Vegans and vegetarians can only exist in a society of carnivores (well, omnivores). Alone, the veggies would fail.
The primary benefit of eating meat is the nutritional density. A but of beef provides more energy than all the kale you can eat.
How many vegans do you know with physically or mentally demanding jobs? How many builders, roofers, personal trainers? How many professors, neural surgeons, aerospace engineers? Not many, I'd wager. And the few that exist require extreme dedication and nutritional study to keep it up.
If you want to live a veggie/vegan life, go ahead. It's certainly your right to do so. But don't act as though the whole world could live like that.
No way I'll ever be vegan, that was not my point.
My point is that anyone who's OK with eating meat should be OK with zoo and using animal as a divertissent because, in my opinion, orca are more efficiently exploited and cattle.
Your solution to starving kids is to keep them in poverty, but give them shitty little fifty cent handouts.
Wtf? The solution to starvings kids is to fucking donate your money to a fund that help them like UNICEF instead of moron like PETA.
Oh, blame the environmentalists, they're making it sooooo bad for the poor kids! It's not militants and powerful elites making things bad, it's those people in sandals protesting!
When did I talked about environmentalists? What the hell you're talking about?
You're too afraid to fight the root of hunger so you put some change in a donation tin and pat yourself on the fucking back because you think you've done something decent. Success isn't measured in YouTube hits, dipshit. Get your head out of your ass, either make a difference or stop criticizing people online for having empathy towards life - you know, that thing that makes people donate towards Unicef?
I used those youtube video because it show how much more empathy we got for starving dogs instead of starving children.
For your information, I pledge myself to donate a hundred bucks each years to UNICEF (been doing that for a 3rd years in a row now) and, now that I've graduated, I'll probably raise my donation.
There's nothing more important in my eyes than saving human live. But it piss me off that so many people prefer to put energy and money to save a fucking fish instead of saving a fucking human being. I fund this this deeply immoral and it make me sick. Oh how much I would like to force them to tell one of those ~30k children that died today that they preferred to save an orca instead of them.
So your point is that it's better to kill a happy animal young than to kill a tortured animal young? The way you think is really tough to understand for me.
I suggest that you check your eyesight because I've never made such a claim.
I'll try to make it as simple as possible :
No matter the animal, insect, fish whatever. All animal life in my eyes worth the same. With the only exception of an animal that I've grew a bond with (like my dog). In consequence, for me dog meat is no different than pork if the animal got the same treatment.
However, animal should have :
A- Receive the painless death possible. B- Have the most economically possible quality of life. C- Serve a purpose for humanity (For most people, this mean food since we need it to survive)
An important point, all human life are more important in my eye than animal life. It's not only my point of view, it's also the law.
Now, about the orca of the topic, I found it deeply stupid that so many people are happy for this but don't give a fuck about their burger. Because, in my eye, eating meat is no more than a luxury (since we can eat vegetable). In consequence, I value a cattle as a animal that served a few hundred human live. And since that orca served a few dozen million people, I find it more moral to use orca for show and eating burger. Furthermore, those orca live for about half of their life expediency (compared to only 10% for cattle and even less for other "food animal") and seem to have a better quality of life than chicken that lay eggs.
But in the end, all of this mean nothing to me as long as there's even one human dying (let alone children) of natural cause in the earth. And there's 30k children dying each day of preventable cause.
Also, please look up the logical fallacy "false dichotomy". It's not a choice 'between a staving child and an orca', you can donate to both.
No, you could save 2 children and 0 orca. Unless you value the life of that orca more than that second child.
But if ever there's no human live left to save, then I'll consider saving orca. But I'll probably save the male chicken baby first : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We don't need the internet either, but you have it. We don't need a nice house, do you live in one? Do you live in the field in the wild with only the exact amount of nutrients you need to live?
Oh, you don't? Go back to Twitter and make a hashtag to those Unicef kids you 'care' about.
While I think one can go overboard with animal rights, I think there is actually a difference between raising a captive (and domesticated) animal for slaughter and deliberately keeping a wild animal in a small "pen" for amusement.
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth. We're not obligated to eat beef y'know. And as I said, that orca "amused" way more people that any animal on your plate.
If you did to the cattle what you did to the orcas, the beef would be absolute garbage. Nobody is against eating beef, people are just wondering why we're making other kinds of life suffer so we can get a look at them.
