For one thing, we need a lot more transport capacity: more tonnage per trip
We already *have* a lot of tonnage in the Shuttle design. It's got a hefty payload. The problem is that the expense of that thing is usually not worth it. The Shuttle is rarely used to it's full cargo capacity, and that means it's always a waste of money to use. What we need is something who's cost to operate scales with the size of the payload - so small things are cheap to launch, and it doesn't get expensive until you launch something big.
I am not a cell phone expert. I have no idea if the feature is common. My model is a Motorola 120t. It's not very featurefull at all. Pretty bare-bones actually.
And I do find it pretty stupid to pay for a ring tone when the phone has the capacity to handle MP3's you download to it.
And the original poster merely chalked it up to stupidity, which was the point. It wasn't stupidity. It was pretend stupidity to try to get out of trouble. Don't be an asshole unless you're willing to admit who you are.
Then I jabbed about vi being better in the long run.
Yeah, but..."in the long run" is precisely what I was talking about. (And yes, vi is better) "Ease of use" MEANS "in the long run". (If you use something for a year, the majority of the time you are using it you have already passed the learning stage, even if it's something that was hard to learn (like vi) and took the first month of that year to get it right.) I'm just really sick and tired of this notion people have that the only thing that matters when you say "ease of use" is the first few weeks of exposure. They ignore the fact that making something easy to learn at first and making it easy to get stuff done with later are often at odds with each other. And it irks me a lot specifically because that attitude is responsible for a lot of the bad tools we have to put up with today.
Walking out the front door with display items because they "couldn't find the cash register" stupid.
That sounds suspiciously like a faked excuse. "Uhhh. no - Me no trying steal thing. Me no smart. Me sorry. Me not knowing where money place to buy thing. Please no press charges on me for shoplifting."
If that's all you wanted, you wouldn't need it to play music. Just lots of different sounding tones are enough, like "beep beep beep" versus "warble warble" versus "Beep Bop Beep Bop" versus "buzz buzz", and so on. The pretentiousness kicks in when it's "the 1812 Overture" versus "Bethoven's Fifth" versus "The Monty Python lumberjack song." The ring tone, if you are changing it for the sake of sounding unique, should communicate its instinctiveness immediately, within the first few notes. Waiting several measures shouldn't be needed.)
My cellphone has a way to just type in the notes by hand (for example: 2c4f5c1a1b1e, or something like that to mean this note, this long, in this octave, then this note, this long, in this octave, etc" (I don't remember the exact code scheme). All I do is enter gibberish that fits the syntax, without even thinking about what it will sound like. Then, I listen to it. It sounds like crap, but I know unmistakably that it's mine, and it serves it's function, and I don't feel tempted to wait to hear out the whole song.)
Software can be designed such that the GPL'ed part is independant and very modularly separated from the rest of the system and thus the allegedly viral license doesn't affect the rest of the system. Basically, if it's packaged in such a way that the end user is unable to pick out the GPL parts from the rest of it, then you've got to GPL your part too. But if the GPL code is a seperately runnable executable you call from a script (for example), that doesn't infect the rest of the programs. And, in the cases where the GPL code was *meant* to be used as a generic set of callable libraries, it's typically packaged under LGPL rather than GPL and you can call the functions all day long to your heart's content (like with glibc).
Why isn't there a moderation for "-1, unfunny pun"?
(In this case, it was funny. But a lot of puns really aren't. I'm not sure what the dividing line is between them. Some puns sound really funny and others just sound like "someone, Please please please laugh at my joke, I begging you.")
A "+5 funny" is not part of the post. It changes and so there is no reason for someone to assume it was there when you wrote your reply, and it might not even be there anymore by the time someone responds.
In one case you have a rover with one IMU that works for half of the EDL sequence, and a second that works for the other half.
That's a problem that has nothing to do with being a systematic failure in the design, but is instead a non-systematic glitch (otherwise it would be the same exact failure in the same exact place in both rovers). You claimed you were talking about sytematic failures, not random ones.
In one case, you have one rover with two of the devices, and in the other you have two rovers with one device each. In both cases, in order for a failure of the device to cause the end of the mission, you have to have BOTH instances of the device failing. So long as one works, the mission can continue using a single rover. The difference is in what happens when *BOTH* work - in one case your mission continues with one single rover, and in the other it continues with two.
