Forgive me for my lack of *nix prowess, but I've noticed that Package managers seem to be a predominantly Linux thing and unfortunately, I've not had the chance to get properly acquainted with the OS yet (I know, wtf am I doing here?). I've never encountered one in Windows, unless you count the handy package manager in DevC++.
Are there any good windows alternatives, or is it simply not needed thanks to windows having many a dedicated installation packaging program? I wouldn't mind having one so I could get the latest and greatest Open Source/Free software that I may or may not have heard of, would be a great help for when I want to switch over to Open Source only apps. My thinking is if there's an easy way to find/install good OSS, then I can get used to that first and thus my eventual transition to an Open Source OS will be much easier as I will only have to figure out about 200 things to do differently instead of 300.
For legacy reasons that have just sort of stuck, the maximum line size in C is often no more than 80 characters long, although plenty of people ignore this unwritten "rule" these days. I'd say you can safely assume that each line is around 80 characters, though, as a lot of lines will use very few.
But it's all irrelevant as I doubt they'd bother transmitting the entire source code to Mars when they can just compile it into a good ol' binary that's probably a hundredth of the original source code's size, if not more.
And you've assigned the blame to a small sect in the Roman catholic church, when there's small sects in nearly all religious groups that don't practice what they preach.
Yup, it's good to see so many as well. However, the example I picked was because it came from a petition from the community to have the source, rather than the developers releasing it of their own free will (Ala ID and Quake)
I'm sure there's better examples, but off the top of my head I know that a few years ago, there was a petition started to release the source code to Warzone 2100, an old (yet brilliant) 3D RTS game that still stands out amongst the crowd today. After a few months (possibly a couple of years), Eidos scrambled together the source code and released it to the community. Since then, the Warzone resurrection project has come leaps and bounds - fixing bugs, improving what platforms the game runs at, allowing higher resolutions, improving the AI, etc. The only slight catch (that I'm aware of) is that the Video CODEC used in the original game was proprietary, so Eidos couldn't release the source to that and the company that owns the CODEC wouldn't allow it to be distributed any more.
You know, there's more than one way to launch a satellite into Orbit. There's literally hundreds of different Rockets out there capable of such a thing. Look at the thousands of satellites currently up there doing everything from broadcasting your TV and Radio to telling your GPS device where you are - you think they were all put up there by NASA? Chances are, a lot of those commercial satellites got put into orbit with a small discount for allowing the Military to put a small, undisclosed payload into some spare space in the cargo area.
Suddenly it reminds me of that Speach Dick gives in Robocop...
"Take a close look at the track record of this company, and you'll see that we've gambled in markets traditionally regarded as non-profit: hospitals, prisons, space exploration. I say good business is where you find it."
So are they downscaling all of their operations in the interim or is it just the shuttles not being used? Like if they normally have (completely arbitrary figure) 50 astronaut flights in a year, will this drop down to like 10 or 12, or will they just be using European/Russian capsules instead and have the same number as usual?
If it's the latter, then it shows it MUST be cheaper to use them than maintaining the current fleet, which could indicate all sorts of things, such as how much technology has evolved and become more efficient since the shuttle was designed.
How come they're retiring the fleet 4 years before the next craft is ready? Is is actually more economical to pay the Russians or us Eurotrash to send them to space rather than the cost of maintaining and flying the shuttle?
I think you're getting my point a little bit confused. Allow me to clarify: I'm not saying that technology hasn't advanced in the last 10 years - that's absurd for anyone to think, but what I'm pointing out is that the designs of the devices that utilise this technology is still more or less the same. Sure, things may be a bit thinner or a bit curvier, but the general design of a laptop from 10 years ago is still the same as the general design of a laptop today - flip closed top with screen in it that covers a keyboard with some sort of mouse input just below it. Tablet PC's are the only major change in this area and they're still not all that popular. I love them as much as the next technology enthusiast, but they still don't have a huge marketshare, do they? There's always exceptions to every rule, there's always one design of a product that really does stand out from the crowed, that doesn't mean it's popular and in 5-10 years time, I still wouldn't expect touch screens to be a laptop's standard feature. It's a shame, but that's how it is. We're just too set in our ways, which is kind of what I'm getting at - Technology moves forward, but we (As in, people in general) do not.
None of what you mentioned, apart from the touch screen, has changed what the design of laptops or computers in general look like. I already said they got faster, more memory, clearer screens, etc. but when it comes down to it, they're still pretty much the same kinds of machines we used a decade ago. Optimus keyboards? That's still just a keyboard, it may be a keyboard with fancy lettering on it, but it's purpose and use is identical to the IBM keyboards of the 1980's. 3D Displays? When was the last time you actually seen one of those on a laptop? Even in "real life" situations, nobody's PC or workstation has a 3D display, nearly everything of those that we've seen are just concepts like any other and the production models that DO exist aren't very practical. When it comes down to it, mobile devices have made the biggest leaps in the last 5 years, mostly because of miniaturisation of existing technology, but nothing really revolutionary has hit us yet. The touch screen you mentioned has been around for a good 10 years or so, but only recently have they become all the rage on the iPhone/iPod touch - how many people do you see with tablet PC's running around, as useful as they are?
