Yeah. $55 million dollars in routings costs. Call me an idiot, but I just don't see how they could have used so much electricity that it added up to $55 million dollars. Maybe $54.98 million dollars was for technical support.
I can't believe the current trend of comments regarding this story. Of course it should be fucking preserved. Yes, one day the footprint will disappear. I don't see any reason to accelerate natural processes though. It's kind of the same as graffiti artists (vandals) spray painting their names all over the Grand Canyon. Why should we waste our time trying to stop them, it's going to erode away anyway?
What if nobody as allowed to visit the beach of Columbus's first landing sites?
What if they did? Your sheltered life would probably be no worse off.
I loved getting a new version of borland C. You would receive a box with 23 3.5" floppy disks...
Not to mention the pile of blue (and I think later versions were orange) books, that came with the gaggle of floppy disks, that just took up lots of room on my bookshelf.
...on my massive 15 inch monitor.
You had a 15" monitor? Wow. Wait, so did I. Carry on.
I fondly remember writing my own GUI environment that ran on top of DOS--I hated Windows 3.11--using Borland C++ using BGI for graphics (although I abstracted it in case I wanted to port) and inline assembly to handle interrupts and for critical sections. I modelled my GUI on AmigaOS (I was missing my Amiga) and it even multitasked. In 2000 I did a rebuild of my system and backed up all my src code onto CD, formatted the drive, installed redhat 5 or something, stuck the CD back in to put my src back on the hard disk... gone. The directory structure was there, but no data. Still annoys me that I lost the src for my DOS GUI. Maybe it was for the best. Anyway, back on topic, I loved the Borland IDEs.
Way too many games out there come out not working well or not at all.
Yep, and how many of those games don't work well because of DRM? Possibly a lot. I HATE DRM (I am agreeing with you, by the way, I think).
Why? Do I pirate games? No. I have a whole shelf full of legally purchased games. Some of these games I can only install a set number of times (I am looking at Far Cry 2 as an example, I had to reinstall XP because I felt like but didn't remember I had to first "revoke" my FC2 activation... there goes one install straight away). Now, continuing with the example, I don't particularly like FC2 and I doubt I will want to reinstall it in 5 years. But, that is MY CHOICE to make. It shouldn't be the publishers choice.
DRM takes my (legal) choices away from me, and the publishers are using piracy as an excuse. Do I want to sell my copy of CoD World at War? Not at the moment, but I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO. Thanks.
What 'handedness' is earth? I think that because of the vast amount of life on our planet, the handedness would be (statistically speaking) about the same in both direction
As far as I know, all known life on earth is left handed (i.e. built from left handed amino acids)
I wonder whether it could be interesting to distribute via torrent. Instead of putting the game on a server you'd put the torrent file there and run a private tracker. Those of your customers who are prepared to seed at least twice the download size would get a small compensation - maybe a slightly reduced price, access to a mini game, or an additional level for the game.
That'd be great. But what about the rest of us who don't have 100gb/s connections? And this is aside from the fact that torrents are always (in my experience) shit slow.
But I don't. I am in Australia and I have a 12GB/month download cap (after the 12GB my speed is slowed/shaped/capped/whatever to 56k). I am not gonna use up all my bandwidth downloading ONE game. This is aside from the fact that it'd take me longer to download than drive to the store and grab the boxed copy. Maybe we're behind the rest of the world in AU (I dunno), but at this point in time I sure aint in hell gonna download something as big as a game (or Fedora... except that my ISP mirrors Fedora and it's not counted towards my monthly limit, so I do that).
If game companies go the online route only, then they will lose a customer.
That is one of the more absurd quotes. The life of the shelf after it calves is likely to be long (maybe 10 or 20 years). Not damn long enough for anything to evolve though. Sure I guess things will have to adapt. Or, die.
Every single time I've upgraded, I've welcomed the upgrade. It was better, snazzier, more stable, etc. all the way up to Fedora Core 9.
Fedora Core 9 should never have been released. It was just barely alpha quality, and so buggy that merely changing the default font size would destabilize the system! I tried desperately to get it to work for about 2 weeks before shrugging, recovering my.kde directory from a backup, and rolling back to FC8. I'm not expecting an ultra-stable release with Fedora, I know it's more 'cutting edge' but when the computer crashes too badly to get to the website to file a bug report, I'm going to cut and run.
I haven't had the nerve to try 10, though I've heard good things about it. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
I can certainly empathise with you. F9 is my currently installed distro. I installed F10 and was fairly unimpressed. However it wasn't Fedora's fault... it was KDE. I tried using Gnome for a while, but hated it for all the same reasons I've always hated it. So I went back to F9 and KDE 3.5.x.
