I grep'd through the FHS 2.2 doc really quickly and I could find nothing to indicate a standard for runlevels or runlevel init scripts.
One of the things that bothers me most about the diversity in Linux distributions is that no one seems to agree on what runlevel standard to use.
For instance, Debian is pretty much SysV compliant (like Solaris), in that everything is in/etc/init.d with the runlevels themselves in/etc/rc0.d etc. Yet RedHat puts everything in/etc/rc.d/init.d with the runlevels in/etc/rc.d/rc0.d etc., which is SysV compliant with a twist? And Slackware is more like BSD and does not have SysV runlevels. (Note: It has been years since I used Slackware so that may have changed).
I mean, I think it is pretty annoying. It's bad enough (but acceptable) that the various other Un*xen have their own filesystem layouts. It's pretty much historical. And one can say, *this* box is Solaris, and *this* box is HPUX, and *this* box is AIX, and *this* box is BSD. But why the hell can't Linux distributions aggree to be totally SysV compliant? Why can't we say *this* box is GNU/Linux instead of Debian, RedHat, Slackware, and so on?
I think the claim that Blizzard wants to use the name Diablo for a movie title as well as New Line is pretty weak, even if they have a "trademark" on it. That is, for years, there have been many many movies released with the same title. Some movies are re-makes; others have nothing similar but the title. Just go to IMDb.com and see for yourself.
I think to really appreciate Ender's Game, you have to read it at the right time in your life. I am not going to try to guess what that time is for you or anyone else. Even then, maybe your personality is such that Ender's Game is just not your thing.
I first read Ender's Game when I was in college. A friend suggested it to me. I loved that book. I suspect I always will. However, if I first read it today, maybe I would not feel the same way. As an example, I tried reading Kerouak's On the Road a couple years ago (I am serveral years out of college now). I just could not get into it. But for many friends who read it when they were younger, it was a very formative novel. It resonated with whatever was going on in their life at that time. I think Ender's Game is the same way. It resonates with the events of our youth.
Now, anything after Ender's Game is a different story. No apologies here at all, but Speaker for the Dead was okay; Xenocide and Children of the Mind pretty much sucked. I was so disgusted by the time I finished Children, I did not even want to pick up Ender's Shadow. I had my fill of O.S. Card. I am not alone, either.
And here is why: Ender's game was excellent Science Fiction. Xenocide and Children of the Mind? Those were pulp SciFi. Most people don't make a distinction between the two, but Harlan Ellison (god bless his twisted little soul) and I do.
Science Fiction is fiction with some sort of scientifically intriguing setting and that is all. The real story comes from character and plot development. SciFi relies almost totally on the gimmicks of the universe the story is set in. Say, for example, philotes. (Of course, there is a spectum here, so not everything, including the things I mention, fall neatly into one category or the other.)
To draw a parallel: Babylon 5 was Science Fiction for the most part; StarTrek almost exclusively a SciFi franchise. Proof of point: in STNG, nearly any time the crew got in trouble, all they had to do was call on Gordi LaForge to pull their collective asses out of the fire some imaginative application of the HyperSpace Butt-winch. It was not until the later seasons that we got to see some deeper character development. Babylon 5 on the other hand was all about the characters and their interactions developed over 5 years.
Now, I am not saying that SciFi sucks. I like SciFi when that is what I want. Is there good SciFi? Hell, yeah: Stargate SG1. Or is that Science Fiction? Oh well. When I want Science Fiction, I seek that out and enjoy it too. I think what upset me about the Ender series was that good Science Fiction degenerated into bad SciFi. Philotes? Gimme a break. I found the transition from "Ender: destroyer of worlds" to "Philotes: our souls, our saviours" to be way too saccharine.
I feel sorry for you. I mean, if you really think your employer has that much power over you, you must live a really stifled life.
When you sign a contract with an employer, especially regarding IP, they only have a right to anything you develop for the company, on company time, with company property.
Taking a paycheck home to feed, clothe and house yourself and your family does *not* mean your home and your life suddenly become company property. Your salary is (hopefully) fair compensation for the services you render the company.
And if for some reason, you did sign over those rights, you made a mistake and that's your own fault.
Now, it does get a little sticky if the Open Source software you are developing "competes" with the proprietary software you are developing for the company. Even so, it is up to you to read, understand and agree with the IP contract you signed. If you don't agree with it, then don't sign it; or if you have to, don't work for that company.
What price your ideals against being corporate property?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Am I the only person that thinks there is something subtly horrific about us entertaining ideas of terraforming and colonizing another planet when we don't even know how to take care of the one we already have?
What is more, I am fairly appalled by the idea that we would be purposely initiating global warming on another planet. I mean, as a species, we have plainly demonstrated that we cannot control or moderate our impact on the environment and weather of this planet, our only home. So what is the solution? Let's go muck with the environment and weather on another planet so we have some place to go when we can no longer live here.
That's just great, people.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I say that once a species is extinct, we should leave it that way, as a reminder of our own mortality.
I am a firm believer that there are some things you just don't fsck with. This is one of them. This is just another example of humans playing god and asking all the wrong questions.
Sure we *can* do this, but *should* we?
I mean, I think that the real issue here is not that we are being responsibile and altruistic by restoring an extinct species. I think the real issue is that restoring an extinct species is an excuse to mess around with the planet's genetic heritage and say, "oh, look how clever we are."