Which, since it already was present in the unix world, fits under my claim that Directory services solves a problem unix doesn't have. (It already had NIS.)
Next you'll be telling me that Unix is defficient at showing you what's running on the system, and that's why they had to create the 'ps' program.
Damn. Tar is really showing it's age now. I can't think of any reason not to just make a new archive when you want to change one of the files in it, as opposed to appending the newer copy of it to the end of the archive. That seems to be a throwback to the days when the "t" in "tar" actually meant what it said and you were using it on tape drives.
count number of pages that I have come across with the wrong content-type on one hand.
I know of *LOTS* and *LOTS* that don't have an incorrect content-type, but do have an insufficiently precise content-type. ("Yeah, so this link is for a file of binary data. Thanks, that was really useful, Mr. web site maker. Oh, hey, the file ends in.doc - I wonder if it's a Ms Word document - well, that's a guess but it's a better guess than just "some kind of binary file", which, while true, isn't particularly useful.)
But that's just it - I'm not talking about someone who would be the type to "live" in any app.
I understood that. It makes perfect sense. My objection was to your labelling of Windows' strength as ease of use when it's actually ease of learning. I object to this because it steals the thunder from what Linux is actually GOOD at, which is the situation where ease of use is more important than ease of learning.
I've found that a linux boot floppy is a great windows diagnostic JUST for the purpose of identifying the hardware in the machine. Windows is often very obstinate about not even telling you the little bit it *can* discover about hardware if that hardware has no driver or the driver is broken. That's really, really annoying. If a card is plugged into a PCI slot, for example, you don't need to know how to drive the card to just display its ID string it gives you when you scan the bus. And that little piece of information can be invaluable in diagnosing a problem with someone else's computer you didnt' build yourself.
So I like to boot a linux CD just to see the hardware identification strings scrolling by. Even if Linux has no driver for the card, it will usually at least tell you its make and model.
Windows is not easier to use. It's easier to LEARN. There's a signifigant difference. (If you only use each program casually for no more than an hour or so a week, then easier to LEARN is more important. If you use each program repeatedly, for hours a day, then ease of initial up-front learning is not nearly as important as ease of actually use once you've learned it.
Consider: You want to edit a text file - which is easier to LEARN: wordpad or something like Emacs or Vi? Well, wordpad obviously. But now you edit text files all day long and are constantly "living in" your editor - now, which is easier to USE once you've learned it - something powerful and arcane like Emacs or VI, or something that was trivial to learn like Wordpad? The arcane confusion of learning a powerful tool buys you speed of use with it later on down the road. So, whether it's worth it or not depends on whether there will *be* a 'further down the road' for you or not.
If you are currently ignorant of computers and want to stay that way, that's fine (and there's good arguments for doing that if you have other things you'd like to spend time learning instead), then Windows is perfect for you. But, if you are currently ignorant of computers and what to *change* that, then Windows is a terrible choice. And yet the whole world over people are doing just that - learning to program, getting two-year tech degrees using nothing but Windows, and thinking this makes them programmers when they're done.
Yes. I know. Hardware support in Linux isn't that bad, but still you encounter hardware you simply cannot get working under Linux.
That's somewhat deceptive. While it's true that the number of consumer-market hardware devices which work with windows and not linux is signifigant, The number of MAKES of devices (rather than UNITS of devices) for which the reverse is true is larger. Remember that Windows ONLY runs on Intel PC's. There's a lot of makes of hardware that won't work on Windows because it's not for the Intel PC hardware. When you factor *that* in, Linux has far more hardware support. It's just that the few makes and models it has problems with are the ones that the average consumer tends to see with greater visibility.
Slashdot Mirror
For one thing, we need a lot more transport capacity: more tonnage per trip
We already *have* a lot of tonnage in the Shuttle design. It's got a hefty payload. The problem is that the expense of that thing is usually not worth it. The Shuttle is rarely used to it's full cargo capacity, and that means it's always a waste of money to use. What we need is something who's cost to operate scales with the size of the payload - so small things are cheap to launch, and it doesn't get expensive until you launch something big.
