Still if it were up to me the government should sack all the monarchy, reposes anything that they can use to make the country some money, then use it to cut our taxes, shame I dont trust any government to do that.
I think you overestimate the size of the Royal Family's assets. Is what amounts to uprooting the foundation of the country worth a fiver's reduction in your tax burden (just think, you could buy yourself a newspaper and a burger with that!)?
But I was getting at a wider truth about the UK- There are many reasons to hate every country, the UK included, but one of the things I love is the progressive egalitarianism prevalent in the thinking classes; Announce at any formal social function that you are religious/believe in astrology/are pro-life/etc., and watch as the rest of the room politely get as far away from you as possible. Brilliant.
I can tell you don't go to many formal social functions. I, on the other hand, do and believe me that the majority of the 'thinking classes' (an amusing notion in itself) are nowhere near as closed-minded and discriminative as you seem to be, sir.
To expand on this -- the British system of "constitutional monarchy" with House of Lords and House of Commons has been in existence and working fairly stably for over half a millennium. If it was such a terrible, terrible idea, and doomed to failure by neglecting the needs of the common man in favour of putting wealth and power in the hands of only a privileged few, one would expect that it would have been overturned by bloody revolution by now, wouldn't one?
I challenge you to name a country which has had a single governmental system for an equal amount of time, without revolution or major constitutional reforms.
Consider that having a wholly unelected chamber might be a good thing, allowing longer-term problems to be actually dealt with rather than merely wallpapering over the cracks well enough to get to the next election.
I would not only encourage young people in Britian to watch youtube, but to also have more tea parties.
I agree! We should throw the goods foisted on us with unfavourable trade treaties by those imperialist and aggressively repressive "foreigners" from the other side of the Atlantic into the harbour where they came ashore! No more shall the government of the United States of America transparently manipulate our government into pandering only to their interests, to the detriment of the loyal people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island!
Yes, silly us, why would we want a democracy, when a panel of experts can make all the decisions for us. No thanks, sir, I am from Czech republic, and we lived under such system for 40 years (the self-appointed body of "experts" being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Czechoslovakia).
You've got to be a troll, because only a troll could deliberately misunderstand the way the British Parliamentary system works so badly. Where's my (-1, Wrong) moderation option?
I said: expand the current functionality with something that simply *must* have better performance. Think laying out functioncalls in shared memory and calling interrupts for local clients. Think transporting events back to the client in the same way. Think painting directly in the frame buffer using shared memory.
Firstly, as I've said in a different post, you can rip X network transparency from bleeding dead hands. Secondly, this already exists, and is a job for extensions: c.f. MIT-SHM.
Also, I realize that there are a load of APIs on top of the X client library that paint beautiful (and sometimes less beautiful) widgets, but a) they can't be fast because they wrap both the way in (XCreateWindow) and the way out (XGetEvent), and b) it would be a lot nicer if the X server actually understood what you *meant* when you said: 'make a scrollbar'. It can implement a faultless scrollbar namely. And generate scrollbar specific events.
You do realise that such a widget set would have to be implemented using... wait for it... exactly the event and graphics primitives you're so keen to get rid of! Um, sorry, but your idea fails the common sense test, in that it would provide exactly nothing that the existing libraries you're slating don't already. In fact, the only place where the current rendering methods fall down is when you're running applications over the network -- which you're arguing against being able to do at all!
With respect to cut-n-paste; they exist in Gnome and KDE. Separately. And also, separately inside WindowMaker and XFCE. It is a royal *bitch* to program against in X client lib, it depends entirely on the cooperation of the various program- and windowmanager-makers and a few conventions, and it is *very* incomplete.
I don't know enough about it to comment on technically, but I've never found cutting and pasting between GTK-based and Qt-based applications to be a problem. Never. *shrug* Maybe I'm just born lucky.
