This paper is part of the ongoing abstract research into the possibility of travelling faster than light without breaking the laws of relativity. There are two leading proposals, usually referred in laymans terms as "Warp Drives" and "Wormholes".
The Warp Drive idea was first formalized (i.e. given all the math to show it should work, given sufficient engineering prowess) by M. Alcubierre, so it is sometimes called the Alcubierre Warp Drive. It has three big drawbacks: it requires an absurd amount of exotic energy and matter (some of which we don't yet know how to make), you can't see anything while Warping, and there is no theory on how to stop. This paper addresses the first problem, with the equations given, you need far less exotic energy and matter.
For some excellent laymans info on Faster Than Light issues, check out NASA's Warp Drive, When? site.
The most troubling thing to me with KDE and Gnome is their astonishing bloat. Neither of these environments can reasonably be described as "lightweight." On a 64MB RH6.0 machine starting Gnome up immediately sucks all my free RAM; KDE is very little better.
While I certainly wouldn't call GNOME lightweight, I have a very similar setup as you (64MB RH5.9 machine), and GNOME is very nice to my RAM. Usually my X Server takes up as much memory as all my GNOME programs combined. Even running Netscape with GNOME, I've got a comfortable 15MB-20MB for disk caching. From everything I've heard, KDE's memory usage is similar. You might want to run Top to see what really is eating up your RAM.
The place where GNOME and KDE both hog space is on the hard disk. But with recent hard drive prices, that's alot less of an issue.
It's like complaining that no one does car mechanics but they all do driving lessons.
A perfect analogy. It's a device that most people will use, and it's a complicated device that we need to teach some people the inner workings. That's why most schools in my state (NYS) do offer both car mechanics and driving lessons. Granted most schools don't have the facilities for car mechanics, but they make collective arrangements so that someone with interest can learn.
With computers, most schools seem to have washed their hands of the whole programming aspect. They don't want to deal with teaching kids how to control the computers, just use them. Anyone who wants to learn to program has to teach themselves or wait until college in most parts of the state.
Another important thing about programming courses needs a little background. In case you haven't figured it out (don't worry, most people I've talked to haven't), the reason high schools make such a big deal about Math class has nothing to do with learning math. They know full well that few people require Euclid or Triginometry in the real world. It's there to teach you analytic problem solving, which is an important skill for everyone.
Programming teaches you algorithmic problem solving, which is another important skill for everyone. I think that at least Programming 101 should be a requirement, not a discarded option.
If all you are looking for is the stuff on the CD, downloading or cheapbytes are fine, but the boxed sets have their place. First off, you get a book, figure that's worth a good $20-$40. Secondly, some of the companies offer goodies or support services only available to those who purchase the box. Lastly, count about $5-$10 for saying "Thanks for the great distro, please stay in business so you can make more for me!".
At least the Borders around me (Albany, NY) has a great Linux selection. They carry the shrinkedwrapped versions of RedHat, Slackware, OpenLinux, SuSE and Applix. Good array of books too, including the FSF books (Emacs Manual, GCC, etc.). For those without a Borders nearby, I hear they're going online soon too.
Most iris scanning systems can tell if they're looking at a live eye or a dead one. Stealing an eye would be useless (although stupid muggers might try anyway).
BTW, re the title of the article, it's an iris scan, not a retinal scan.
He is recieving this award as recognition for his work on GCC, GDB, Emacs and other programs that continue to be key to the internet being as successful as it is.
I agree that it's his software contributions rather than his IP views that got him this award. On the other hand, with the exception of Emacs, the programs you list were not done outside of GNU/FSF. If I recall correctly, GCC was the program that Stallman started the GNU project with. GDB came a little while after.
Re:The BSD/GPL difference is pretty simple
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
There's plenty of software that uses the advertising clause, even on my machine. FreeBSD doesn't use the advertising clause for their core stuff, and my understanding is they got special permission from UCB to do so. There is still lots of software that still has the advertising clause in it. You can't legally remove the clause without explicit permission of the copyright holder, any more than you can remove GPL terms you find objectionable.