Why are you so upset that people care about life? Humans are capable of thinking about more than one thing at once, why can a person not give to Unicef AND not support torture? Don't you maybe think that having empathy towards one being might translate towards others?
You really are angry about something but I'm not sure what it is... the 'animal rights' stuff just triggers it.
Are you stupid or you really think cattle live in a princess castle or something?
Let me tell you something.
I'm fucking pissed of all those video about saving animal and all the "fame" they receive.
How about just not having the orcas in captivity? If you want to eat meat, fine, go eat meat, but is it really a vital necessity to keep orcas in tanks?Why do you have to choose between one or the other, which one is "more right"? How about just not fucking putting the whale in a tank by itself for 30 years? Why is not doing that not an option?
If I want to eat meat I'll eat meat. If I want to look at some orca I'll go to a marine park that got them. But it have nothing to do with my point.
My point is that those orca have way better condition of life that all the animal and end up on our plate. And before we should even think about making a live better for animal, we should start with the 30k children that die each day of preventable cause. As long as there's even one children to save, saving animal is immoral.
And if you dare to disagree with this, then I fucking dare you to go see one of those children and tell him straight to his face that you rather save a fucking fish than his miserable life.
1.5 years old cattle gets a (hopefully) quick death, doesn't realize much of what's happening to it. Orcas on the other hand get to live a long torturous isolation-like life.
If you had to choose, would you go for execution squad or life-time isolation?
Yeah because a cattle live a in a luxury yacht for that 1.5 year.
Absolutely. And for Orcas, this seems obvious to me. Animals generally should live longer in captivity than in the wild, because they're protected from predation, have a high quality diet, medical care, etc. Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy. That makes it obvious how disgusting it is.
If you think keeping zoo animals is good generally, even in that context the situation with orcas is barbaric.
I have a lot of difficulty with that short of thinking :
"The way we treat those orca are barbaric" "Those bullfighting are barbaric" "They live half their life expectancy"
Boo fucking hoo.
Hey big scoop, the beef of your burger are about 1½ year old (about 10% of their 15-20 years life expectancy) and we killed about 50 million of them last year. And if I had to choose between the life of a cattle (or most other animal we consume for that matter) : http://www.aussieabattoirs.com...
All living organism (plant excluded) must kill another living organism to survive, deal with it.
"But the beef of my burger was killed for food which is a essential need so it's good. Those animal are used for amusement/fur/fat and this is evil"
Bullshit! We're not obligated to eat meat when they are other form of food available. We eat meat because we love it and thus is a form of amusement.
From my point of view, a cattle will "amuse" a few thousand person's mouth with his meat. On the other hand, the orca from TFA amuse a few million person each fucking years. So, again from my point of view, using orca is a over 1000x time more "morally right" that using cattle for meat.
I'm freaking pissed of those "animal right" mouvement. If you got time to be sorry for those orca, you should slap your face and use that energy to save a few of the 30 000 children that die each fucking day of preventable cause instead : http://www.unicef.org/mdg/chil...
The lack of will to fight global warming let most of the scientist baffled toward the governments of the world. It's a little understandable, the global warming is so subtle (~2mm rise and 0.13 Celcius per year) that the frog analogy of Al Gore perfectly explain our lack of action. As of now, it's not possible to make a business case that, with X billions you'll save Y billions of natural disaster.
For me, money is the key of that fight and the sonner the better. And that map (see link above) showed me something interesting. A lof of huge and rich city are at sea level (Miami, New York, Tokyo etc.). Each of those city worth in the trillion : http://www.businessinsider.com...
I wonder what the speech will look like when water will start flooding Broadway. How will the fight again global warming will look like with a budget of 10 trillions?
Would there be benefit in trying to land the rocket in a pool of fresh water (or even pure water or some other non-ionizing solution)?
It would at least be less corrosive than salt water, and if they get it out quickly maybe not significantly damaging at all?
Hmmm I don't think it'll work.
First, you'll probably need to stop the rocket at the surface of the water, it'll will have the time to gain a lot of momentum while it enter.
Second, the rocket will now slow down that much if it enter the water vertically, you'll probably have to figure a way to deploy a short of water parachute (which will add some weight).
Thirdly, those rocket are quite fragile so, even if the drag of the water will slow the rocket a bit, I'm quite sure it'll be damaged if it tip over and fall like in the last landing where the leg didn't lock.