I'm not saying X should be more complex. I'm saying it should be simpler: local clients get the same functions, but are executed over IPC primitives, elementary widgets go in the server so that the server can be more apt when it goes and generates events, the server is standardly plugged in with widgets, but these can be replaced either hardcoded, or by using the protocol, and communication between clients is taken care of using a pipe and some sort of object serialization.
So you're saying that X should be more complex, in fact, if I understand that correctly. I personally think that, given that the client-facing parts of the X server should be kept as lean and mean as possible -- given that the server is really supposed to concentrate on dealing with hardware.
Your example of events is daft, because the events have to be turned into widget events somewhere, and it's just a matter of where the (very cheap) point-rectangle intersection is done. I can't think of a better place than in the library which your application is using as a friendly API to set up, lay out and render said widgets, that is, exactly how it is at the moment.
Finally, your proposal would royally screw with funky things like KDE4's Plasma technology, which makes heavy use of Qt 4.4's widget on canvas functionality. From my point of view: denied.
I definitely agree. I use FreeNX to do more or less the same thing at school, and it's just damn handy.
Although that is a totally different mechanism, and a slightly different use case. Note that the big advantage of remote X is that the applications you launch are fully fledged window session clients in their own right:
Each application appears in its own window on the desktop on the local machine, and can be managed using the local machine's taskbar.
Applications running on the remote system can put icons in the local machine's system tray.
Using remote X over SSH, the only way I can usually tell that an application is running remotely is that there is a <user@remotemachine> tag in the window title.
Most people who use XWindows don't use it over TCP/IP anymore. (Yes I will probable get comments from a bunch of Slashdot users say Yea I Do it is great...) But for normal use it is between the Computer and the Monitor.
I certainly use it all the time. I'm at university, and the ability to pull up Emacs running on my box in my room from any of the Linux workstations around the university (or in my friends' rooms) is really useful.
Here's an example of how it saved my arse once. I'd been writing a report using LyX, and was at my department to hand it in. Just as I was about to, I noticed that the caption of one of the figures was totally wrong. I logged onto one of the department's workstations, fired up SSH, launched LyX, made the change, generated a PDF, SCP'd it to the local machine and printed it. Without remote X, that would have been an enormous hassle -- I'd have had to set up a VNC server or something (which might have involved installing packages). With remote X, it's a simple matter of ssh -X.
tl;dr version: you can tear remote X from my bleeding broken dead hands.
Sure, but that's ridiculous to have to resort to giant batteries just to get a decent amount of battery life. The real problem is Linux's lack of decent power management, as well as the hardware manufacturers' reluctance to support Linux in any way. In this case, though, you'd think ASUS would have some incentive to work with Linux kernel developers to improve the situation. Sadly, though, Linux on laptops of any king is pretty abysmal when it comes to basic features like power management, suspend-and-resume, etc. windows Vista, sadly, is quite far ahead when it comes to this now. Quite usable on a laptop. Of course my 5 year-old PowerBook still beats it in terms of these things.
Uh, do you actually use Linux, or just mouth off about it? Because while we're talking anecdotes, I can think of at least three distros which support the power management on my bog-standard Acer laptop better than the Windows XP it came with -- without any configuration hacks of any kind whatsoever.
The real problem is people who pretend to know what they're talking about.
Distributed version control systems (pioneered by Arch & Monotone)
Perl
IRC
The World Wide Web (you cretin)
For what it's worth, on a day to day basis I use the following applications regularly:
Konqueror - What's this supposed to be a clone of?
Emacs - What's this supposed to be a clone of?
Inkscape - What's this supposed to be a clone of
LyX - What's this supposed to be a clone of?
GCC - Does something count as a clone if it's still going strong when its inspiration has passed into deepest darkest history?
GNU Build System - What's this supposed to be a clone of?
Yellow dog Updater Modified - Undeniably original
Amarok - Inspired by XMMS, but what's it supposed to be a clone of?
KMail - What's this supposed to be a clone of?