What exactly are Linux's strong points? It's not user friendly or easy to setup, has few apps, a chaotic development, is not all that fast (even *BSDs are faster). The only thing going for it it the fact that it's not Microsoft. Face it guys, Linux has been around for 8 years and hasn't progressed very far. It's a hackjob, a makeshift OS for the Microsoft haters. QED
First off, blind assertion does not equal truth. If it is truth, than it flies in the face of the experiences of most people here, so some references or examples are pretty much required. If I were to assert "The sky is blue", few people would argue, if I were to assert "The sky is pink", I would need to support that statement, or it will be dismissed out of hand.
Secondly, the original poster's assertions are either false, or so poorly defined that they couldn't be called "truth". It's not "user friendly"? What do you mean by "user friendly", I find Linux very user friendly, since it allows adminstrator-type users to access everything while restricting normal users from demolishing their system trying to install a pretty screensaver. I have set up many Windows 95/98/NT and Linux boxes, and I find RedHat much easier to install and configure than Windows.
"Has few apps"? Have you looked at Freshmeat.Net lately? I don't know what you call it, but I don't call that "few". A "chaotic development"? Linux development is carefully managed and delegated. Microsoft is rumoured not to even let their programmers have full access to the code of the program they are working on.
The blanket assertion that "even *BSDs are faster" is flawed on many levels. The tone is along the lines of "even this slow thing is faster than what you like", when most people consider the BSD's to be fast. I mean, "even horses run faster than you", what kind of comparison is that? It also isn't true without that tone. From everything I've heard, OpenBSD and NetBSD are generally slower than Linux. FreeBSD is faster only for certain situations, and only on the Intel platform. If I'm wrong, show me real references.
"The only thing going for it is the fact that its not Microsoft". No, it also has "it's a fast, stable, general purpose operating system that works incredibly as a server and darn good as a desktop system". Also, "It's Free, both in the speech and in the beer sense!". These are big things going for it in many peoples books.
"Linux has been around 8 years and hasn't progressed very far"? In 1991, Linux was barely more than an idea, in 1992, it still didn't know what SCSI or Ethernet were. Now it's a full blown operating system competing tooth and nail with megacorporations for being the platform of choice in the server room. I'd say it's progressed very very far.
"It's a hackjob, a makeshift OS for the Microsoft haters", I don't even know what this means, much less how to respond to it.
"QED", Latin for quod erat demonstrandum which was to be demonstrated. This being here means either the poster has no idea when to use "QED", or the entire goal of the post was not to answer the question "What exactly are Linux's strong points?" but to demonstrate that it is a "hackjob, a makeshift OS for Microsoft haters". Not only is that a pretty silly goal for a post, but it is a failure, because the post demonstrates nothing of the sort.
In all, I think the post solidly deserved its -1 score. (No I didn't moderate it, otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this).
Which can perform better as an NFS or Coda server? Stability under high CPU load? Which can perform better as an IMAP or NNTP server? How about a "pathetic" test like which can perform number crunching benchmarks faster.
Now let's do the above on a four-way Alpha-21264 system with 2GB of memory.
The BSD/GPL difference is pretty simple
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
The BSD was designed to maximize the usage of a program, and make sure that the author's name gets everywhere. It hopes that people are nice enough to include the author's code.
The GPL was designed to maximize the Freedom of a program, and make sure that the author's code gets everywhere. It hopes that people are nice enough to include the author's name.
Which you use when writing a new program depends on what your priorities are. Which you use when you modify someone's code depends on what the code is. The BSD advertising clause is just as infectious as the GPL's terms.
IPv6 implies a level of object addressability that is, frankly, scary to anyone who has an iota of sense. You'll pry my non-routable addresses from my cold, dead hands.
According to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture ( RFC2373) section 2.5.8, there are plenty of non-routable IPv6 addresses. They're called "link-local" and "site-local" addresses, and each group has more addresses in it than the entire IPv4 address space.
I remember this scare came up two or three years ago. Bob Metcalfe (of Ethernet and 3Com fame) was the one really pushing the issue then. Disaster didn't happen then, and the situation isn't critical now. There are still lots of class C's available for the near future, and if they disappear quicker than expected, there are some almost empty class A's and B's that could be subdivided. Nobody really needs a class A anyway.
This won't last us indefinately, if we get 250 real IP addresses per household we would run out. On the other hand, the only sane way to give every gadget, appliance, outlet and lightswitch in a house its own IP address is to use the 10.0.0.0/8 network, so it's not an issue for the rest of the world. IPv6 is still the best long term solution (just like it was 2-3 years ago). What's the hold up? It works, all decent OS's support it natively, when are the backbone providers going to start swithching, and encouraging their clients to switch?