I've been using F11 (alpha) for over a month now and I have to say I am quite happy with it. Except that I broke yum... but, again, that's not Fedora's fault. KDE has now become *much* more usable. I'll probably stick with F11. I'm quite excited about this release. F10 was the only generation of Fedora that I skipped... F11 brings everything back into focus for me. Not sure about their choice of defaulting to ext4 though--although I can't remember this being the case when I installed the Alpha... perhaps because I already had the partitions in place.
For most, it is not enough to censor themselves, they want to censor you, me and everyone else, as they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. It is not enough for them to live their lives, they want to control how you live yours.
[me] waves hand. You don't need to see my religion. These aren't the morals you're looking for.
[lamapper] These aren't the morals I'm looking for.
[me] Psychotria can go about his business.
[lamapper] Psychotria can go about his business. He is right.
[me] Move along
[lamapper] Move along... Move along... nothing to see here.
twostix, I did not lie. I am sorry if I offended you, or any other Australians; that was not my intention. Your point is correct. But, so is mine. It is not hard to buy a gun here. It is hard to legally buy a gun, but not as hard as it's made out to be. However, my point was: if you want a gun to shoot someone then it's not any harder to obtain one (legally or otherwise) than most other places in the world. Your statement: "as can be seen by the ridiculous amount of gun violence in the country for the last few years" kind of supports my statement. My statement is not making judgement by the way. I don't support either stance (gun ownership or non/ownership)--my stance is neutral. If someone wants to shoot me, they probably will anyway, despite any silly law.
What I *did* mean, though, is that Jane Q Public's suggestion about shooting people is absurd. Violence does not solve anything. I also stand by my assessment that Jane throwing in a frivolous comment regarding gun laws in Australia--as if it proved some kind of point--was ridiculous. The gun laws do not stop a person intent on shooting another person obtaining a gun. I understand that Jane Q was trying to make a joke. I just didn't find it funny, nor accurate in any way.
but just hypothetically: might it be possible for somebody to just shoot this idiot and have done with it? Seems he is the only one who wants it.
Oh, yeah. Right. Forgot. They took away a bunch of the guns, too.
Well, of course someone could just shoot him. But what would that achieve? What a stupid suggestion. And, for the record, "they" didn't take away a bunch of guns; only extremists assert that they enforced it. If you want a gun in Australia you can buy one just about as easily as anywhere else in the world.
I agree with many of your points. But, I'm not sure why you're bringing religion into the argument. I've read a lot about the censorship issue and religion is rarely put forward as a pro-censorship argument. I personally think it'd be silly to mix up two very different and, often, volatile subjects. It's asking for trouble. Conflating "morality" and "religion" (as your post seems to suggest) is a very rocky path to head down...
I doubt it will go through silently anymore. I've written to, and emailed, Conroy several times detailing the absurdity of it all (he at one stage suggested [dunno if he and his office still does support this] monitoring and censoring VPN connecttions, which I stated to him is akin to wire tapping without a warrant) and haven't got a response that doesn't seem like a form letter. Or a letter that basically boils down to "it's for the children". Yeah. Right. That aside, I do think that mainstream media are finally giving the issue the (bad) press this topic deserves. It's just wrong on so many levels.
I saw the preview option and ignored it. Coherence is for wimps.
I doubt it will go through silently anymore. I've written to, and emailed, Conroy several times detailing the absurdity of it all (he at one stage suggested [dunno if he and his office still does support this] monitoring and censoring VPN connecttions, which I stated to him is akin to wire tapping without a warrant) and haven't got a response that doesn't seem like a form letter. Or a letter that basically boils down to "it's for the children". Yeah. Right. That aside, I do think that mainstream media are finally giving the issue the (bad) press this topic deserves. It's just wrong on so many levels.
Yeah, I agree. But for what you're saying wouldn't a "web browser" work? Why waste all this time integrating the crap into Windows 7 when a custom / stripped-down OS that can just run a web browser would do the trick? I'm not arguing that there are good uses for touchscreen--there are. I am arguing that building the functionality into a mainstream OS is not necessary. I am guessing that MS wants Windows 7 to be used in offices; I am pretty sure that my typing speed in Word (for example) is gonna drop when I am using an on-screen keyboard. But if my job was based solely on web browsing or ordering pizzas or turning my lights down I'd be a CEO.
I'm not convinced that the touch screens can replace a keyboard and mouse on a desktop, or even a laptop, for some time.
The touchscreen isn't going to replace the mouse/keyboard any time soon. I say let Microsoft waste time and resources on this absurd idea though. It just further reinforces their detachment from reality.