Analog I/O might be nice but it's not something that generally comes with an ARM SoC designed for mobile phones. Besides you can get analog I/O with the simple addition of a 10 cent chip.
Well, you can say the same for many feature of the Raspberry Pi. Analog IO are needed for a lot of project and it would be nice to have then build in. Furthermore, as you said it yourself, those chip are cheap so why not adding them to the RaspPi?
Why anyone needs an IDE for Python is beyond me. Even vim has syntax highlighting for Python. What else do you need ?
As someone that made a lot of VB.NET project on VBA for one of my job, I can tell you that a IDE for a scripted language can help drastically. Autocorrection, debugging (hell, while you are debugging, you write the code in the watch and look if the result is what you are expecting, you can execute a line of code again and again until you get what you want etc.) and a lot of other stuff that make me cringe every time I think about them while using IdleX (Pressing "End" key to reach the end of the line, Pressing and holding "Shift" then sending the cursor to the beginning of the line with "Home" to highlight the whole line instead highlight a random number of lines before wtf?).
Raspbian is not a mess. Raspbian is basically Debian which has been working fine for me since years ago. On the desk top and on the server.
It's less of a mess than Ubuntu. Or Win 10.
Why anyone would want to give up a perfectly good Free and Open Source operating system for a single vendor closed source Win IoT is really beyond me.
It's easy to said when you have a lot of experience with Linux and reached a state where you find the solution of all the little annoyance of Debian before they happen. Well, a huge portion of the new generation of coder use Windows and MacOS now. I don't say that I want a Win10 user experience, but I want a solution where I have the less annoyance possible. And so far on Raspbian, I had a ton (while I had nearly none on Win10).
Go away to kindergarten, it is there you can play with Fisher Price...
Typical Linux fanboy attitude. No patience with people that like things simple.
About time you understand that it's one of the main reason Linux never reached the Personal Computer market (that was voluntary to put the emphasis on "Personal" here).
Even the last couple of desktop motherboards I've bought don't do IDE anymore. Strictly SATA.
Realistically, the Pi is OK for casual computing and as a mount-anywhere smart controller/interface, but if you need serious storage, network that sucker into a SAN.
No, he's talking about an Integrated Development Environment for Python.
How is this related to the Pi? Well, it's not... it's a confused post made to hype Windows 10.
So I mention Win10 IoT and I'm immediately flagged as a Win10 fanboy? And are you seriously asking me how the OS is related to the product? Errr, maybe because it's part of the product even if Raspberry Pi Foundation doesn't develop the OS?
While the RaspPi have been one of the most pleasant embedded experience so far (I've learned Python and I'm impressed how well it work), it's not perfect. First of all, unlike many 6 digit of/., I've nearly no experience with linux mostly because I've a short temper for bug without a quick "google search" solution. And I've already had a couple of them already (So if I understand correctly, the desktop environment doesn't have administrator right but I need it to use GPIO so if I start Idle with a program to light a LED without admin right I'll have a "OSError: [Errno 5] Input/output error"). Even working on the Pi over the network have been complex (well, for me).
So yeah, excuse me if I'm hoping to get a more pleasant OS to work with and I don't see how Win10 IoT is a bad contender.
Glad to hear that the RasPi Zero wasn't the only product on development from Rasp Foundation.
I had a lot of fun with tinkering with the Raspberry Pi 2 so far and that new Raspberry Pi 3 seem to be a step in the good direction.
More power and, finally, integrated Wifi and bluetooth. Something that seem more important and cheaper than many other hardware.
Still, there still a lot to be desired, both hardware and software. Analog IO, more power (USB 3.0?), better Python development tool and IDE (yeah, idle or idlex need a serious overhaul), and other stuff. Raspbian (or other Linux/ARM distribution) are a mess and I'm starting to put my hope on Win10 IoT.
As I said, I didn't read TFA but, for what little I know, that passive technology need a powerful source. So, basically, the host use a lot more power so the devise use less.
And for most Bluetooth application in my head, both use batteries.
Blazing speed and low power are less important to me than long range. And these router manufacturers are getting rather annoying with their "specs." Oh, it covers 14,000 square feet. That's a square less than 120 feet on a side. So what? That's what you get for 600 mW of output power?
Why not both?