First, this is the Federal Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. The government doesn't always listen to the Court of Appeals.
Second, this ruling only protects the transmission of encryption source code, not binaries. Any restrictions on binaries are just as much in force today as they were before the ruling. It does, however, mean you can put source code up on your web or FTP site and expect not to be hassled for it. If you are hassled for it, you can expect to have an easier legal battle with this precident in hand.
I would think the most important time to do hardware detection is when you are first installing the operating system. You don't want the X Window System running for the initial install, so why isn't this using a character mode? Possibly include a pretty X11 frontend for later use, but this program begs for having a Text user interface.
I would think the most important time to do hardware detection is when you are first installing the operating system. You don't want the X Window System running for the initial install, so why isn't this using a character mode. Possibly include a pretty X11 frontend for later use, but this program begs for having a Text user interface.
Although there will soon be a DFSG-free Qt... the incompatibility between the GPL and Qt's license... persists with a QPL-licensed Qt.
Last I checked, KDE was addressing that by switching the license of most of their core stuff to Artistic (which works fine with the QPL). I don't know how far along they've gotten with this.
Well, they have long expertise in graphic design, through Corel Draw. They definately know their graphics at Corel. Furthermore, they don't need to "build a GUI". By using Debian and KDE, they are piggybacking on the work of others. I am sure that the GUI will be XFree86, with KWM and KDE running on top of it. While my personal preference is GNOME, a preinstalled KDE system should make for a very pleasant introduction to Linux.
C'mon, it had a built in tape drive, and an IEEE-422 interface included. Neither the TRS-80 or Apple ][ could match that, that's something that even the latest Gateways and Dells don't offer (well, they offer the tape drive, just not the IEEE-422)! On top of that, if you had the right model, you could self destruct your computer with software alone!
But, other than the superiority of the PET 2001 Series, we do need to limit the bickering and the flames.
AOL does much more than the AOL we know such as ICQ, Netscape, and corporate Internet services.
All of which were purchased (from Mirablis, Netscape and Compuserve respectively) rather than anything AOL actually did.
Usually, when they enter a market, prices drop.
In the computer industry, usually prices drop, I have yet to see any cause and effect relationship between AOL and industry pricing, particularly since they usually charge above the average for whatever services they offer.
AOL might be good for this.
Perhaps, if they don't require somthing like AOL's special DNS client software to set up your system. They do have a bad tendency to require their own proprietary software.
...I find your pseudocode disturbing. You didn't test for someone incapacitated by pot; you test for someone who tests positive for pot at *any* time. It apparently doesn't matter to you whether they smoked the joint before the big presentation to clients... or they simply attended the "wrong" concert with the "wrong" crowd over the weekend. (Or they ate too many poppy seed bagels too close to a random drug test....)
Technically, the pseudocode says nothing of the sort. It uses an unspecified "test" to determine whether or not the person "smokesweed", which the most likely definition would be "has smoked weed in the past and is likely to do so in the future". Of course using this as a criteria is just as dangerous as what you interpreted it as. Also, there is no real world test that would cover this interpretation.
The teenager driver facing a "drunk driving" charge because the state's "zero tolerance" policy towards alcohol makes no exemption for NyQuil.
NyQuil is over 60 Proof, almost as strong as hard liquor! On top of that, it includes antihistamines which are notorious for screwing with reflexes and attention span. Driving on NyQuil is very dangerous. Personally, I think that the emphasis that "drunk driving is bad" is dangerous, because it doesn't address all the other stupid and dangerous ways people can drive while unfit. Most cold medicines, most prescription painkillers, lack of sleep, all of these can demolish your ability to drive. People tend to over look that because they aren't drinking. "Zero tolerance" laws are a bad idea in general, but the NyQuil example just doesn't hold water.
I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive and I tell you that you are free.
Bullshit makes the flowers grow, And that is beautiful
Slashdot Mirror
This paper is part of the ongoing abstract research into the possibility of travelling faster than light without breaking the laws of relativity. There are two leading proposals, usually referred in laymans terms as "Warp Drives" and "Wormholes".