If we were really so concerned about extinction, I think we would be doing more to preserve the species that currently exist. But hell, why bother worrying about that? Once we know how to bring a species back, we can just go about our merry way. Then it suddenly becomes a question of what species do we *want* around. Hmmm? Anybody think of that?
Oh gee, this rare mountain gorilla is in our way. That's okay, just get some samples and eliminate it. We can bring it back later on when we are done.
Sounds absurd, I know. But I don't put anything past humans.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
In essence HP recognizes Linux as an operating system powerful and stable enough to trust their Printing Server Appliance to, yet are unwilling to commit to supporting that very same operating system as a client.
Hey, so much for journalistic objectivity.
Thank you, Spyky, for making that assumption for us. Thanks for thoroughly researching this situation and sharing with us your keen and impartial observations.
And thank you, CmdrTaco, for making sure we all get the clearest facts and the most objective tone.
Jeeze. Just because the spec does not *list* Linux as being "supported" does not mean that it does not work. Moreover, it does not mean that HP has put the nix on Linux as a client as was so obviously implied.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Actually, you would have to make every part of your body transparent except your retinas and your lenses. What good are your retinas if they are hit by unfocused light?:)
In fact, you really would have to have your whole eyeball be non-transparent. Otherwise the ambiant light would interfere with image quality. Everything you would end up seeing, if you could distinguish images at all, would be really washed out.
So who's gonna notice a couple of detached, floating eyeballs moving around?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
> Um, I've never used Python (I have issues with the block syntax)
Well, you cannot have issues with something you have never tried. Write a couple Python scripts and *then* if you have "issues", you have a right to complain, and only then if you have a reason other than "I have issues with foo".
The only reason I say this is because I too used to "have issues" with the whitespace meaningful block syntax. Then I got over my prejudices and actually started learning and using the Python. I have to say now, if your only reason for not learning a language is because you have a preconception about syntax, then you are missing out.
> See? Nothing about it being specifically for the web there...
Yeah, the same can be said for Perl. But I think everybody knows that Perl owes its popularity and widespread use greatly to its use as a "web scripting language", whatever that is anyway.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I totally agree that an OS is a tool to get a job done (or have fun, or whatever).
However, the idealogy of the tool is just as important as the tool, I think. That is why GNU software is so important and why RMS makes such a big deal about the difference between Open Source Software and Free Software (not to mention proprietary software).
What is the use of having a nice tool if you cannot make improvements to the tool and/or share those improvements with the world?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I don't know about anyone else out there, but I have a really hard time reading a book or working on a laptop in a car while it's moving. I mean, I can do it; I just cannot do it for long. I doubt anyone else will really be that keen on actually trying to do work or whatever in their car.
Imagine trying to code or read your favorite sites while someone is agitating your monitor. First, you get annoyed. Then you get a headache. That car better have some *serious* suspension.
So if the passengers want to surf the web, grab mp3s or porn or whatever, that's fine. Everybody knows what they like and what they like to do.
The driver, however, should be doing one thing. That's right: driving. Need to consult a map, listen to music? That's all cool. But don't give me this crap about driving and surfing at the same time. That's just irresponsible. Yes, just like driving and drinking, driving and talking on a cell phone, driving and applying makeup, driving and reading a book, and so on.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Personally, I do not use GNOME (or KDE), though I do use the occassional GNOME program. That is my choice based on how I best interact with my computer. I feel that GNOME gets in the way of what I do, so I don't use it.
However, I like to follow the development of GNOME just to see what is happening. I think that a *lot* of people do not interact the way I and a lot of hackers do with our systems. That is what GNOME is for.
I may not like GNOME or use it, but that does not mean I don't support it. As long as it improves, does it what it is supposed to do, and is GPL'd, I'll be totally happy to see what it becomes.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
But I have to say, I would feel pretty embarrassed if I were to tell friends, family members, or my children that I got married in a video game.
I mean, what is it about Quake exactly that contributes to the sentiment of life-long commitment and love? Is it the exquisite 3D rendering? Perhaps the fast network layer? Wait, I know, it is the ability to kill your spouse over and over and over with no ramifications whatsoever.
I don't get it. This is *not* cool. This is a damn joke and a travesty. Quake is a game. Think about what someone is really saying by getting married in a *game*. They are saying that the marriage is a game, a fantasy. How serious is that? What kind of commitment is that?
I don't care about what any yahoo says about freedom of expression and the all the wonderful possibilities our technology offers and affords us or the exploration of the boundaries of the human experience. It is all crap. It is a mockery of what marriage is about. There are some lines that should not be crossed. There are some things that *can* be done, but should *not* be done.
Until more people realize this and understand why it is true, humanity will never be anything more than a trivial, complacent, decadent, and petty species.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English [AE]nig; akin to Old High German einag any, Old English An one -- more at ONE
Date: before 12th century
1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a: one or another taken at random any man you meet> b: EVERY -- used to indicate one selected without restriction any child would know that> 2: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity: a: one or more -- used to indicate an undetermined number or amount any money> b: ALL -- used to indicate a maximum or whole any help he can get> c: a or some without reference to quantity or extent any favor at all> 3 a: unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number, or extent any quantity you desire> b: appreciably large or extended any length of time>
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Microsoft Office is also the best office package available on any system.