Why waste developer time on this for a consumer OS? Fair enough if they were developing an OS for a kiosk or touch phone or something. But Windows & is supposed to be for regular PCs. The last thing I, or anyone I know, is for touchscreen capabilities. Not to mention that I've never seen a touchscreen in a retail store. I don't want fingerprints all over my monitor. I can interact with my OS just fine with my keyboard and mouse. Thanks.
Normally if you held your head over a desk and jumped into the air gravity would would make you crack your head on the desk when you came down. Now, if instead of jumping up you just thrust your head straight down to the desk your head would be in zero gravity and gravity wouldn't cause you to crack your head on the desk.
I for one am interested to see how this plays out, be sure to let us know if you try it.:)
You owe me a new keyboard. This one is now full of blood. Also, after I visit the emergency department and the dentist (I lost 5 teeth doing your 'experiment') I might send you the bill. Your experiments should come with a safety warning.:/
I would think that plants would grow faster with little to no gravity.
Maybe. But the question might be more related to how healthy or productive the plants are. Even on Earth we can accelerate plant growth by (as an example) growing light adapted plants in low-light conditions with ample nutrients, or by introducing growth hormones such as gibberellins or adjusting the photoperiod. Often the plants are not 'healthy' though. Stem elongation, weak cell walls, abnormal tugor, reduced or inhibited fecundity all may exhibit themselves. So, to me, the question isn't whether it's possible (it probably is), but whether or not the result is a healthy plant that is able to reproduce and/or meet some other goal like production yields (in the case of vegetative growth then I guess that could easily be met, in the case of grain [seed] production I think it might be harder...)
That's a funny way to look at it. If I save 50 cents a day on my cup of coffee I will have another billion dollars in just 5479452 years (roughly). And that's excluding compound interest!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. $55 million dollars in routings costs. Call me an idiot, but I just don't see how they could have used so much electricity that it added up to $55 million dollars. Maybe $54.98 million dollars was for technical support.
I can't believe the current trend of comments regarding this story. Of course it should be fucking preserved. Yes, one day the footprint will disappear. I don't see any reason to accelerate natural processes though. It's kind of the same as graffiti artists (vandals) spray painting their names all over the Grand Canyon. Why should we waste our time trying to stop them, it's going to erode away anyway?
What if nobody as allowed to visit the beach of Columbus's first landing sites?
What if they did? Your sheltered life would probably be no worse off.
I loved getting a new version of borland C. You would receive a box with 23 3.5" floppy disks...
Not to mention the pile of blue (and I think later versions were orange) books, that came with the gaggle of floppy disks, that just took up lots of room on my bookshelf.
...on my massive 15 inch monitor.
You had a 15" monitor? Wow. Wait, so did I. Carry on.
Thinking of Borland still gives me fuzzy memories.
Yeah, me too. Although I think my memory is just getting fuzzy 'cause I'm getting old and drank too much beer last night.
I fondly remember writing my own GUI environment that ran on top of DOS--I hated Windows 3.11--using Borland C++ using BGI for graphics (although I abstracted it in case I wanted to port) and inline assembly to handle interrupts and for critical sections. I modelled my GUI on AmigaOS (I was missing my Amiga) and it even multitasked. In 2000 I did a rebuild of my system and backed up all my src code onto CD, formatted the drive, installed redhat 5 or something, stuck the CD back in to put my src back on the hard disk... gone. The directory structure was there, but no data. Still annoys me that I lost the src for my DOS GUI. Maybe it was for the best. Anyway, back on topic, I loved the Borland IDEs.
Way too many games out there come out not working well or not at all.
Yep, and how many of those games don't work well because of DRM? Possibly a lot. I HATE DRM (I am agreeing with you, by the way, I think).
Why? Do I pirate games? No. I have a whole shelf full of legally purchased games. Some of these games I can only install a set number of times (I am looking at Far Cry 2 as an example, I had to reinstall XP because I felt like but didn't remember I had to first "revoke" my FC2 activation... there goes one install straight away). Now, continuing with the example, I don't particularly like FC2 and I doubt I will want to reinstall it in 5 years. But, that is MY CHOICE to make. It shouldn't be the publishers choice.
DRM takes my (legal) choices away from me, and the publishers are using piracy as an excuse. Do I want to sell my copy of CoD World at War? Not at the moment, but I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO. Thanks.