I am not a cell phone expert. I have no idea if the feature is common. My model is a Motorola 120t. It's not very featurefull at all. Pretty bare-bones actually.
And I do find it pretty stupid to pay for a ring tone when the phone has the capacity to handle MP3's you download to it.
And the original poster merely chalked it up to stupidity, which was the point. It wasn't stupidity. It was pretend stupidity to try to get out of trouble. Don't be an asshole unless you're willing to admit who you are.
Would fans be effective in an atmosphere that thin? (I don't know, but I'm guessing they wouldn't do much)
It's also impossible to understand. It opens with "I posted a complaint that is related parent". That doesn't mean anything to me.
Then I jabbed about vi being better in the long run.
Yeah, but..."in the long run" is precisely what I was talking about. (And yes, vi is better) "Ease of use" MEANS "in the long run". (If you use something for a year, the majority of the time you are using it you have already passed the learning stage, even if it's something that was hard to learn (like vi) and took the first month of that year to get it right.) I'm just really sick and tired of this notion people have that the only thing that matters when you say "ease of use" is the first few weeks of exposure. They ignore the fact that making something easy to learn at first and making it easy to get stuff done with later are often at odds with each other. And it irks me a lot specifically because that attitude is responsible for a lot of the bad tools we have to put up with today.
Walking out the front door with display items because they "couldn't find the cash register" stupid.
That sounds suspiciously like a faked excuse. "Uhhh. no - Me no trying steal thing. Me no smart. Me sorry. Me not knowing where money place to buy thing. Please no press charges on me for shoplifting."
If that's all you wanted, you wouldn't need it to play music. Just lots of different sounding tones are enough, like "beep beep beep" versus "warble warble" versus "Beep Bop Beep Bop" versus "buzz buzz", and so on. The pretentiousness kicks in when it's "the 1812 Overture" versus "Bethoven's Fifth" versus "The Monty Python lumberjack song." The ring tone, if you are changing it for the sake of sounding unique, should communicate its instinctiveness immediately, within the first few notes. Waiting several measures shouldn't be needed.)
My cellphone has a way to just type in the notes by hand (for example: 2c4f5c1a1b1e, or something like that to mean this note, this long, in this octave, then this note, this long, in this octave, etc" (I don't remember the exact code scheme). All I do is enter gibberish that fits the syntax, without even thinking about what it will sound like. Then, I listen to it. It sounds like crap, but I know unmistakably that it's mine, and it serves it's function, and I don't feel tempted to wait to hear out the whole song.)
Repeat the last two posts.
Done.
Software can be designed such that the GPL'ed part is independant and very modularly separated from the rest of the system and thus the allegedly viral license doesn't affect the rest of the system. Basically, if it's packaged in such a way that the end user is unable to pick out the GPL parts from the rest of it, then you've got to GPL your part too. But if the GPL code is a seperately runnable executable you call from a script (for example), that doesn't infect the rest of the programs. And, in the cases where the GPL code was *meant* to be used as a generic set of callable libraries, it's typically packaged under LGPL rather than GPL and you can call the functions all day long to your heart's content (like with glibc).
Why isn't there a moderation for "-1, unfunny pun"?
(In this case, it was funny. But a lot of puns really aren't. I'm not sure what the dividing line is between them. Some puns sound really funny and others just sound like "someone, Please please please laugh at my joke, I begging you.")
Examine these two sentences:
1. "Believe X exists or Y will punish you."
2. "Believe X exists or X will punish you."
#2 is what was being talked about. #1 is what you were talking about. They are signifigantly different. It should be obvious why.
A "+5 funny" is not part of the post. It changes and so there is no reason for someone to assume it was there when you wrote your reply, and it might not even be there anymore by the time someone responds.
Notice a trend?
Yes. One lie, two dubious possible lies, and finsihing up with one really big lie.
Don't be ridiculous.
(Followed by a post that agreed entirely with what I said.)
Don't be insulting and then turn around and back up my point.
In one case you have a rover with one IMU that works for half of the EDL sequence, and a second that works for the other half.