Hasn't Microsoft been working on that kind of technology for a while, though? I mean, they bought the Virtual PC software and gave it away for free while they created Hyper-V (Which was originally meant to be part of the OS anyway), what's to stop them taking that a few steps further and embedding a sort of cut-down Hyper-V that runs legacy applications in a completely cut-off system. You'd avoid a lot of security headaches that way. Of course, there'll still be a few problems, but at least you get the benefits of a completely new OS that's written for today's applications with a good compatibility layer.
Macs are a slight exception to the rule as they tend to focus on changing their style, but the only thing that's really changed (When you think about it) is the size of the device. They both still essentially are made up of a keyboard, screen and some inputs here and there.
Every year we see all sorts of concepts for computers that we'll be using in 5, 10 or 20 years time. Yet 5, 10 or 20 years ago, the devices we used then are still largely the same. Sure, they're faster and have more memory, as well as maybe more colours on their screens, but ultimately they don't look all that different. I very much doubt any of these concepts will see the light of day unless they offer something truly useful and innovative.
As much as I love the idea of executing anyone who attempts to rig an election (For exactly the reasons you specified), what better way would there be to get rid of the opposition than to frame them for rigging the election? That way, you not only discredit them for years to come, you actually permanently remove their opposition and are left with a very one-sided governmental system.
I can understand why people hate e-voting - it's susceptible to attack and/or manipulation, there's privacy concerns, etc. etc.
But I have to wonder, is it really all that different to paper voting? If someone wants to rig an election, they'll do it no matter what system you use.
I can't imagine it's significantly harder to rig a paper election than an electronic one.
From that little extract in the summary about students, is that proof of people not caring about privacy unless someone mentions it, or proof that students these days are a bit thick and don't really think ahead or about what they're saying?
(NOTE: I'm actually a student myself and I'm inclined to believe the latter).
If they want to REALLY test a theory, they should just post it on slashdot. You know, because mass opinion is what really matters, regardless as to what's right and wrong.
I remember when I was a wee lad, I used to think that "the world wide web" and the internet were the same thing. I didn't realise for years that the internet refers to an internationally connected network of computers and the web simply refers to sites linking from one to another.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and in case anyone complains, I already had a google around and could only find one project that hadn't been updated in about 2 years.
Forgive me for my lack of *nix prowess, but I've noticed that Package managers seem to be a predominantly Linux thing and unfortunately, I've not had the chance to get properly acquainted with the OS yet (I know, wtf am I doing here?). I've never encountered one in Windows, unless you count the handy package manager in DevC++.
Are there any good windows alternatives, or is it simply not needed thanks to windows having many a dedicated installation packaging program?
I wouldn't mind having one so I could get the latest and greatest Open Source/Free software that I may or may not have heard of, would be a great help for when I want to switch over to Open Source only apps.
My thinking is if there's an easy way to find/install good OSS, then I can get used to that first and thus my eventual transition to an Open Source OS will be much easier as I will only have to figure out about 200 things to do differently instead of 300.
I'm almost certain you didn't.
For legacy reasons that have just sort of stuck, the maximum line size in C is often no more than 80 characters long, although plenty of people ignore this unwritten "rule" these days.
I'd say you can safely assume that each line is around 80 characters, though, as a lot of lines will use very few.
But it's all irrelevant as I doubt they'd bother transmitting the entire source code to Mars when they can just compile it into a good ol' binary that's probably a hundredth of the original source code's size, if not more.
And you've assigned the blame to a small sect in the Roman catholic church, when there's small sects in nearly all religious groups that don't practice what they preach.
Yup, it's good to see so many as well. However, the example I picked was because it came from a petition from the community to have the source, rather than the developers releasing it of their own free will (Ala ID and Quake)
Ha! The technology might not cost much more, but ISP's will milk consumers for all they're worth.
I'm sure there's better examples, but off the top of my head I know that a few years ago, there was a petition started to release the source code to Warzone 2100, an old (yet brilliant) 3D RTS game that still stands out amongst the crowd today. After a few months (possibly a couple of years), Eidos scrambled together the source code and released it to the community.
Since then, the Warzone resurrection project has come leaps and bounds - fixing bugs, improving what platforms the game runs at, allowing higher resolutions, improving the AI, etc.
The only slight catch (that I'm aware of) is that the Video CODEC used in the original game was proprietary, so Eidos couldn't release the source to that and the company that owns the CODEC wouldn't allow it to be distributed any more.
You know, there's more than one way to launch a satellite into Orbit. There's literally hundreds of different Rockets out there capable of such a thing.
Look at the thousands of satellites currently up there doing everything from broadcasting your TV and Radio to telling your GPS device where you are - you think they were all put up there by NASA?
Chances are, a lot of those commercial satellites got put into orbit with a small discount for allowing the Military to put a small, undisclosed payload into some spare space in the cargo area.
Suddenly it reminds me of that Speach Dick gives in Robocop...