The Warp Drive idea was first formalized (i.e. given all the math to show it should work, given sufficient engineering prowess) by M. Alcubierre, so it is sometimes called the Alcubierre Warp Drive. It has three big drawbacks: it requires an absurd amount of exotic energy and matter (some of which we don't yet know how to make), you can't see anything while Warping, and there is no theory on how to stop. This paper addresses the first problem, with the equations given, you need far less exotic energy and matter.
For some excellent laymans info on Faster Than Light issues, check out NASA's Warp Drive, When? site.
Dictator for Life wrote:
The most troubling thing to me with KDE and Gnome is their astonishing bloat. Neither of these environments can reasonably be described as "lightweight." On a 64MB RH6.0 machine starting Gnome up immediately sucks all my free RAM; KDE is very little better.
While I certainly wouldn't call GNOME lightweight, I have a very similar setup as you (64MB RH5.9 machine), and GNOME is very nice to my RAM. Usually my X Server takes up as much memory as all my GNOME programs combined. Even running Netscape with GNOME, I've got a comfortable 15MB-20MB for disk caching. From everything I've heard, KDE's memory usage is similar. You might want to run Top to see what really is eating up your RAM.
The place where GNOME and KDE both hog space is on the hard disk. But with recent hard drive prices, that's alot less of an issue.
Dj wrote:
It's like complaining that no one does car mechanics but they all do driving lessons.
A perfect analogy. It's a device that most people will use, and it's a complicated device that we need to teach some people the inner workings. That's why most schools in my state (NYS) do offer both car mechanics and driving lessons. Granted most schools don't have the facilities for car mechanics, but they make collective arrangements so that someone with interest can learn.
With computers, most schools seem to have washed their hands of the whole programming aspect. They don't want to deal with teaching kids how to control the computers, just use them. Anyone who wants to learn to program has to teach themselves or wait until college in most parts of the state.
Another important thing about programming courses needs a little background. In case you haven't figured it out (don't worry, most people I've talked to haven't), the reason high schools make such a big deal about Math class has nothing to do with learning math. They know full well that few people require Euclid or Triginometry in the real world. It's there to teach you analytic problem solving, which is an important skill for everyone.
Programming teaches you algorithmic problem solving, which is another important skill for everyone. I think that at least Programming 101 should be a requirement, not a discarded option.
You could always get a generator :-)
If all you are looking for is the stuff on the CD, downloading or cheapbytes are fine, but the boxed sets have their place. First off, you get a book, figure that's worth a good $20-$40. Secondly, some of the companies offer goodies or support services only available to those who purchase the box. Lastly, count about $5-$10 for saying "Thanks for the great distro, please stay in business so you can make more for me!".
At least the Borders around me (Albany, NY) has a great Linux selection. They carry the shrinkedwrapped versions of RedHat, Slackware, OpenLinux, SuSE and Applix. Good array of books too, including the FSF books (Emacs Manual, GCC, etc.). For those without a Borders nearby, I hear they're going online soon too.
Most iris scanning systems can tell if they're looking at a live eye or a dead one. Stealing an eye would be useless (although stupid muggers might try anyway).
BTW, re the title of the article, it's an iris scan, not a retinal scan.
Cysgod wrote:
He is recieving this award as recognition for his work on GCC, GDB, Emacs and other programs that continue to be key to the internet being as successful as it is.
I agree that it's his software contributions rather than his IP views that got him this award. On the other hand, with the exception of Emacs, the programs you list were not done outside of GNU/FSF. If I recall correctly, GCC was the program that Stallman started the GNU project with. GDB came a little while after.
There's plenty of software that uses the advertising clause, even on my machine. FreeBSD doesn't use the advertising clause for their core stuff, and my understanding is they got special permission from UCB to do so. There is still lots of software that still has the advertising clause in it. You can't legally remove the clause without explicit permission of the copyright holder, any more than you can remove GPL terms you find objectionable.
The original Anonymous Coward wrote:
What exactly are Linux's strong points? It's not user friendly or easy to setup, has few apps, a chaotic development, is not all that fast (even *BSDs are faster). The only thing going for it it the fact that it's not Microsoft. Face it guys, Linux has been around for 8 years and hasn't progressed very far. It's a hackjob, a makeshift OS for the Microsoft haters. QED
First off, blind assertion does not equal truth. If it is truth, than it flies in the face of the experiences of most people here, so some references or examples are pretty much required. If I were to assert "The sky is blue", few people would argue, if I were to assert "The sky is pink", I would need to support that statement, or it will be dismissed out of hand.