Often, Free software projects are started because an existing closed-source tool doesn't do what the author needs done. For instance, it wouldn't be logical for someone who wants to read e-mail to sit at a text editor and write their own from scratch -- they're bound to look at what's already available first, and even if nothing suitable exists, their eventual solution will have tried to cherry-pick the good parts from the existing technology.
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Finally, everyone seems to describe GIMP as a "Photoshop clone". I've never understood that at all. Is it thought of as a Photoshop clone because that is what it is? As far as I can tell, having used both, GIMP has a different user interface, a different selection of tools, and expects the user to do things in a different way. That's mighty odd for something that's supposed to be a clone of another application.
Then, this one guy ran out of his house and complained. He pulled some card out of his wallet and showed it to the cop. The cop responded by tearing up the ticket. Now, what do you think that guy showed the cop to make him reverse a legally given ticket?
Maybe the guy was the driver for a disabled guy, and the card was proof of disabled vehicle exemption to parking restrictions in that area?
Maybe the end of the current supply of Plutonium, could encourage better research into ion drives. Deep Space 1 already showed it was possible, not to increase the effectiveness:
Plutonium is used by NASA as a source of electrical power, not a source of thrust. Guess what ion drives need -- electrical power, and lots of it. Where are you going to get that power when you're too far from the sun for solar panels to be effective? That's right, a plutonium-fuelled RTG.
I thought the whole idea of an *international* space station was that we didn't have to duplicate technology efforts between the partners? ESA developed the ATV for the express purpose of resupplying the ISS, so what's this duplicate piece of tech doing?
It's not duplicate of the ATV: AFAIK, it's intended for very urgent deliveries of small amounts critical supplies to ISS, where the ATV is designed for long-term scheduled deliveries of large amounts of day-to-day supplies.
Actually, that's not totally fair -- we frequently get quite a lot of people with large amounts of clue here. One example would be NewYorkCountryLawyer, but he's certainly not the only one. Whoosh!! There goes another one, completely over your head:-(
Has it occurred to you that the problem might be with your delivery?
Me: 312 comments. You: 6 comments. GTFO. Dude!! Quantity over Quality ? Are you serious ?
Accusing someone posting to Slashdot of making sweeping generalisations without a clue seems somewhat redundant.
Actually, that's not totally fair -- we frequently get quite a lot of people with large amounts of clue here. One example would be NewYorkCountryLawyer, but he's certainly not the only one.
You're clearly making huge hand-waving generalisations about something which you don't have the slightest clue about. As usual. You're new around here aren't you.
Quite the opposite: that's how I know that TripMaster Monkey is full of shit.
How do you get data to/from the Earth? You'll need a satellite or repeaters or something. But if you stick it at the pole, maybe you can peek back over:)
My intuition suggests that it would be cheaper to use relay satellites than to locate the observatory at the pole, if returning data was the only issue that affected where the observatory was placed (IIRC there's a slight delta-v advantage in landing near the lunar equator). However, other people have already pointed out some other good reasons why a lunar pole would be a good place to put it.
I'm not claiming that the satellite should not have been shot down. I am claiming that the stated reason for doing so is demonstrably false.
You may be claiming that it's demonstrably false, but you haven't successfully demonstrated it. And unless you're a materials engineer with access to technical drawings of the satellite and a good simulation of its reentry profile, you're not going to.
You're clearly making huge hand-waving generalisations about something which you don't have the slightest clue about. As usual.
I disagree. This ruling is very confusing to me. He traded with insider information which makes him guilty under a clause in US law called the Misappropriation theory
anyone who misappropriates (steals) information from their employer and trades on that information in any stock (not just the employer's stock) is guilty of insider trading
Slashdot Mirror
I think you overestimate the size of the Royal Family's assets. Is what amounts to uprooting the foundation of the country worth a fiver's reduction in your tax burden (just think, you could buy yourself a newspaper and a burger with that!)?
The Queen is addressed as 'Your Majesty', I believe.