I didn't read TFA, but if that passive antenna is slower and have less range, it won't replace the wifi of our smartphone anytime soon.
But I don't think it'll be impossible to implement that passive technology to actual antenna. So if you're not using a lot of data (sleep mode) and a good wifi signal is available, the phone could turn off the "active" antenna and activate the "passive" low power one.
"It's not all pointless. The nutjobs need to be dealt with"
Sorry, but the 2nd Iraq "war" was utterly pointless. It cost lives and money for what - to remove one psychopath under bogus pretenses who at least held the region together, and allow him to be replaced with 10s of thousands of psychopaths who have created anarchy in the whole region and europe. Way to go USA!
First, no a major war is "not" pointless. It have major repercussion on the country and it's neighbourhood. A war made things better or worse but it's certainly not "pointless".
Now, to make a decision if the war was a mistake or not, you have to make the delicate study on how Iraq would have been after 2003 if the US kept they ball in their pants. I would love to have the answer of that one but my field isn't cultural story of the Middle East. But,judging from the story of Iraq pre-2003, I guess it's safe to say that it wasn't going to get any better.
On a USA point of view though, it seem clear that it was a major economic mistake with over 2 trillion$ spending so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Vegans and vegetarians can only exist in a society of carnivores (well, omnivores). Alone, the veggies would fail.
The primary benefit of eating meat is the nutritional density. A but of beef provides more energy than all the kale you can eat.
How many vegans do you know with physically or mentally demanding jobs? How many builders, roofers, personal trainers? How many professors, neural surgeons, aerospace engineers? Not many, I'd wager. And the few that exist require extreme dedication and nutritional study to keep it up.
If you want to live a veggie/vegan life, go ahead. It's certainly your right to do so. But don't act as though the whole world could live like that.
No way I'll ever be vegan, that was not my point.
My point is that anyone who's OK with eating meat should be OK with zoo and using animal as a divertissent because, in my opinion, orca are more efficiently exploited and cattle.
"As long as there's even one children to save, saving animal is immoral."
So the millions of animals that we abuse, exploit and murder each year are nothing compared to one human child. You're a real hero to the planet.
So tell me Einstein, how many animal live worth a human life in your eye? A dozen? A thousand?
How many animal do you think we consume in one lifetime?
You want to draw a line? I won't.
You are a Fucking. Coward.
Said the AC
Your solution to starving kids is to keep them in poverty, but give them shitty little fifty cent handouts.
Wtf? The solution to starvings kids is to fucking donate your money to a fund that help them like UNICEF instead of moron like PETA.
Oh, blame the environmentalists, they're making it sooooo bad for the poor kids! It's not militants and powerful elites making things bad, it's those people in sandals protesting!
When did I talked about environmentalists? What the hell you're talking about?
You're too afraid to fight the root of hunger so you put some change in a donation tin and pat yourself on the fucking back because you think you've done something decent. Success isn't measured in YouTube hits, dipshit. Get your head out of your ass, either make a difference or stop criticizing people online for having empathy towards life - you know, that thing that makes people donate towards Unicef?
I used those youtube video because it show how much more empathy we got for starving dogs instead of starving children.
For your information, I pledge myself to donate a hundred bucks each years to UNICEF (been doing that for a 3rd years in a row now) and, now that I've graduated, I'll probably raise my donation.
There's nothing more important in my eyes than saving human live. But it piss me off that so many people prefer to put energy and money to save a fucking fish instead of saving a fucking human being. I fund this this deeply immoral and it make me sick. Oh how much I would like to force them to tell one of those ~30k children that died today that they preferred to save an orca instead of them.
So your point is that it's better to kill a happy animal young than to kill a tortured animal young? The way you think is really tough to understand for me.
I suggest that you check your eyesight because I've never made such a claim.
I'll try to make it as simple as possible :
No matter the animal, insect, fish whatever. All animal life in my eyes worth the same. With the only exception of an animal that I've grew a bond with (like my dog). In consequence, for me dog meat is no different than pork if the animal got the same treatment.
However, animal should have :
A- Receive the painless death possible.
B- Have the most economically possible quality of life.
C- Serve a purpose for humanity (For most people, this mean food since we need it to survive)
An important point, all human life are more important in my eye than animal life. It's not only my point of view, it's also the law.