Secondly, the original poster's assertions are either false, or so poorly defined that they couldn't be called "truth". It's not "user friendly"? What do you mean by "user friendly", I find Linux very user friendly, since it allows adminstrator-type users to access everything while restricting normal users from demolishing their system trying to install a pretty screensaver. I have set up many Windows 95/98/NT and Linux boxes, and I find RedHat much easier to install and configure than Windows.
"Has few apps"? Have you looked at Freshmeat.Net lately? I don't know what you call it, but I don't call that "few". A "chaotic development"? Linux development is carefully managed and delegated. Microsoft is rumoured not to even let their programmers have full access to the code of the program they are working on.
The blanket assertion that "even *BSDs are faster" is flawed on many levels. The tone is along the lines of "even this slow thing is faster than what you like", when most people consider the BSD's to be fast. I mean, "even horses run faster than you", what kind of comparison is that? It also isn't true without that tone. From everything I've heard, OpenBSD and NetBSD are generally slower than Linux. FreeBSD is faster only for certain situations, and only on the Intel platform. If I'm wrong, show me real references.
"The only thing going for it is the fact that its not Microsoft". No, it also has "it's a fast, stable, general purpose operating system that works incredibly as a server and darn good as a desktop system". Also, "It's Free, both in the speech and in the beer sense!". These are big things going for it in many peoples books.
"Linux has been around 8 years and hasn't progressed very far"? In 1991, Linux was barely more than an idea, in 1992, it still didn't know what SCSI or Ethernet were. Now it's a full blown operating system competing tooth and nail with megacorporations for being the platform of choice in the server room. I'd say it's progressed very very far.
"It's a hackjob, a makeshift OS for the Microsoft haters", I don't even know what this means, much less how to respond to it.
"QED", Latin for quod erat demonstrandum which was to be demonstrated. This being here means either the poster has no idea when to use "QED", or the entire goal of the post was not to answer the question "What exactly are Linux's strong points?" but to demonstrate that it is a "hackjob, a makeshift OS for Microsoft haters". Not only is that a pretty silly goal for a post, but it is a failure, because the post demonstrates nothing of the sort.
In all, I think the post solidly deserved its -1 score. (No I didn't moderate it, otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this).
Which can perform better as an NFS or Coda server? Stability under high CPU load? Which can perform better as an IMAP or NNTP server? How about a "pathetic" test like which can perform number crunching benchmarks faster.
Now let's do the above on a four-way Alpha-21264 system with 2GB of memory.
The BSD was designed to maximize the usage of a program, and make sure that the author's name gets everywhere. It hopes that people are nice enough to include the author's code.
The GPL was designed to maximize the Freedom of a program, and make sure that the author's code gets everywhere. It hopes that people are nice enough to include the author's name.
Which you use when writing a new program depends on what your priorities are. Which you use when you modify someone's code depends on what the code is. The BSD advertising clause is just as infectious as the GPL's terms.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
IPv6 implies a level of object addressability that is, frankly, scary to anyone who has an iota of sense. You'll pry my non-routable addresses from my cold, dead hands.
According to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture ( RFC2373) section 2.5.8, there are plenty of non-routable IPv6 addresses. They're called "link-local" and "site-local" addresses, and each group has more addresses in it than the entire IPv4 address space.
I remember this scare came up two or three years ago. Bob Metcalfe (of Ethernet and 3Com fame) was the one really pushing the issue then. Disaster didn't happen then, and the situation isn't critical now. There are still lots of class C's available for the near future, and if they disappear quicker than expected, there are some almost empty class A's and B's that could be subdivided. Nobody really needs a class A anyway.
This won't last us indefinately, if we get 250 real IP addresses per household we would run out. On the other hand, the only sane way to give every gadget, appliance, outlet and lightswitch in a house its own IP address is to use the 10.0.0.0/8 network, so it's not an issue for the rest of the world. IPv6 is still the best long term solution (just like it was 2-3 years ago). What's the hold up? It works, all decent OS's support it natively, when are the backbone providers going to start swithching, and encouraging their clients to switch?
