Somebody will. Most of the projects I work on at home come under the category of "because I want to". I am currently building a digital clock which has been in the planning process for twenty years.
The software I work on in my day job is much older than MacOS 9. A lot of my work involves shoehorning modern stuff into it so this type of project is of interest to me.
How can I make the mouse pointer ARROW fade away?
You know, like magic somehow?
I am building a kiosk and that pblm is killing me (winDoz).
Not that I don't want to get in this wonderful discussion, but damnit, someone point me to a trick or sw solution...!
There is a patch for this in nedit. It works by creating a 1 pixel by 1 pixel window under the mouse cursor, then changing the cursor to a pixmap which is invisible. The window moves with the cursor. Not sure how it tracks the cursor location, maybe it looks for the MouseMoved events and shuffles around under the mouse.
In Galway once I had to arrange shipping for some stuff to go to Australia. The truck driver arrived from Dublin and spent an hour driving in circles looking for the address to pick up from. Apparently it just isn't done to carry with a map so you can find your destination. People prefer you to stop and ask.
So I don't think it is specifically a sat nav thing. People sometimes find maps to be intrusive. For me, I have a garmin etrex without mapping capability. I can follow a straight line from A to B. If there is something in the way I just have to go over, under or around it.
IBM has a webcast explaining the license model in 10 minutes. 10 minutes!? Why can't the licence model be so simple that it can be explained in 30 seconds, e.g. like for the MS Team Foundation Server? Just take out all these pain points!
In my experience the IBM licensing model is complex so that more people need to pay for support.
Stop considering it. Look somewhere else. IBM does not want to sell it. Don't make a fool of yourself suggesting this to your boss.
Oh they will sell it. Propose it to your company and wait for the kickbacks.
He's the #1 guy suffering from the Incredible Bullshit Machine around him.
I get stressed just logging in to that site. Its a bit like extracting information from somebody who insists on talking..... very.... slowly. As if they have a totally different idea of flow control from you.
Maybe. Years ago when I worked on the FA18 there was a team working on crack growth analysis on (I think) the Mirage or the F111. They had stripped an airframe down in a test chamber in the US, cooled it down until the metal became brittle, then stressed it with hydraulic rams until cracks started to grow out of control. The resulting model was used to predict catastrophic failure in operational aircraft.
I can imagine similar things being done on turbines, for similar reasons.
Maybe they want to test wind turbines to destruction, or model their behaviour in different weather conditions. For example: how does ice deposition on turbine blades affect efficiency? Do this introduce any dangerous operational modes?
Years ago a co-worker bought a new Toyota GT4. We all trooped down to the car park to admire the engineering and noted that the cylinder head came from Suzuki.
But if you share an SSN with a person with a different name then its possible for you to pretend to be that person, so maybe the scenario with the name and SSN collision isn't the one you should worry about. Additionally the existence of dupes creates plausible denyability for people who just make up a new SSN.
Energy supply is the biggest problem out around Saturn so we would have to lose our phobia about operating fission reactors in space. Ion drives have very high specific impulse. With enough power it should be able to push a manned spacecraft. I also think we should look into building a hybrid fission/ion drive. In theory you could go:
The problem here is shielding. If you stick a fission reactor on an unmanned craft, you can get away with much less shielding than if you stick it on a manned craft. And with more shielding comes more weight.
I would use the classic Discovery 1 configuration. Put the reactors and engines out on a truss. The primary radiation shield only has to stop radiation which would reach the hab module. Secondary shielding would be the water stored in the walls of the hab module. But I agree that shielding would be a real challenge.
After all, if he could remove all copies of the code from GS how could they take people to court over the code without a local copy to prove ownership?
I don't see how a developer could possibly do that. They must have backups all over the place. Certainly the BOFH could corrupt the backups, but Aleynikov isn't the BOFH.
Yes, life support is an issue, but we now have almost 40 years of experience in operating space platforms and I reckon the state of the art has advanced enough to consider a very long mission.
Energy supply is the biggest problem out around Saturn so we would have to lose our phobia about operating fission reactors in space. Ion drives have very high specific impulse. With enough power it should be able to push a manned spacecraft. I also think we should look into building a hybrid fission/ion drive. In theory you could go:
Fission -> electricity -> ion propulsion
But since a lot of the energy in an ion drive is used to ionise the reaction mass, and since fission reactors are so good at ionising things I suggest we look at directly ionising xenon with gamma rays.
Anyway I think it is worth doing. Imagine how hard the lunar flight must have seemed in 1960.
A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965. Sometimes it can be hard to get relatively easy projects off the ground because the return is too small. I think the next mission should go to Titan. Don't go back to the moon. Its been done.
Lunar orbit rendezvous was the only way to get the job done in the time available. Not withstanding the commitment from JFK the money would have run out if they had built skylab before Apollo 11.
Making silly luxuries for the rich is the poor man's chance to get some of that wealth back at an advantageous rate:-)
Slightly OT but Tom Cruise and family are in my home town this week. Apparently Mrs Cruise blew 5*10^4.au dollars on an alligator skin handbag. My guess is that shops in the right location keep stock especially for the occasional shopper with Way Too Much Money to spend.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, seriously, who cares?
Somebody will. Most of the projects I work on at home come under the category of "because I want to". I am currently building a digital clock which has been in the planning process for twenty years.
The software I work on in my day job is much older than MacOS 9. A lot of my work involves shoehorning modern stuff into it so this type of project is of interest to me.
How can I make the mouse pointer ARROW fade away? You know, like magic somehow? I am building a kiosk and that pblm is killing me (winDoz). Not that I don't want to get in this wonderful discussion, but damnit, someone point me to a trick or sw solution...!