Now, about the orca of the topic, I found it deeply stupid that so many people are happy for this but don't give a fuck about their burger. Because, in my eye, eating meat is no more than a luxury (since we can eat vegetable). In consequence, I value a cattle as a animal that served a few hundred human live. And since that orca served a few dozen million people, I find it more moral to use orca for show and eating burger. Furthermore, those orca live for about half of their life expediency (compared to only 10% for cattle and even less for other "food animal") and seem to have a better quality of life than chicken that lay eggs.
But in the end, all of this mean nothing to me as long as there's even one human dying (let alone children) of natural cause in the earth. And there's 30k children dying each day of preventable cause.
Also, please look up the logical fallacy "false dichotomy". It's not a choice 'between a staving child and an orca', you can donate to both.
No, you could save 2 children and 0 orca. Unless you value the life of that orca more than that second child.
But if ever there's no human live left to save, then I'll consider saving orca. But I'll probably save the male chicken baby first : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We don't need the internet either, but you have it. We don't need a nice house, do you live in one? Do you live in the field in the wild with only the exact amount of nutrients you need to live?
Oh, you don't? Go back to Twitter and make a hashtag to those Unicef kids you 'care' about.
?!?!?!?
I fail to see your point
While I think one can go overboard with animal rights, I think there is actually a difference between raising a captive (and domesticated) animal for slaughter and deliberately keeping a wild animal in a small "pen" for amusement.
Yeah, because a burger is different than an "amusement" for the mouth. We're not obligated to eat beef y'know. And as I said, that orca "amused" way more people that any animal on your plate.
If you did to the cattle what you did to the orcas, the beef would be absolute garbage. Nobody is against eating beef, people are just wondering why we're making other kinds of life suffer so we can get a look at them.
Why are you so upset that people care about life? Humans are capable of thinking about more than one thing at once, why can a person not give to Unicef AND not support torture? Don't you maybe think that having empathy towards one being might translate towards others?
You really are angry about something but I'm not sure what it is... the 'animal rights' stuff just triggers it.
Are you stupid or you really think cattle live in a princess castle or something?
Let me tell you something.
I'm fucking pissed of all those video about saving animal and all the "fame" they receive.
Look at that video of someone saving a starving child : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's one of the most popular of youtube of that type and it got only 8566 view.
Eight Fucking thousand View. Even my cheap video of my backyard got more view than this.
Meanwhile, here's another video of someone saving a dog : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
21 Millions view.
Can't you see how deeply immoral all this is?
How about just not having the orcas in captivity? If you want to eat meat, fine, go eat meat, but is it really a vital necessity to keep orcas in tanks?Why do you have to choose between one or the other, which one is "more right"? How about just not fucking putting the whale in a tank by itself for 30 years? Why is not doing that not an option?
If I want to eat meat I'll eat meat. If I want to look at some orca I'll go to a marine park that got them. But it have nothing to do with my point.
My point is that those orca have way better condition of life that all the animal and end up on our plate. And before we should even think about making a live better for animal, we should start with the 30k children that die each day of preventable cause. As long as there's even one children to save, saving animal is immoral.
And if you dare to disagree with this, then I fucking dare you to go see one of those children and tell him straight to his face that you rather save a fucking fish than his miserable life.
You don't really balance things well.
1.5 years old cattle gets a (hopefully) quick death, doesn't realize much of what's happening to it.
Orcas on the other hand get to live a long torturous isolation-like life.
If you had to choose, would you go for execution squad or life-time isolation?
Yeah because a cattle live a in a luxury yacht for that 1.5 year.
Please think before you post.
You don't need to watch orca's to live, but you kinda' need to eat.
Sorry your so freakin' pissed.
If you took the time to read my fucking comment, you'll have found that :
We don't "need" to eat meat. It's a luxury. There's enough vegan in the world to prove it.
That orca served way, WAY more people that the cattle of your burger.
Please go back to facebook.
...that stuff is truly barbaric.
Absolutely. And for Orcas, this seems obvious to me. Animals generally should live longer in captivity than in the wild, because they're protected from predation, have a high quality diet, medical care, etc. Orcas in captivity are living half their wild life expectancy. That makes it obvious how disgusting it is.
If you think keeping zoo animals is good generally, even in that context the situation with orcas is barbaric.
I have a lot of difficulty with that short of thinking :
"The way we treat those orca are barbaric"
"Those bullfighting are barbaric"
"They live half their life expectancy"
Boo fucking hoo.