First, this is the Federal Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. The government doesn't always listen to the Court of Appeals.
Second, this ruling only protects the transmission of encryption source code, not binaries. Any restrictions on binaries are just as much in force today as they were before the ruling. It does, however, mean you can put source code up on your web or FTP site and expect not to be hassled for it. If you are hassled for it, you can expect to have an easier legal battle with this precident in hand.
I would think the most important time to do hardware detection is when you are first installing the operating system. You don't want the X Window System running for the initial install, so why isn't this using a character mode? Possibly include a pretty X11 frontend for later use, but this program begs for having a Text user interface.
I would think the most important time to do hardware detection is when you are first installing the operating system. You don't want the X Window System running for the initial install, so why isn't this using a character mode. Possibly include a pretty X11 frontend for later use, but this program begs for having a Text user interface.
Ray Dassen wrote:
... the incompatibility between the GPL and Qt's license ... persists with a QPL-licensed Qt.
Although there will soon be a DFSG-free Qt
Last I checked, KDE was addressing that by switching the license of most of their core stuff to Artistic (which works fine with the QPL). I don't know how far along they've gotten with this.
Well, they have long expertise in graphic design, through Corel Draw. They definately know their graphics at Corel. Furthermore, they don't need to "build a GUI". By using Debian and KDE, they are piggybacking on the work of others. I am sure that the GUI will be XFree86, with KWM and KDE running on top of it. While my personal preference is GNOME, a preinstalled KDE system should make for a very pleasant introduction to Linux.
C'mon, it had a built in tape drive, and an IEEE-422 interface included. Neither the TRS-80 or Apple ][ could match that, that's something that even the latest Gateways and Dells don't offer (well, they offer the tape drive, just not the IEEE-422)! On top of that, if you had the right model, you could self destruct your computer with software alone!
But, other than the superiority of the PET 2001 Series, we do need to limit the bickering and the flames.
Rocket Boy wrote:
AOL does much more than the AOL we know such as ICQ, Netscape, and corporate Internet services.
All of which were purchased (from Mirablis, Netscape and Compuserve respectively) rather than anything AOL actually did.
Usually, when they enter a market, prices drop.
In the computer industry, usually prices drop, I have yet to see any cause and effect relationship between AOL and industry pricing, particularly since they usually charge above the average for whatever services they offer.
AOL might be good for this.
Perhaps, if they don't require somthing like AOL's special DNS client software to set up your system. They do have a bad tendency to require their own proprietary software.
Coyote-san wrote:
...I find your pseudocode disturbing. You didn't test for someone incapacitated by pot; you test for someone who tests positive for pot at *any* time. It apparently doesn't matter to you whether they smoked the joint before the big presentation to clients... or they simply attended the "wrong" concert with the "wrong" crowd over the weekend. (Or they ate too many poppy seed bagels too close to a random drug test....)
Technically, the pseudocode says nothing of the sort. It uses an unspecified "test" to determine whether or not the person "smokesweed", which the most likely definition would be "has smoked weed in the past and is likely to do so in the future". Of course using this as a criteria is just as dangerous as what you interpreted it as. Also, there is no real world test that would cover this interpretation.
The teenager driver facing a "drunk driving" charge because the state's "zero tolerance" policy towards alcohol makes no exemption for NyQuil.
NyQuil is over 60 Proof, almost as strong as hard liquor! On top of that, it includes antihistamines which are notorious for screwing with reflexes and attention span. Driving on NyQuil is very dangerous. Personally, I think that the emphasis that "drunk driving is bad" is dangerous, because it doesn't address all the other stupid and dangerous ways people can drive while unfit. Most cold medicines, most prescription painkillers, lack of sleep, all of these can demolish your ability to drive. People tend to over look that because they aren't drinking. "Zero tolerance" laws are a bad idea in general, but the NyQuil example just doesn't hold water.
Coplan asks:
if I printed out a grid that was smaller than normal, would I be able to mess with the speed of the mouse that way?
Yes, but at the expense of stability. If I remember from when I was using a Sun3, the mouse motion gets jittery if you compress the grid.
I stand corrected. My bad.
I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive and I tell you that you are free.
Bullshit makes the flowers grow,
And that is beautiful