt to SwiftBoat John Murtha. Murtha was a career Marine, and a Marine to the *bone*, hell he was a DI for Heaven's sakes, and the Corps doesn't just let *anybody* become a DI in their outfit. There are a *LOT* of vets out there that know there is a world of difference between John Murtha and John Kerry once you get past their first name, so be advised that you fuck with John Murtha at your own mortal peril, you twit.
But returned to *whom* is the relevent question. Do I believe that my tax money was well spent on no-bid contracts for Haliburton in Iraq? Hell no.
Now that I'm witnessing the worst excessess of a *Republican* Administration (which followed a Dem Admin that actually did cut spending) after listening to them talk endlessly about fiscal responsibility, I'm beginning to become a big fan of the classical conservative theory of "Starving the Beast", since the Beast always appears voracious no matter who is in office. What's good for the Goose...
PS: if you think all of the 8 billion per month we are spending for, *and in*, Iraq will come back to us eventually, I've got some prime, valuable real estate with a gorgeous view of the Mississippi River in New Orleans I'd like to sell you...
Its an outgrowth of the "War on Crime" and the Punishment/Vengence mentality currently in vogue (even though we know the harsher you make the prisons, the more dangerous the prisoners are to society once released).
We Americans love our wars apparently, War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Poverty. You and I know that these "wars" can never be "won", but it sounds good in 7 second sound bites, and a lot of naive people here go for it, so the "war" rhetoric continues to be used. To the simple-minded, or the naive who want to remain willfully ignorant, its impossible to explain to them why the War on Drugs is actually hurting the War on Crime, for example. Like non-violent drug offenders taking up space in prisons that should be reserved for the most violent and dangerous criminals.
Only in America (which has a higher percentage of its population incarcerated then the USSR at its end) are there non-violent drug-related offences that get mandatory prison sentences that are longer than the sentences for many *violent* crimes. Oh, and when we let them out, we won't let them vote either. That last little act of meaningless vengence will certainly turn those hard core criminals right around and get them to straighten up their lives. Yea, right.
This is what happens when you conduct your political discourse via 30-second TV commercials, where facts are optional, and calm rational thought is recognized as a weakness.
When our democracy finally dies, I hope the rest of the world will at least remember that we Americans *started out* with the best of intentions. Sigh.
Well, I'd ask Joe Biden, but he hasn't finished his Alito hearing speech yet....
No, the point is that what the Clinton Admin did at the time (the physical search) was not prohibited by FISA law at that time. The Clinton administration latter supported an amendment to FISA that added physical searches to the FISA controls. Once that change was made, the Clinton Admin didn't authorize physical searches without court approval. The Clinton Admin never deliberately violated the FISA law, Bush did and is continuing to do so and he says he can do so "legally". If a President can "legally" ignore the FISA law, then he can "legally" ignore ANY LAW HE WANTS TO, which is clearly not supported anywhere in our Constitution. Yea, that document, you know the one I'm talking about, the one Bush says is just "a piece of paper".
It isn't supposed to in a literal sense. You can't both possess and consume an item since by consuming it you lose possession, but guess what the "meaning" of the cliche is? It is to say that what you want is impossible, and simultaneously possessing and consuming something is... impossible.
No, No, there's no "think" in there, and you forgot "Jim".
XGL will be a client to OpenGL and will do ALL of its work in 3D. OpenGL can be used for *both* 3D and 2D. Just think of 2D as 3D with one dimension fixed, i.e. an x, y, and z where z is always 0. That's why the summary mentions that the advanced 3D cores on today's video cards can do everything that 2D does and usually do it faster. The 3D pipelines on today's cards are now much more powerful than the circuitry set aside for 2D.
I never said ceasing support for Israel, but pushing both sides back to the peace table, and doing anything to facilitate peace, like loans/investments for civilian development in Palestine, especially Gaza, as well as help to Israel.
As for Iraq, I just disagree. Whether we're there for another month or 10 years, our kids will continue dying, and the moment we pull out, whether next month or 10 years from now, Iraq will simply implode. It was an artificial creation of British and French colonial powers, who drew arbitrary lines on the map without any thought to the different tribes and religions they were bisecting. Like Vietnam, our presence can't secure a victory, only hold off the inevitable end-game, which is either civil war or a radical Islamic state.