I generally choose anymore to stay out of these wonderful dialectics. Mainly I am just tired of the whole "Microsoft is evil" and "Linux is our salvation" back-and-forth. I have made a personal choice to support GNU and Open Source software; and I really don't give a crap about anybody else's opinions anymore. No offence. I am certainly open to listening to all sorts of ideas, but I grow weary of the mud-slinging and fanaticism.
However, one thing that will get a rise out of me is when the facts are manipulated, blurred, or misconstrued. The above statement is a case in point.
I will grant that MS has some decent software and some decent hardware. But to say that Office is the best office package available on any system is just foolhardy.
I mean, "any system" implies that MS Office is the best office package for, say, Linux. Golly, I was not aware that MS did a Linux port of Office. Where is it? I'd like to check it out.
Oh, what's that? MS Office doesn't exist for Linux? Oh, I see. So you either lied, or are grossly misinformed, or had your facts all wrong.
In fact, then, Office cannot possibly be the best package available on any system because it is not available for just any system. Can I run it on Linux? Solaris? FreeBSD? BeOS? Not without some sort of emulator; so running it under Wine or Wabi or VMWare does not count.
If you are going to make a blanket statment about software packages running on any system, you better check your facts. Chances are the details will prove you wrong.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
That has to be the lamest article I have read in a long time. In fact, the last time I read what I thought was a lame article, it was in Salon.
I got so fed up with all the pseudo-code crap that I stopped reading mid way. What is the point of all that?
The article is very difficult to read. The sentences are poorly formed. Paragraphs with central ideas don't even exist. I mean, I am reading along one line of thought, and the author breaks my concentration with a bunch of "comments" that supposedly support the current idea, when in fact they just distract me. It was damn annoying.
I mean, code is code. Prose is prose. If you are going to excercise your wit by blending then, you damn well better be exceptional at both. Otherwise you are just confusing and irritating people.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Lt. Col. Grossman's book seems to revolve around a few basic themes:
Exposure to violent entertainment desensitizes youth to acts of violence and leads to aggressive behavior.
Violent video and computer games are an ultra-effective way of instructing murder.
Youth crime is rising in America as is the amount of violence in video and computer games.
Now, you would think that a career soldier would know better than this. I know I am working with a condensation of the Colonel's words here, but work with me.
Point one: Exposure to violence certainly does desensitize, but I think that what leads to aggressive behavior is a lack of discipline, compassion and focus. If a person, young or not, does not have effective means of safely externalizing aggressive feelings and instincts while still feeling safe and cared for, they are going to go nuts and start blowing people away.
You never see a story about some 17 year old gunning down his class where the headline is "Happy, expressive, and well adjusted captain of the wrestling team and merit scholar John Smith executes school mates in a fit of undefined pent-up rage". You also never see the headline: "Disciplined and obedient Marine Private Jackson slaughters his squad for lack of purpose and direction".
Point two: Violent video and computer games are an ultra-effective way of instructing point and click techniques. Sure we can learn some strategy and conniving and learn to become very comfortable with "killing" thousands of game entities. But we all know it is not real. No matter how realistic a game is, it will never be the same as killing a real human being, face to face.
If *anything* is an ultra-effective way of learning to murder, it is enlisting in a branch of the United States Armed Forces. I don't think the Colonel can argue against the fact that most people who enlist, whether or not they are innately aggressive people, are quite definitely tought to kill. Are we to believe that the thousands of violent game players in this country are more dangerous than the thousands of professionally trained killers? I personally don't think either group is inherently dangerous, mainly because the vast majority of people in the world really are fairly well adjusted and not likely to hurt anyone without provocation.
Point three: I could swear I have seen several articles by now, citing findings that youth crime is actually down, in spite of the rise in violence in games.
That is all I have to say about that.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Funny you should mention this. A couple years ago, a group of Marines were funded to modify Doom for use in training simulations. The situations were particularly geared toward 4 man fire teams and infiltration techniques. They made their wod available, with their own sprites and everything. I don't recall the name of their project though.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
The end user of the software is totally responsible for his or her actions. There is no question about that. Trying to deny the responsibility of one's own actions is morally and ethically unacceptable; even though it is often done in the United States. I cite the example of the woman who sued McDonald's for $1 million after spilling hot coffee in her own lap. Her argument was that the coffee was not appropriately labeled as dangerously hot and therefore her burns were a direct result of McDonald's negligence. Now, we all know that the woman was a moron, but worse still, she skirted her responsibility for her actions. She played ignorant and refused to acknowledge that she was stupid to have put hot coffee between her legs.
Notice, however, that if one embarks on an action that harms others, the authorities are *very* quick to take the correct moral and ethical high ground. If you use a gun to murder someone, you are tried for murder, not the gun manufacturer. If you break into a home using a glass cutter, you will be tried for breaking and entering, not the glass cutter manufacturer. If you use a particular software package to crack a system and damage it, you will be tried for computer trespass, not the software designer.
I guess the real question you are trying to ask is "can the software designer be held responsible for making a tool that is potentially dangerous"? Asking this question is the same as asking "can we hold any designer responsible for the harmful use of their creation"?
I don't know the answer. The closest I can come to an answer for myself is something that is purely relativistic and probably unacceptable. I would say that it really depends on the intent of the creator. For example, if I use a Stanley claw hammer to unrepentantly bash your brains in, I think it is a safe assessment to acknowledge that the Stanley corporation will not be brought to trial for murder in the first degree. However, if Stanely designed and marketed a hammer specifically for the purpose of imploding the skulls of living humans, and I used *that* hammer in my crime, I think the Stanley corporation might find themselves culpable.