I can tell you don't go to many formal social functions. I, on the other hand, do and believe me that the majority of the 'thinking classes' (an amusing notion in itself) are nowhere near as closed-minded and discriminative as you seem to be, sir.
To expand on this -- the British system of "constitutional monarchy" with House of Lords and House of Commons has been in existence and working fairly stably for over half a millennium. If it was such a terrible, terrible idea, and doomed to failure by neglecting the needs of the common man in favour of putting wealth and power in the hands of only a privileged few, one would expect that it would have been overturned by bloody revolution by now, wouldn't one?
I challenge you to name a country which has had a single governmental system for an equal amount of time, without revolution or major constitutional reforms.
Consider that having a wholly unelected chamber might be a good thing, allowing longer-term problems to be actually dealt with rather than merely wallpapering over the cracks well enough to get to the next election.
I agree! We should throw the goods foisted on us with unfavourable trade treaties by those imperialist and aggressively repressive "foreigners" from the other side of the Atlantic into the harbour where they came ashore! No more shall the government of the United States of America transparently manipulate our government into pandering only to their interests, to the detriment of the loyal people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island!
....oh, that wasn't what you meant?
You've got to be a troll, because only a troll could deliberately misunderstand the way the British Parliamentary system works so badly. Where's my (-1, Wrong) moderation option?
Firstly, as I've said in a different post, you can rip X network transparency from bleeding dead hands. Secondly, this already exists, and is a job for extensions: c.f. MIT-SHM.
Also, I realize that there are a load of APIs on top of the X client library that paint beautiful (and sometimes less beautiful) widgets, but a) they can't be fast because they wrap both the way in (XCreateWindow) and the way out (XGetEvent), and b) it would be a lot nicer if the X server actually understood what you *meant* when you said: 'make a scrollbar'. It can implement a faultless scrollbar namely. And generate scrollbar specific events.You do realise that such a widget set would have to be implemented using... wait for it... exactly the event and graphics primitives you're so keen to get rid of! Um, sorry, but your idea fails the common sense test, in that it would provide exactly nothing that the existing libraries you're slating don't already. In fact, the only place where the current rendering methods fall down is when you're running applications over the network -- which you're arguing against being able to do at all!
With respect to cut-n-paste; they exist in Gnome and KDE. Separately. And also, separately inside WindowMaker and XFCE. It is a royal *bitch* to program against in X client lib, it depends entirely on the cooperation of the various program- and windowmanager-makers and a few conventions, and it is *very* incomplete.I don't know enough about it to comment on technically, but I've never found cutting and pasting between GTK-based and Qt-based applications to be a problem. Never. *shrug* Maybe I'm just born lucky.
I'm not saying X should be more complex. I'm saying it should be simpler: local clients get the same functions, but are executed over IPC primitives, elementary widgets go in the server so that the server can be more apt when it goes and generates events, the server is standardly plugged in with widgets, but these can be replaced either hardcoded, or by using the protocol, and communication between clients is taken care of using a pipe and some sort of object serialization.So you're saying that X should be more complex, in fact, if I understand that correctly. I personally think that, given that the client-facing parts of the X server should be kept as lean and mean as possible -- given that the server is really supposed to concentrate on dealing with hardware.
Your example of events is daft, because the events have to be turned into widget events somewhere, and it's just a matter of where the (very cheap) point-rectangle intersection is done. I can't think of a better place than in the library which your application is using as a friendly API to set up, lay out and render said widgets, that is, exactly how it is at the moment.
Finally, your proposal would royally screw with funky things like KDE4's Plasma technology, which makes heavy use of Qt 4.4's widget on canvas functionality. From my point of view: denied.
Although that is a totally different mechanism, and a slightly different use case. Note that the big advantage of remote X is that the applications you launch are fully fledged window session clients in their own right:
Using remote X over SSH, the only way I can usually tell that an application is running remotely is that there is a <user@remotemachine> tag in the window title.
I certainly use it all the time. I'm at university, and the ability to pull up Emacs running on my box in my room from any of the Linux workstations around the university (or in my friends' rooms) is really useful.