On the contrary, I believe the mistake is assuming no peace is possible. Don't let the religious rhetoric of the last 20 years fool you, that conflict is all about LAND. That the religious extremists are the ones yelling the loudest right now is only an indication how unresolved conflicts can appear to morph into something much bigger if allowed to fester. Polls in Palestine show that most of them are willing to give up their "jihad" in exchange for their land back and their own state, and polls in Israel show that most are ready and willing to trade land for peace. The solution is there, but first you have to clear away the religious extremism (on ALL sides) to see it. I'm not saying it will be easy but it can be done, because just as many Palestinians want peace as Israelis.
If "extreme Islamic leaders" == "terrorists" then yes. Once created, these folks can only really be dealt with by killing them. However, in terms of nations and religious leaders not participating in terrorism, then I disagree. Iran has the most extremist Islamic government, but this extremism is not shared by its people. For the same reasons I predicted Iraq would turn into another Vietnam when we invaded, I (and many others, BTW - including Iranians) believe the "problem" in Iran will be solved shortly by the Iranians themselves. The hardliners in Iran are all old men now, and out of touch with a very young Iranian population; in less than a generation they'll all be dead, and when they die so to does Iran's Islamic extremist government. Iran's young people have clearly showed they are not interested in continuing along the path the old leaders chose to follow.
PS: The issue of Iran and nukes is not as straightforward as Bush wants you to think. In actuality, having a nuclear capability is the one thing most Iranians DO agree with. For them this isn't about terrorism (or using their nukes in an aggressive way), its about national pride, and anger that they can't join the artificially created "nuclear club" because the didn't get there "quickly enough". Same issue as in Pakistan and India. There are now 4 nations outside of the NNPT who have nukes, Iran is just one of a half dozen who are a year or less away (its an open secret that Brazil could have nukes in ~3 months, they've just held off taking the last few steps, but could rapidly do so at any time). Bottom line is nuclear non-proliferation has simply failed, there are still hotspots in the world where nuclear weapons would be sought after no matter what because of the local situation (Korean peninsula, India-Pakistan-China). Besides, I think North Korea would be more likely to actually use their nukes, or sell them, than Iran would. NK's current enemy, South Korea, doesn't have nukes, but everyone knows Iran's enemy, Israel, does (several hundred, with the missiles
Is this being done only on color printers, do you know? Are B&W lasers still safe? Might be kinda important to know before I send my rather long Manifesto to the NYT along with my first threat....
Oh, I get it, *redundant* bits. Whenever the FCC's software discovers an unset regulation bit, the parity flag is moved to the evil bit to indicate an error condition. Ok, I got it now.
They may have been spying, but if their target was a US citizen they could do very little with the information (to use the info against the person in court would require revealing how they got it) until King George made it legal to spy on US citizens without judicial approval. Of course at this point I wouldn't be surprised if King George has authorized the CIA to "disappear" Americans too. That's probably next.
I'm not sure if I understand you. With "trusted computing", your computer is only trusted if its running (proprietary) Windows, so for everyone wanting to use Linux/BSD this is far worse than having to pay for Windows when you buy your machine even if you never use it. If Microsoft's idea of TC were mandated, it would make all open source operating systems unusable, never mind the issue of open source applications on Windows.
For 3D hardware acceleration, the answer is *no one*. Contrary to popular belief, the 3D acceleration component of ATI's cards has never been "Free", i.e. no internal specs or driver source code on their 3D hardware engine, just as with Nvidia. *No* company with competitive 3D acceleration hardware has opened up their specs. For 2D there are older cards, some from Matrox, that have their specs open, but they're really open only because they're so old and obsolete (no 3D).
Until the graphics market ends up defining some standard interface to a video card's features, and the technology race stabilizes enough to allow the card makers to put most of the driver intelligence on the card rather than in a software-based driver, I don't see any opening up of the video cards in the near future. Too much of their card's hardware internals can be seen from the driver source, and they don't want their competitors to see that.