So what about gun manufacturers? I don't think anyone can argue to the contrary that hand guns are designed for anything but the purpose of immobilizing and killing human beings. But are gun manufacturers ever brought to trial with the assailant in murder cases? Not that I know of.
That's all I have to say about that.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I had this same issue a while back. The trick is to pour over the development mailing list for the answers.:)
Basically, there was a branch in the Mesa CVS tree. In order to compile the latest glx-mga driver for the G200/G400, you need to update your Mesa CVS sources like so:
cvs update -r mesa_3_2_dev
That will get you up to date.
I have to say, I really love my G200. I have followed the progress of the glx driver almost from the beginning and it runs great for an incomplete driver. The new q3demo runs significantly faster than the most previous q3test.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I am not a nuclear physicist or engineer, but I am pretty sure you are right. If the coolant disappears, the reactor should shut down. I grew up in Toledo, OH. Very near is Davis Besse nuclear power plant (between Toledo and Sandusky, home to Cedar Point, the roller coaster capital of the world!).
Anyway, Davis Besse was infamous at the time for having one of the *worst* production uptimes of any nuclear power plant in the country. We are talking bottom 10 worst. The main problem they seemed to continually have was with coolant valves in the heat exchangers.
Basically, here is one way a reactor works. You have your core. It is sunk into a big tub of water to help control the temperature. That water is "hot" in both senses of the word. It is thermally hot and radioactively hot. Since it is radioactively hot, it must be a closed system. This water is hot enough to be steam and drives turbines and generators for electricity. It is then usually run through heat exchangers before returning to the core. The heat exchangers interact with another water system which consists of a closed water supply like a pond where that water cools further before being circulated back through the heat exchangers again.
The important thing to remember, and where you need correction is that every reactor has graphite control rods. These are super hot because they are really what controls the reaction. The coolant is only taking heat away from the core. The control rods are basically like a throttle. Less controls rods, more reaction. The control rods are usually what is referred to when people talk about nuclear waste (as their usefullness as a reaction control mechanism has expired and they are hot hot hot!)
So the reactor at Chernobyl was not really designed any differently as it was poorly designed and run, I believe.
It may not solve all the problems, but it is a beginning.
In short, the CAVE is a room-sized projection-based VR system. I am fairly certain it was pioneered at Argonne National Labs. (BTW, they have a *very* interesting Linux supercomputing project going on with IBM and VA Linux Systems).
Check out the CAVE Quake2 site for details (technical info, screenshots, movies!), etc.
Hit Related Sites for more info on the CAVE.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I just have to vent. Whenever there is a posting on/. about environments and/or window managers, people get all up in arms about what they feel is the best or worst or whatever. It is getting pointless. Just use what you like, people. That is one of the great things about this software is that there is so much to choose from. Why does there have to be a "standard" Linux "desktop"?
Also, I am just getting fed up with all the yahoos constantly comparing desktop environments with window managers. Apples and oranges people!
A desktop environment is *not* the same as a window manager. You cannot compare KDE/GNOME to WindowMaker/FVWM/Enlightment/SCWM/IceWM/BlackBox whatever.
KDE/GNOME are desktop environments. You can compare them to each other. They are each a set of programs that allow interoperability and shared information between programs for a seamless desktop. Both KDE and GNOME are largely window manager independent. That means I can run KDE on top of WindowMaker if I want. Or I can run GNOME on top of BlackBox. As long as the window manager supports the environment, things will work. It just so happens that both KDE and GNOME have either a built-in window manager or a prefered window manager (KWM and Enlightenment, respectively).
A window manager is a single program for drawing windows to the X root window, or desktop as people like to call it. A window manager, well, manages windows. It controls what your windows look like and how they behave when you move them or shade them or minimize them. Window managers allow some ability to launch programs and applications through root menus. A window manager is not a file manager. It is not an application launching panel. It is definitely not a fully integrated desktop environment. A window manager may be only a part of a desktop environment.
Now XFCE would seem to fit into the category of desktop environment since the window manger is only a single piece of the whole "environment". But you will notice that XFCE supports GNOME and is not a truly integrated environment like GNOME or KDE, so it is really just another window manager with associated programs which explains why people seem to think it is so much faster than KDE/GNOME. Of course it is faster! It is just a window manager!
The only reason I am tirading here is because I have seen several posts about how people want a "fast" window manager, but then talk about how bloated and slow GNOME and KDE are, especially on older machines. Well, what did you expect? GNOME and KDE are not window managers. Running fully integrated desktop environments is an expensive task. Why do you think Windows sucks so much? Microsoft cannot even distinguish their underlying operating system from their graphical environment.
In summary, run whatever you want, whatever environment/manager that suits your needs. And stop confusing desktop environments with window managers. They are not the same and you look a bit silly when you try comparing them.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong. Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I grep'd through the FHS 2.2 doc really quickly and I could find nothing to indicate a standard for runlevels or runlevel init scripts.
/etc/init.d with the runlevels themselves in /etc/rc0.d etc. Yet RedHat puts everything in /etc/rc.d/init.d with the runlevels in /etc/rc.d/rc0.d etc., which is SysV compliant with a twist? And Slackware is more like BSD and does not have SysV runlevels. (Note: It has been years since I used Slackware so that may have changed).