That's a problem that has nothing to do with being a systematic failure in the design, but is instead a non-systematic glitch (otherwise it would be the same exact failure in the same exact place in both rovers). You claimed you were talking about sytematic failures, not random ones.
"Used to support" doesn't cut it. Windows currently doesn't support a large number of CPU's that Linux does.
CPU's and motherboards are hardware too. And on *that*, Linux support is way better than Windows.
In one case, you have one rover with two of the devices, and in the other you have two rovers with one device each. In both cases, in order for a failure of the device to cause the end of the mission, you have to have BOTH instances of the device failing. So long as one works, the mission can continue using a single rover. The difference is in what happens when *BOTH* work - in one case your mission continues with one single rover, and in the other it continues with two.
tell the people who invented NIS
Which, since it already was present in the unix world, fits under my claim that Directory services solves a problem unix doesn't have. (It already had NIS.)
Next you'll be telling me that Unix is defficient at showing you what's running on the system, and that's why they had to create the 'ps' program.
Damn. Tar is really showing it's age now. I can't think of any reason not to just make a new archive when you want to change one of the files in it, as opposed to appending the newer copy of it to the end of the archive. That seems to be a throwback to the days when the "t" in "tar" actually meant what it said and you were using it on tape drives.
count number of pages that I have come across with the wrong content-type on one hand.
I know of *LOTS* and *LOTS* that don't have an incorrect content-type, but do have an insufficiently precise content-type. ("Yeah, so this link is for a file of binary data. Thanks, that was really useful, Mr. web site maker. Oh, hey, the file ends in
But that's just it - I'm not talking about someone who would be the type to "live" in any app.
I understood that. It makes perfect sense. My objection was to your labelling of Windows' strength as ease of use when it's actually ease of learning. I object to this because it steals the thunder from what Linux is actually GOOD at, which is the situation where ease of use is more important than ease of learning.
I've found that a linux boot floppy is a great windows diagnostic JUST for the purpose of identifying the hardware in the machine. Windows is often very obstinate about not even telling you the little bit it *can* discover about hardware if that hardware has no driver or the driver is broken. That's really, really annoying. If a card is plugged into a PCI slot, for example, you don't need to know how to drive the card to just display its ID string it gives you when you scan the bus. And that little piece of information can be invaluable in diagnosing a problem with someone else's computer you didnt' build yourself.
So I like to boot a linux CD just to see the hardware identification strings scrolling by. Even if Linux has no driver for the card, it will usually at least tell you its make and model.
Windows is not easier to use. It's easier to LEARN. There's a signifigant difference. (If you only use each program casually for no more than an hour or so a week, then easier to LEARN is more important. If you use each program repeatedly, for hours a day, then ease of initial up-front learning is not nearly as important as ease of actually use once you've learned it.
Consider: You want to edit a text file - which is easier to LEARN: wordpad or something like Emacs or Vi? Well, wordpad obviously. But now you edit text files all day long and are constantly "living in" your editor - now, which is easier to USE once you've learned it - something powerful and arcane like Emacs or VI, or something that was trivial to learn like Wordpad? The arcane confusion of learning a powerful tool buys you speed of use with it later on down the road. So, whether it's worth it or not depends on whether there will *be* a 'further down the road' for you or not.
If you are currently ignorant of computers and want to stay that way, that's fine (and there's good arguments for doing that if you have other things you'd like to spend time learning instead), then Windows is perfect for you. But, if you are currently ignorant of computers and what to *change* that, then Windows is a terrible choice. And yet the whole world over people are doing just that - learning to program, getting two-year tech degrees using nothing but Windows, and thinking this makes them programmers when they're done.
Yes. I know. Hardware support in Linux isn't that bad, but still you encounter hardware you simply cannot get working under Linux.
That's somewhat deceptive. While it's true that the number of consumer-market hardware devices which work with windows and not linux is signifigant, The number of MAKES of devices (rather than UNITS of devices) for which the reverse is true is larger. Remember that Windows ONLY runs on Intel PC's. There's a lot of makes of hardware that won't work on Windows because it's not for the Intel PC hardware. When you factor *that* in, Linux has far more hardware support. It's just that the few makes and models it has problems with are the ones that the average consumer tends to see with greater visibility.