Hey big scoop, the beef of your burger are about 1½ year old (about 10% of their 15-20 years life expectancy) and we killed about 50 million of them last year. And if I had to choose between the life of a cattle (or most other animal we consume for that matter) : http://www.aussieabattoirs.com...
All living organism (plant excluded) must kill another living organism to survive, deal with it.
"But the beef of my burger was killed for food which is a essential need so it's good. Those animal are used for amusement/fur/fat and this is evil"
Bullshit!
We're not obligated to eat meat when they are other form of food available. We eat meat because we love it and thus is a form of amusement.
From my point of view, a cattle will "amuse" a few thousand person's mouth with his meat. On the other hand, the orca from TFA amuse a few million person each fucking years. So, again from my point of view, using orca is a over 1000x time more "morally right" that using cattle for meat.
I'm freaking pissed of those "animal right" mouvement. If you got time to be sorry for those orca, you should slap your face and use that energy to save a few of the 30 000 children that die each fucking day of preventable cause instead : http://www.unicef.org/mdg/chil...
Oh yes, yes it is : https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Been there.
Done that.
Didn't change a damn thing.
Yeah, because an hurricane is an everyday event.
I'm talking about a periodic (high-tide) flooding of the subway.
I had a lot of fun with this simulator that give a taste of sea rising : http://geology.com/sea-level-r...
The lack of will to fight global warming let most of the scientist baffled toward the governments of the world. It's a little understandable, the global warming is so subtle (~2mm rise and 0.13 Celcius per year) that the frog analogy of Al Gore perfectly explain our lack of action. As of now, it's not possible to make a business case that, with X billions you'll save Y billions of natural disaster.
For me, money is the key of that fight and the sonner the better. And that map (see link above) showed me something interesting. A lof of huge and rich city are at sea level (Miami, New York, Tokyo etc.). Each of those city worth in the trillion : http://www.businessinsider.com...
I wonder what the speech will look like when water will start flooding Broadway. How will the fight again global warming will look like with a budget of 10 trillions?
Is it just me of the tiny robot move forward then use a suction cup to immobilize themselves while pulling?
If that's so, that mean the whole technology depend that robot work on a flat surface. It's way less impressing if it's the case.
Would there be benefit in trying to land the rocket in a pool of fresh water (or even pure water or some other non-ionizing solution)?
It would at least be less corrosive than salt water, and if they get it out quickly maybe not significantly damaging at all?
Hmmm I don't think it'll work.
First, you'll probably need to stop the rocket at the surface of the water, it'll will have the time to gain a lot of momentum while it enter.
Second, the rocket will now slow down that much if it enter the water vertically, you'll probably have to figure a way to deploy a short of water parachute (which will add some weight).
Thirdly, those rocket are quite fragile so, even if the drag of the water will slow the rocket a bit, I'm quite sure it'll be damaged if it tip over and fall like in the last landing where the leg didn't lock.
Analog I/O might be nice but it's not something that generally comes with an ARM SoC designed for mobile phones. Besides you can get analog I/O with the simple addition of a 10 cent chip.
Well, you can say the same for many feature of the Raspberry Pi. Analog IO are needed for a lot of project and it would be nice to have then build in. Furthermore, as you said it yourself, those chip are cheap so why not adding them to the RaspPi?
Why anyone needs an IDE for Python is beyond me. Even vim has syntax highlighting for Python. What else do you need ?
As someone that made a lot of VB.NET project on VBA for one of my job, I can tell you that a IDE for a scripted language can help drastically. Autocorrection, debugging (hell, while you are debugging, you write the code in the watch and look if the result is what you are expecting, you can execute a line of code again and again until you get what you want etc.) and a lot of other stuff that make me cringe every time I think about them while using IdleX (Pressing "End" key to reach the end of the line, Pressing and holding "Shift" then sending the cursor to the beginning of the line with "Home" to highlight the whole line instead highlight a random number of lines before wtf?).
Raspbian is not a mess. Raspbian is basically Debian which has been working fine for me since years ago. On the desk top and on the server.
It's less of a mess than Ubuntu. Or Win 10.
Why anyone would want to give up a perfectly good Free and Open Source operating system for a single vendor closed source Win IoT is really beyond me.