One of the things that bothers me most about the diversity in Linux distributions is that no one seems to agree on what runlevel standard to use.
For instance, Debian is pretty much SysV compliant (like Solaris), in that everything is in
I mean, I think it is pretty annoying. It's bad enough (but acceptable) that the various other Un*xen have their own filesystem layouts. It's pretty much historical. And one can say, *this* box is Solaris, and *this* box is HPUX, and *this* box is AIX, and *this* box is BSD. But why the hell can't Linux distributions aggree to be totally SysV compliant? Why can't we say *this* box is GNU/Linux instead of Debian, RedHat, Slackware, and so on?
I think the claim that Blizzard wants to use the name Diablo for a movie title as well as New Line is pretty weak, even if they have a "trademark" on it. That is, for years, there have been many many movies released with the same title. Some movies are re-makes; others have nothing similar but the title. Just go to IMDb.com and see for yourself.
A most timely comparison would be Gladiator and Gladiator.
Who says Quake is not a turn-based game? I take turns killing someone and they take turns killing me. It's all good.
I think to really appreciate Ender's Game, you have to read it at the right time in your life. I am not going to try to guess what that time is for you or anyone else. Even then, maybe your personality is such that Ender's Game is just not your thing.
I first read Ender's Game when I was in college. A friend suggested it to me. I loved that book. I suspect I always will. However, if I first read it today, maybe I would not feel the same way. As an example, I tried reading Kerouak's On the Road a couple years ago (I am serveral years out of college now). I just could not get into it. But for many friends who read it when they were younger, it was a very formative novel. It resonated with whatever was going on in their life at that time. I think Ender's Game is the same way. It resonates with the events of our youth.
Now, anything after Ender's Game is a different story. No apologies here at all, but Speaker for the Dead was okay; Xenocide and Children of the Mind pretty much sucked. I was so disgusted by the time I finished Children, I did not even want to pick up Ender's Shadow. I had my fill of O.S. Card. I am not alone, either.
And here is why: Ender's game was excellent Science Fiction. Xenocide and Children of the Mind? Those were pulp SciFi. Most people don't make a distinction between the two, but Harlan Ellison (god bless his twisted little soul) and I do.
Science Fiction is fiction with some sort of scientifically intriguing setting and that is all. The real story comes from character and plot development. SciFi relies almost totally on the gimmicks of the universe the story is set in. Say, for example, philotes. (Of course, there is a spectum here, so not everything, including the things I mention, fall neatly into one category or the other.)
To draw a parallel: Babylon 5 was Science Fiction for the most part; StarTrek almost exclusively a SciFi franchise. Proof of point: in STNG, nearly any time the crew got in trouble, all they had to do was call on Gordi LaForge to pull their collective asses out of the fire some imaginative application of the HyperSpace Butt-winch. It was not until the later seasons that we got to see some deeper character development. Babylon 5 on the other hand was all about the characters and their interactions developed over 5 years.
Now, I am not saying that SciFi sucks. I like SciFi when that is what I want. Is there good SciFi? Hell, yeah: Stargate SG1. Or is that Science Fiction? Oh well. When I want Science Fiction, I seek that out and enjoy it too. I think what upset me about the Ender series was that good Science Fiction degenerated into bad SciFi. Philotes? Gimme a break. I found the transition from "Ender: destroyer of worlds" to "Philotes: our souls, our saviours" to be way too saccharine.
I feel sorry for you. I mean, if you really think your employer has that much power over you, you must live a really stifled life.
When you sign a contract with an employer, especially regarding IP, they only have a right to anything you develop for the company, on company time, with company property.
Taking a paycheck home to feed, clothe and house yourself and your family does *not* mean your home and your life suddenly become company property. Your salary is (hopefully) fair compensation for the services you render the company.
And if for some reason, you did sign over those rights, you made a mistake and that's your own fault.
Now, it does get a little sticky if the Open Source software you are developing "competes" with the proprietary software you are developing for the company. Even so, it is up to you to read, understand and agree with the IP contract you signed. If you don't agree with it, then don't sign it; or if you have to, don't work for that company.
What price your ideals against being corporate property?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Am I the only person that thinks there is something subtly horrific about us entertaining ideas of terraforming and colonizing another planet when we don't even know how to take care of the one we already have?
What is more, I am fairly appalled by the idea that we would be purposely initiating global warming on another planet. I mean, as a species, we have plainly demonstrated that we cannot control or moderate our impact on the environment and weather of this planet, our only home. So what is the solution? Let's go muck with the environment and weather on another planet so we have some place to go when we can no longer live here.
That's just great, people.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I say that once a species is extinct, we should leave it that way, as a reminder of our own mortality.
I am a firm believer that there are some things you just don't fsck with. This is one of them. This is just another example of humans playing god and asking all the wrong questions.
Sure we *can* do this, but *should* we?
I mean, I think that the real issue here is not that we are being responsibile and altruistic by restoring an extinct species. I think the real issue is that restoring an extinct species is an excuse to mess around with the planet's genetic heritage and say, "oh, look how clever we are."
If we were really so concerned about extinction, I think we would be doing more to preserve the species that currently exist. But hell, why bother worrying about that? Once we know how to bring a species back, we can just go about our merry way. Then it suddenly becomes a question of what species do we *want* around. Hmmm? Anybody think of that?