Here's an example of how it saved my arse once. I'd been writing a report using LyX, and was at my department to hand it in. Just as I was about to, I noticed that the caption of one of the figures was totally wrong. I logged onto one of the department's workstations, fired up SSH, launched LyX, made the change, generated a PDF, SCP'd it to the local machine and printed it. Without remote X, that would have been an enormous hassle -- I'd have had to set up a VNC server or something (which might have involved installing packages). With remote X, it's a simple matter of ssh -X.
tl;dr version: you can tear remote X from my bleeding broken dead hands.
Uh, do you actually use Linux, or just mouth off about it? Because while we're talking anecdotes, I can think of at least three distros which support the power management on my bog-standard Acer laptop better than the Windows XP it came with -- without any configuration hacks of any kind whatsoever.
The real problem is people who pretend to know what they're talking about.
...especially now that Flex is open source.Surely Flex has always been open source?
The Free version of lex was around for decades before Adobe's marketing department rode roughshod over their prior claim to the name.
News at 11: Adobe sues open source project for trademark violation?
Easy (as long as you remember that the hobbyist/academic Free software community existed long before Linux did).
For what it's worth, on a day to day basis I use the following applications regularly:
Often, Free software projects are started because an existing closed-source tool doesn't do what the author needs done. For instance, it wouldn't be logical for someone who wants to read e-mail to sit at a text editor and write their own from scratch -- they're bound to look at what's already available first, and even if nothing suitable exists, their eventual solution will have tried to cherry-pick the good parts from the existing technology.
"If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Finally, everyone seems to describe GIMP as a "Photoshop clone". I've never understood that at all. Is it thought of as a Photoshop clone because that is what it is? As far as I can tell, having used both, GIMP has a different user interface, a different selection of tools, and expects the user to do things in a different way. That's mighty odd for something that's supposed to be a clone of another application.
If it really is unlimited, unfiltered bandwidth: yes.
Maybe the guy was the driver for a disabled guy, and the card was proof of disabled vehicle exemption to parking restrictions in that area?
Don't be too quick to assume corruption.
Plutonium is used by NASA as a source of electrical power, not a source of thrust. Guess what ion drives need -- electrical power, and lots of it. Where are you going to get that power when you're too far from the sun for solar panels to be effective? That's right, a plutonium-fuelled RTG.
It's not duplicate of the ATV: AFAIK, it's intended for very urgent deliveries of small amounts critical supplies to ISS, where the ATV is designed for long-term scheduled deliveries of large amounts of day-to-day supplies.
The two problems are similar, but complementary.
Has it occurred to you that the problem might be with your delivery?
Me: 312 comments. You: 6 comments. GTFO. Dude!! Quantity over Quality ? Are you serious ?Well, seeing as you have achieved neither... :)
Actually, that's not totally fair -- we frequently get quite a lot of people with large amounts of clue here. One example would be NewYorkCountryLawyer, but he's certainly not the only one.
Anyway your ID is greater than mine - N00b!Me: 312 comments. You: 6 comments. GTFO.
Quite the opposite: that's how I know that TripMaster Monkey is full of shit.
My intuition suggests that it would be cheaper to use relay satellites than to locate the observatory at the pole, if returning data was the only issue that affected where the observatory was placed (IIRC there's a slight delta-v advantage in landing near the lunar equator). However, other people have already pointed out some other good reasons why a lunar pole would be a good place to put it.
You may be claiming that it's demonstrably false, but you haven't successfully demonstrated it. And unless you're a materials engineer with access to technical drawings of the satellite and a good simulation of its reentry profile, you're not going to.
You're clearly making huge hand-waving generalisations about something which you don't have the slightest clue about. As usual.
Yes.
Not sure... go ask a lawyer.
You said it yourself, as highlighted above.
No one missed your 'just works' point. It's just that not everyone's definition of 'just works' is the same as yours.