It's easy to said when you have a lot of experience with Linux and reached a state where you find the solution of all the little annoyance of Debian before they happen. Well, a huge portion of the new generation of coder use Windows and MacOS now. I don't say that I want a Win10 user experience, but I want a solution where I have the less annoyance possible. And so far on Raspbian, I had a ton (while I had nearly none on Win10).
Go away to kindergarten, it is there you can play with Fisher Price...
Typical Linux fanboy attitude. No patience with people that like things simple.
About time you understand that it's one of the main reason Linux never reached the Personal Computer market (that was voluntary to put the emphasis on "Personal" here).
IDE?
Even the last couple of desktop motherboards I've bought don't do IDE anymore. Strictly SATA.
Realistically, the Pi is OK for casual computing and as a mount-anywhere smart controller/interface, but if you need serious storage, network that sucker into a SAN.
For 21th century people, IDE mean "Integrated development environment" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, he's talking about an Integrated Development Environment for Python.
How is this related to the Pi? Well, it's not... it's a confused post made to hype Windows 10.
So I mention Win10 IoT and I'm immediately flagged as a Win10 fanboy? And are you seriously asking me how the OS is related to the product? Errr, maybe because it's part of the product even if Raspberry Pi Foundation doesn't develop the OS?
While the RaspPi have been one of the most pleasant embedded experience so far (I've learned Python and I'm impressed how well it work), it's not perfect. First of all, unlike many 6 digit of /., I've nearly no experience with linux mostly because I've a short temper for bug without a quick "google search" solution. And I've already had a couple of them already (So if I understand correctly, the desktop environment doesn't have administrator right but I need it to use GPIO so if I start Idle with a program to light a LED without admin right I'll have a "OSError: [Errno 5] Input/output error"). Even working on the Pi over the network have been complex (well, for me).
So yeah, excuse me if I'm hoping to get a more pleasant OS to work with and I don't see how Win10 IoT is a bad contender.
Glad to hear that the RasPi Zero wasn't the only product on development from Rasp Foundation.
I had a lot of fun with tinkering with the Raspberry Pi 2 so far and that new Raspberry Pi 3 seem to be a step in the good direction.
More power and, finally, integrated Wifi and bluetooth. Something that seem more important and cheaper than many other hardware.
Still, there still a lot to be desired, both hardware and software. Analog IO, more power (USB 3.0?), better Python development tool and IDE (yeah, idle or idlex need a serious overhaul), and other stuff. Raspbian (or other Linux/ARM distribution) are a mess and I'm starting to put my hope on Win10 IoT.
Sounds useful for something like Bluetooth
As I said, I didn't read TFA but, for what little I know, that passive technology need a powerful source. So, basically, the host use a lot more power so the devise use less.
And for most Bluetooth application in my head, both use batteries.
Blazing speed and low power are less important to me than long range. And these router manufacturers are getting rather annoying with their "specs." Oh, it covers 14,000 square feet. That's a square less than 120 feet on a side. So what? That's what you get for 600 mW of output power?
Why not both?
I didn't read TFA, but if that passive antenna is slower and have less range, it won't replace the wifi of our smartphone anytime soon.
But I don't think it'll be impossible to implement that passive technology to actual antenna. So if you're not using a lot of data (sleep mode) and a good wifi signal is available, the phone could turn off the "active" antenna and activate the "passive" low power one.
Just an idea.
"It's not all pointless. The nutjobs need to be dealt with"
Sorry, but the 2nd Iraq "war" was utterly pointless. It cost lives and money for what - to remove one psychopath under bogus pretenses who at least held the region together, and allow him to be replaced with 10s of thousands of psychopaths who have created anarchy in the whole region and europe. Way to go USA!
First, no a major war is "not" pointless. It have major repercussion on the country and it's neighbourhood. A war made things better or worse but it's certainly not "pointless".
Now, to make a decision if the war was a mistake or not, you have to make the delicate study on how Iraq would have been after 2003 if the US kept they ball in their pants. I would love to have the answer of that one but my field isn't cultural story of the Middle East. But,judging from the story of Iraq pre-2003, I guess it's safe to say that it wasn't going to get any better.
On a USA point of view though, it seem clear that it was a major economic mistake with over 2 trillion$ spending so far.
That's what you call a "shooting" Star!
Get it? Dead by a "Shooting" star?
Ok I'll walk myself out...