Oh gee, this rare mountain gorilla is in our way. That's okay, just get some samples and eliminate it. We can bring it back later on when we are done.
Sounds absurd, I know. But I don't put anything past humans.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
In essence HP recognizes Linux as an operating system powerful and stable enough to trust their Printing Server Appliance to, yet are unwilling to commit to supporting that very same operating system as a client.
Hey, so much for journalistic objectivity.
Thank you, Spyky, for making that assumption for us. Thanks for thoroughly researching this situation and sharing with us your keen and impartial observations.
And thank you, CmdrTaco, for making sure we all get the clearest facts and the most objective tone.
Jeeze. Just because the spec does not *list* Linux as being "supported" does not mean that it does not work. Moreover, it does not mean that HP has put the nix on Linux as a client as was so obviously implied.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Actually, you would have to make every part of your body transparent except your retinas and your lenses. What good are your retinas if they are hit by unfocused light? :)
In fact, you really would have to have your whole eyeball be non-transparent. Otherwise the ambiant light would interfere with image quality. Everything you would end up seeing, if you could distinguish images at all, would be really washed out.
So who's gonna notice a couple of detached, floating eyeballs moving around?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
As far as I am concerned, any more StarWars movies will just be The Pain.
That's right:
Episode II: The Pain
and (you guessed it)
Episode III: Return Of The Pain
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
> Um, I've never used Python (I have issues with the block syntax)
Well, you cannot have issues with something you have never tried. Write a couple Python scripts and *then* if you have "issues", you have a right to complain, and only then if you have a reason other than "I have issues with foo".
The only reason I say this is because I too used to "have issues" with the whitespace meaningful block syntax. Then I got over my prejudices and actually started learning and using the Python. I have to say now, if your only reason for not learning a language is because you have a preconception about syntax, then you are missing out.
> See? Nothing about it being specifically for the web there...
Yeah, the same can be said for Perl. But I think everybody knows that Perl owes its popularity and widespread use greatly to its use as a "web scripting language", whatever that is anyway.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I totally agree that an OS is a tool to get a job done (or have fun, or whatever).
However, the idealogy of the tool is just as important as the tool, I think. That is why GNU software is so important and why RMS makes such a big deal about the difference between Open Source Software and Free Software (not to mention proprietary software).
What is the use of having a nice tool if you cannot make improvements to the tool and/or share those improvements with the world?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Does not mean it's really cool.
I have two words for you:
eye strain
I don't know about anyone else out there, but I have a really hard time reading a book or working on a laptop in a car while it's moving. I mean, I can do it; I just cannot do it for long. I doubt anyone else will really be that keen on actually trying to do work or whatever in their car.
Imagine trying to code or read your favorite sites while someone is agitating your monitor. First, you get annoyed. Then you get a headache. That car better have some *serious* suspension.
So if the passengers want to surf the web, grab mp3s or porn or whatever, that's fine. Everybody knows what they like and what they like to do.
The driver, however, should be doing one thing. That's right: driving. Need to consult a map, listen to music? That's all cool. But don't give me this crap about driving and surfing at the same time. That's just irresponsible. Yes, just like driving and drinking, driving and talking on a cell phone, driving and applying makeup, driving and reading a book, and so on.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Bingo!
Personally, I do not use GNOME (or KDE), though I do use the occassional GNOME program. That is my choice based on how I best interact with my computer. I feel that GNOME gets in the way of what I do, so I don't use it.
However, I like to follow the development of GNOME just to see what is happening. I think that a *lot* of people do not interact the way I and a lot of hackers do with our systems. That is what GNOME is for.
I may not like GNOME or use it, but that does not mean I don't support it. As long as it improves, does it what it is supposed to do, and is GPL'd, I'll be totally happy to see what it becomes.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I like Quake. A lot. Probably too much.
But I have to say, I would feel pretty embarrassed if I were to tell friends, family members, or my children that I got married in a video game.
I mean, what is it about Quake exactly that contributes to the sentiment of life-long commitment and love? Is it the exquisite 3D rendering? Perhaps the fast network layer? Wait, I know, it is the ability to kill your spouse over and over and over with no ramifications whatsoever.
I don't get it. This is *not* cool. This is a damn joke and a travesty. Quake is a game. Think about what someone is really saying by getting married in a *game*. They are saying that the marriage is a game, a fantasy. How serious is that? What kind of commitment is that?
I don't care about what any yahoo says about freedom of expression and the all the wonderful possibilities our technology offers and affords us or the exploration of the boundaries of the human experience. It is all crap. It is a mockery of what marriage is about. There are some lines that should not be crossed. There are some things that *can* be done, but should *not* be done.
Until more people realize this and understand why it is true, humanity will never be anything more than a trivial, complacent, decadent, and petty species.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
> any system, not every system
: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a : one or another taken at random any man you meet> b : EVERY -- used to indicate one selected without restriction any child would know that> : one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity: a : one or more -- used to indicate an undetermined number or amount any money> b : ALL -- used to indicate a maximum or whole any help he can get> c : a or some without reference to quantity or extent any favor at all> : unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number, or extent any quantity you desire> b : appreciably large or extended any length of time>
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: 1any
Pronunciation: 'e-nE
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English [AE]nig; akin to Old High German einag any, Old English An one -- more at ONE
Date: before 12th century
1
2
3 a
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Microsoft Office is also the best office package available on any system.