"Take a close look at the track record of this company, and you'll see that we've gambled in markets traditionally regarded as non-profit: hospitals, prisons, space exploration. I say good business is where you find it."
Good business, indeed.
So are they downscaling all of their operations in the interim or is it just the shuttles not being used?
Like if they normally have (completely arbitrary figure) 50 astronaut flights in a year, will this drop down to like 10 or 12, or will they just be using European/Russian capsules instead and have the same number as usual?
If it's the latter, then it shows it MUST be cheaper to use them than maintaining the current fleet, which could indicate all sorts of things, such as how much technology has evolved and become more efficient since the shuttle was designed.
How come they're retiring the fleet 4 years before the next craft is ready? Is is actually more economical to pay the Russians or us Eurotrash to send them to space rather than the cost of maintaining and flying the shuttle?
But there's a page on Ubuntu's site where you can fill in a quick form and they'll send you as many copies as you like - for free.
I think it makes me look an order of magnitude smarter, yes.
I think you're getting my point a little bit confused. Allow me to clarify:
I'm not saying that technology hasn't advanced in the last 10 years - that's absurd for anyone to think, but what I'm pointing out is that the designs of the devices that utilise this technology is still more or less the same.
Sure, things may be a bit thinner or a bit curvier, but the general design of a laptop from 10 years ago is still the same as the general design of a laptop today - flip closed top with screen in it that covers a keyboard with some sort of mouse input just below it.
Tablet PC's are the only major change in this area and they're still not all that popular. I love them as much as the next technology enthusiast, but they still don't have a huge marketshare, do they?
There's always exceptions to every rule, there's always one design of a product that really does stand out from the crowed, that doesn't mean it's popular and in 5-10 years time, I still wouldn't expect touch screens to be a laptop's standard feature. It's a shame, but that's how it is.
We're just too set in our ways, which is kind of what I'm getting at - Technology moves forward, but we (As in, people in general) do not.
None of what you mentioned, apart from the touch screen, has changed what the design of laptops or computers in general look like. I already said they got faster, more memory, clearer screens, etc. but when it comes down to it, they're still pretty much the same kinds of machines we used a decade ago.
Optimus keyboards? That's still just a keyboard, it may be a keyboard with fancy lettering on it, but it's purpose and use is identical to the IBM keyboards of the 1980's. 3D Displays? When was the last time you actually seen one of those on a laptop? Even in "real life" situations, nobody's PC or workstation has a 3D display, nearly everything of those that we've seen are just concepts like any other and the production models that DO exist aren't very practical.
When it comes down to it, mobile devices have made the biggest leaps in the last 5 years, mostly because of miniaturisation of existing technology, but nothing really revolutionary has hit us yet. The touch screen you mentioned has been around for a good 10 years or so, but only recently have they become all the rage on the iPhone/iPod touch - how many people do you see with tablet PC's running around, as useful as they are?
Of course, that's the REAL purpose of this weapon - something to use against all the tinfoil hats out there!
Hasn't Microsoft been working on that kind of technology for a while, though? I mean, they bought the Virtual PC software and gave it away for free while they created Hyper-V (Which was originally meant to be part of the OS anyway), what's to stop them taking that a few steps further and embedding a sort of cut-down Hyper-V that runs legacy applications in a completely cut-off system. You'd avoid a lot of security headaches that way. Of course, there'll still be a few problems, but at least you get the benefits of a completely new OS that's written for today's applications with a good compatibility layer.
Macs are a slight exception to the rule as they tend to focus on changing their style, but the only thing that's really changed (When you think about it) is the size of the device.
They both still essentially are made up of a keyboard, screen and some inputs here and there.
Every year we see all sorts of concepts for computers that we'll be using in 5, 10 or 20 years time. Yet 5, 10 or 20 years ago, the devices we used then are still largely the same.
Sure, they're faster and have more memory, as well as maybe more colours on their screens, but ultimately they don't look all that different.
I very much doubt any of these concepts will see the light of day unless they offer something truly useful and innovative.
As much as I love the idea of executing anyone who attempts to rig an election (For exactly the reasons you specified), what better way would there be to get rid of the opposition than to frame them for rigging the election?
That way, you not only discredit them for years to come, you actually permanently remove their opposition and are left with a very one-sided governmental system.
I can understand why people hate e-voting - it's susceptible to attack and/or manipulation, there's privacy concerns, etc. etc.
But I have to wonder, is it really all that different to paper voting? If someone wants to rig an election, they'll do it no matter what system you use.
I can't imagine it's significantly harder to rig a paper election than an electronic one.
From that little extract in the summary about students, is that proof of people not caring about privacy unless someone mentions it, or proof that students these days are a bit thick and don't really think ahead or about what they're saying?
(NOTE: I'm actually a student myself and I'm inclined to believe the latter).
If they want to REALLY test a theory, they should just post it on slashdot. You know, because mass opinion is what really matters, regardless as to what's right and wrong.
I remember when I was a wee lad, I used to think that "the world wide web" and the internet were the same thing. I didn't realise for years that the internet refers to an internationally connected network of computers and the web simply refers to sites linking from one to another.