There is a patch for this in nedit. It works by creating a 1 pixel by 1 pixel window under the mouse cursor, then changing the cursor to a pixmap which is invisible. The window moves with the cursor. Not sure how it tracks the cursor location, maybe it looks for the MouseMoved events and shuffles around under the mouse.
But don't the 'trodes itch after a while?
In Galway once I had to arrange shipping for some stuff to go to Australia. The truck driver arrived from Dublin and spent an hour driving in circles looking for the address to pick up from. Apparently it just isn't done to carry with a map so you can find your destination. People prefer you to stop and ask.
So I don't think it is specifically a sat nav thing. People sometimes find maps to be intrusive. For me, I have a garmin etrex without mapping capability. I can follow a straight line from A to B. If there is something in the way I just have to go over, under or around it.
if our satnav breaks we will use google maps on a smart phone.... in the long run its just no big deal.
Except in the UK, The Land Of The One-Way Roads, Where Straight Lines Are Forever Banished.
Since Roman times, anyway.
IBM has a webcast explaining the license model in 10 minutes. 10 minutes!? Why can't the licence model be so simple that it can be explained in 30 seconds, e.g. like for the MS Team Foundation Server? Just take out all these pain points!
In my experience the IBM licensing model is complex so that more people need to pay for support.
Stop considering it. Look somewhere else. IBM does not want to sell it. Don't make a fool of yourself suggesting this to your boss.
Oh they will sell it. Propose it to your company and wait for the kickbacks.
He's the #1 guy suffering from the Incredible Bullshit Machine around him.
I thought it stood for In Business for Money.
I get stressed just logging in to that site. Its a bit like extracting information from somebody who insists on talking ..... very .... slowly. As if they have a totally different idea of flow control from you.
Well, with the right RAID (Redundant Array of IDiots) scheme, the human brain could be harvested for perfect storage.
Finally I understand why /. exists.
Or just continually email parts of your petabyte to an invalid address. Whenever one comes back you resend it.
Maybe. Years ago when I worked on the FA18 there was a team working on crack growth analysis on (I think) the Mirage or the F111. They had stripped an airframe down in a test chamber in the US, cooled it down until the metal became brittle, then stressed it with hydraulic rams until cracks started to grow out of control. The resulting model was used to predict catastrophic failure in operational aircraft.
I can imagine similar things being done on turbines, for similar reasons.
Maybe they want to test wind turbines to destruction, or model their behaviour in different weather conditions. For example: how does ice deposition on turbine blades affect efficiency? Do this introduce any dangerous operational modes?
Google says the software architecture will basically be the current Chrome browser running inside âoea new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel.â
link
NetBSD/Android actually.
Clearly the slashvertisment cheque hasn't come in yet.
Years ago a co-worker bought a new Toyota GT4. We all trooped down to the car park to admire the engineering and noted that the cylinder head came from Suzuki.
But if you share an SSN with a person with a different name then its possible for you to pretend to be that person, so maybe the scenario with the name and SSN collision isn't the one you should worry about. Additionally the existence of dupes creates plausible denyability for people who just make up a new SSN.
I think they are starting to shake down the ISPs. Maybe in the future internet access will also pay for some content.
Screen scrapers will grab the current articles and put them online wrapped with their own advertisments.
Energy supply is the biggest problem out around Saturn so we would have to lose our phobia about operating fission reactors in space. Ion drives have very high specific impulse. With enough power it should be able to push a manned spacecraft. I also think we should look into building a hybrid fission/ion drive. In theory you could go:
The problem here is shielding. If you stick a fission reactor on an unmanned craft, you can get away with much less shielding than if you stick it on a manned craft. And with more shielding comes more weight.
I would use the classic Discovery 1 configuration. Put the reactors and engines out on a truss. The primary radiation shield only has to stop radiation which would reach the hab module. Secondary shielding would be the water stored in the walls of the hab module. But I agree that shielding would be a real challenge.
After all, if he could remove all copies of the code from GS how could they take people to court over the code without a local copy to prove ownership?
I don't see how a developer could possibly do that. They must have backups all over the place. Certainly the BOFH could corrupt the backups, but Aleynikov isn't the BOFH.
Yes, life support is an issue, but we now have almost 40 years of experience in operating space platforms and I reckon the state of the art has advanced enough to consider a very long mission.
Energy supply is the biggest problem out around Saturn so we would have to lose our phobia about operating fission reactors in space. Ion drives have very high specific impulse. With enough power it should be able to push a manned spacecraft. I also think we should look into building a hybrid fission/ion drive. In theory you could go:
Fission -> electricity -> ion propulsion
But since a lot of the energy in an ion drive is used to ionise the reaction mass, and since fission reactors are so good at ionising things I suggest we look at directly ionising xenon with gamma rays.
Anyway I think it is worth doing. Imagine how hard the lunar flight must have seemed in 1960.
A flight to Titan in ten years would be about as difficult as going to the moon in 1965. Sometimes it can be hard to get relatively easy projects off the ground because the return is too small. I think the next mission should go to Titan. Don't go back to the moon. Its been done.
Lunar orbit rendezvous was the only way to get the job done in the time available. Not withstanding the commitment from JFK the money would have run out if they had built skylab before Apollo 11.
It's amazing that they were able to get back with only enough horses to return about a tenth of the way!
I believe their strategy involved eating some of the horses at the destination and shooting the ones which wouldn't make it back.
Making silly luxuries for the rich is the poor man's chance to get some of that wealth back at an advantageous rate:-)
Slightly OT but Tom Cruise and family are in my home town this week. Apparently Mrs Cruise blew 5*10^4 .au dollars on an alligator skin handbag. My guess is that shops in the right location keep stock especially for the occasional shopper with Way Too Much Money to spend.