I generally choose anymore to stay out of these wonderful dialectics. Mainly I am just tired of the whole "Microsoft is evil" and "Linux is our salvation" back-and-forth. I have made a personal choice to support GNU and Open Source software; and I really don't give a crap about anybody else's opinions anymore. No offence. I am certainly open to listening to all sorts of ideas, but I grow weary of the mud-slinging and fanaticism.
However, one thing that will get a rise out of me is when the facts are manipulated, blurred, or misconstrued. The above statement is a case in point.
I will grant that MS has some decent software and some decent hardware. But to say that Office is the best office package available on any system is just foolhardy.
I mean, "any system" implies that MS Office is the best office package for, say, Linux. Golly, I was not aware that MS did a Linux port of Office. Where is it? I'd like to check it out.
Oh, what's that? MS Office doesn't exist for Linux? Oh, I see. So you either lied, or are grossly misinformed, or had your facts all wrong.
In fact, then, Office cannot possibly be the best package available on any system because it is not available for just any system. Can I run it on Linux? Solaris? FreeBSD? BeOS? Not without some sort of emulator; so running it under Wine or Wabi or VMWare does not count.
If you are going to make a blanket statment about software packages running on any system, you better check your facts. Chances are the details will prove you wrong.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
That has to be the lamest article I have read in a long time. In fact, the last time I read what I thought was a lame article, it was in Salon.
I got so fed up with all the pseudo-code crap that I stopped reading mid way. What is the point of all that?
The article is very difficult to read. The sentences are poorly formed. Paragraphs with central ideas don't even exist. I mean, I am reading along one line of thought, and the author breaks my concentration with a bunch of "comments" that supposedly support the current idea, when in fact they just distract me. It was damn annoying.
I mean, code is code. Prose is prose. If you are going to excercise your wit by blending then, you damn well better be exceptional at both. Otherwise you are just confusing and irritating people.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Lt. Col. Grossman's book seems to revolve around a few basic themes:
Exposure to violent entertainment desensitizes youth to acts of violence and leads to aggressive behavior.
Violent video and computer games are an ultra-effective way of instructing murder.
Youth crime is rising in America as is the amount of violence in video and computer games.
Now, you would think that a career soldier would know better than this. I know I am working with a condensation of the Colonel's words here, but work with me.
Point one: Exposure to violence certainly does desensitize, but I think that what leads to aggressive behavior is a lack of discipline, compassion and focus. If a person, young or not, does not have effective means of safely externalizing aggressive feelings and instincts while still feeling safe and cared for, they are going to go nuts and start blowing people away.
You never see a story about some 17 year old gunning down his class where the headline is "Happy, expressive, and well adjusted captain of the wrestling team and merit scholar John Smith executes school mates in a fit of undefined pent-up rage". You also never see the headline: "Disciplined and obedient Marine Private Jackson slaughters his squad for lack of purpose and direction".
Point two: Violent video and computer games are an ultra-effective way of instructing point and click techniques. Sure we can learn some strategy and conniving and learn to become very comfortable with "killing" thousands of game entities. But we all know it is not real. No matter how realistic a game is, it will never be the same as killing a real human being, face to face.
If *anything* is an ultra-effective way of learning to murder, it is enlisting in a branch of the United States Armed Forces. I don't think the Colonel can argue against the fact that most people who enlist, whether or not they are innately aggressive people, are quite definitely tought to kill. Are we to believe that the thousands of violent game players in this country are more dangerous than the thousands of professionally trained killers? I personally don't think either group is inherently dangerous, mainly because the vast majority of people in the world really are fairly well adjusted and not likely to hurt anyone without provocation.
Point three: I could swear I have seen several articles by now, citing findings that youth crime is actually down, in spite of the rise in violence in games.
That is all I have to say about that.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Funny you should mention this. A couple years ago, a group of Marines were funded to modify Doom for use in training simulations. The situations were particularly geared toward 4 man fire teams and infiltration techniques. They made their wod available, with their own sprites and everything. I don't recall the name of their project though.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
The end user of the software is totally responsible for his or her actions. There is no question about that. Trying to deny the responsibility of one's own actions is morally and ethically unacceptable; even though it is often done in the United States. I cite the example of the woman who sued McDonald's for $1 million after spilling hot coffee in her own lap. Her argument was that the coffee was not appropriately labeled as dangerously hot and therefore her burns were a direct result of McDonald's negligence. Now, we all know that the woman was a moron, but worse still, she skirted her responsibility for her actions. She played ignorant and refused to acknowledge that she was stupid to have put hot coffee between her legs.
Notice, however, that if one embarks on an action that harms others, the authorities are *very* quick to take the correct moral and ethical high ground. If you use a gun to murder someone, you are tried for murder, not the gun manufacturer. If you break into a home using a glass cutter, you will be tried for breaking and entering, not the glass cutter manufacturer. If you use a particular software package to crack a system and damage it, you will be tried for computer trespass, not the software designer.
I guess the real question you are trying to ask is "can the software designer be held responsible for making a tool that is potentially dangerous"? Asking this question is the same as asking "can we hold any designer responsible for the harmful use of their creation"?
I don't know the answer. The closest I can come to an answer for myself is something that is purely relativistic and probably unacceptable. I would say that it really depends on the intent of the creator. For example, if I use a Stanley claw hammer to unrepentantly bash your brains in, I think it is a safe assessment to acknowledge that the Stanley corporation will not be brought to trial for murder in the first degree. However, if Stanely designed and marketed a hammer specifically for the purpose of imploding the skulls of living humans, and I used *that* hammer in my crime, I think the Stanley corporation might find themselves culpable.
So what about gun manufacturers? I don't think anyone can argue to the contrary that hand guns are designed for anything but the purpose of immobilizing and killing human beings. But are gun manufacturers ever brought to trial with the assailant in murder cases? Not that I know of.
That's all I have to say about that.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I had this same issue a while back. The trick is to pour over the development mailing list for the answers. :)
Basically, there was a branch in the Mesa CVS tree. In order to compile the latest glx-mga driver for the G200/G400, you need to update your Mesa CVS sources like so:
cvs update -r mesa_3_2_dev
That will get you up to date.
I have to say, I really love my G200. I have followed the progress of the glx driver almost from the beginning and it runs great for an incomplete driver. The new q3demo runs significantly faster than the most previous q3test.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I am not a nuclear physicist or engineer, but I am pretty sure you are right. If the coolant disappears, the reactor should shut down. I grew up in Toledo, OH. Very near is Davis Besse nuclear power plant (between Toledo and Sandusky, home to Cedar Point, the roller coaster capital of the world!).
Anyway, Davis Besse was infamous at the time for having one of the *worst* production uptimes of any nuclear power plant in the country. We are talking bottom 10 worst. The main problem they seemed to continually have was with coolant valves in the heat exchangers.
Basically, here is one way a reactor works. You have your core. It is sunk into a big tub of water to help control the temperature. That water is "hot" in both senses of the word. It is thermally hot and radioactively hot. Since it is radioactively hot, it must be a closed system. This water is hot enough to be steam and drives turbines and generators for electricity. It is then usually run through heat exchangers before returning to the core. The heat exchangers interact with another water system which consists of a closed water supply like a pond where that water cools further before being circulated back through the heat exchangers again.
The important thing to remember, and where you need correction is that every reactor has graphite control rods. These are super hot because they are really what controls the reaction. The coolant is only taking heat away from the core. The control rods are basically like a throttle. Less controls rods, more reaction. The control rods are usually what is referred to when people talk about nuclear waste (as their usefullness as a reaction control mechanism has expired and they are hot hot hot!)
So the reactor at Chernobyl was not really designed any differently as it was poorly designed and run, I believe.
A really good site for info on nuclear reactors is The Virtual Nuclear Tourist.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
CAVE Quake2.
It may not solve all the problems, but it is a beginning.
In short, the CAVE is a room-sized projection-based VR system. I am fairly certain it was pioneered at Argonne National Labs. (BTW, they have a *very* interesting Linux supercomputing project going on with IBM and VA Linux Systems).
Check out the CAVE Quake2 site for details (technical info, screenshots, movies!), etc.
Hit Related Sites for more info on the CAVE.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
I just have to vent. Whenever there is a posting on /. about environments and/or window managers, people get all up in arms about what they feel is the best or worst or whatever. It is getting pointless. Just use what you like, people. That is one of the great things about this software is that there is so much to choose from. Why does there have to be a "standard" Linux "desktop"?
Also, I am just getting fed up with all the yahoos constantly comparing desktop environments with window managers. Apples and oranges people!
A desktop environment is *not* the same as a window manager. You cannot compare KDE/GNOME to WindowMaker/FVWM/Enlightment/SCWM/IceWM/BlackBox whatever.
KDE/GNOME are desktop environments. You can compare them to each other. They are each a set of programs that allow interoperability and shared information between programs for a seamless desktop. Both KDE and GNOME are largely window manager independent. That means I can run KDE on top of WindowMaker if I want. Or I can run GNOME on top of BlackBox. As long as the window manager supports the environment, things will work. It just so happens that both KDE and GNOME have either a built-in window manager or a prefered window manager (KWM and Enlightenment, respectively).
A window manager is a single program for drawing windows to the X root window, or desktop as people like to call it. A window manager, well, manages windows. It controls what your windows look like and how they behave when you move them or shade them or minimize them. Window managers allow some ability to launch programs and applications through root menus. A window manager is not a file manager. It is not an application launching panel. It is definitely not a fully integrated desktop environment. A window manager may be only a part of a desktop environment.
Now XFCE would seem to fit into the category of desktop environment since the window manger is only a single piece of the whole "environment". But you will notice that XFCE supports GNOME and is not a truly integrated environment like GNOME or KDE, so it is really just another window manager with associated programs which explains why people seem to think it is so much faster than KDE/GNOME. Of course it is faster! It is just a window manager!
The only reason I am tirading here is because I have seen several posts about how people want a "fast" window manager, but then talk about how bloated and slow GNOME and KDE are, especially on older machines. Well, what did you expect? GNOME and KDE are not window managers. Running fully integrated desktop environments is an expensive task. Why do you think Windows sucks so much? Microsoft cannot even distinguish their underlying operating system from their graphical environment.
In summary, run whatever you want, whatever environment/manager that suits your needs. And stop confusing desktop environments with window managers. They are not the same and you look a bit silly when you try comparing them.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.