Yeah, except that's not XOR it's plain OR
What 'handedness' is earth? I think that because of the vast amount of life on our planet, the handedness would be (statistically speaking) about the same in both direction
As far as I know, all known life on earth is left handed (i.e. built from left handed amino acids)
I wonder whether it could be interesting to distribute via torrent. Instead of putting the game on a server you'd put the torrent file there and run a private tracker. Those of your customers who are prepared to seed at least twice the download size would get a small compensation - maybe a slightly reduced price, access to a mini game, or an additional level for the game.
That'd be great. But what about the rest of us who don't have 100gb/s connections? And this is aside from the fact that torrents are always (in my experience) shit slow.
But I don't. I am in Australia and I have a 12GB/month download cap (after the 12GB my speed is slowed/shaped/capped/whatever to 56k). I am not gonna use up all my bandwidth downloading ONE game. This is aside from the fact that it'd take me longer to download than drive to the store and grab the boxed copy. Maybe we're behind the rest of the world in AU (I dunno), but at this point in time I sure aint in hell gonna download something as big as a game (or Fedora... except that my ISP mirrors Fedora and it's not counted towards my monthly limit, so I do that).
If game companies go the online route only, then they will lose a customer.
"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"?
That is one of the more absurd quotes. The life of the shelf after it calves is likely to be long (maybe 10 or 20 years). Not damn long enough for anything to evolve though. Sure I guess things will have to adapt. Or, die.
Yeah, and once it melts its salt concentration will change!... or not.
Every single time I've upgraded, I've welcomed the upgrade. It was better, snazzier, more stable, etc. all the way up to Fedora Core 9.
Fedora Core 9 should never have been released. It was just barely alpha quality, and so buggy that merely changing the default font size would destabilize the system! I tried desperately to get it to work for about 2 weeks before shrugging, recovering my .kde directory from a backup, and rolling back to FC8. I'm not expecting an ultra-stable release with Fedora, I know it's more 'cutting edge' but when the computer crashes too badly to get to the website to file a bug report, I'm going to cut and run.
I haven't had the nerve to try 10, though I've heard good things about it. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
I can certainly empathise with you. F9 is my currently installed distro. I installed F10 and was fairly unimpressed. However it wasn't Fedora's fault... it was KDE. I tried using Gnome for a while, but hated it for all the same reasons I've always hated it. So I went back to F9 and KDE 3.5.x.
I've been using F11 (alpha) for over a month now and I have to say I am quite happy with it. Except that I broke yum... but, again, that's not Fedora's fault. KDE has now become *much* more usable. I'll probably stick with F11. I'm quite excited about this release. F10 was the only generation of Fedora that I skipped... F11 brings everything back into focus for me. Not sure about their choice of defaulting to ext4 though--although I can't remember this being the case when I installed the Alpha... perhaps because I already had the partitions in place.
For most, it is not enough to censor themselves, they want to censor you, me and everyone else, as they know what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. It is not enough for them to live their lives, they want to control how you live yours.
[me] waves hand. You don't need to see my religion. These aren't the morals you're looking for.
[lamapper] These aren't the morals I'm looking for.
[me] Psychotria can go about his business.
[lamapper] Psychotria can go about his business. He is right.
[me] Move along
[lamapper] Move along... Move along... nothing to see here.
Please don't lie it makes us all look bad.
twostix, I did not lie. I am sorry if I offended you, or any other Australians; that was not my intention. Your point is correct. But, so is mine. It is not hard to buy a gun here. It is hard to legally buy a gun, but not as hard as it's made out to be. However, my point was: if you want a gun to shoot someone then it's not any harder to obtain one (legally or otherwise) than most other places in the world. Your statement: "as can be seen by the ridiculous amount of gun violence in the country for the last few years" kind of supports my statement. My statement is not making judgement by the way. I don't support either stance (gun ownership or non/ownership)--my stance is neutral. If someone wants to shoot me, they probably will anyway, despite any silly law.
What I *did* mean, though, is that Jane Q Public's suggestion about shooting people is absurd. Violence does not solve anything. I also stand by my assessment that Jane throwing in a frivolous comment regarding gun laws in Australia--as if it proved some kind of point--was ridiculous. The gun laws do not stop a person intent on shooting another person obtaining a gun. I understand that Jane Q was trying to make a joke. I just didn't find it funny, nor accurate in any way.
but just hypothetically: might it be possible for somebody to just shoot this idiot and have done with it? Seems he is the only one who wants it.
Oh, yeah. Right. Forgot. They took away a bunch of the guns, too.
Well, of course someone could just shoot him. But what would that achieve? What a stupid suggestion. And, for the record, "they" didn't take away a bunch of guns; only extremists assert that they enforced it. If you want a gun in Australia you can buy one just about as easily as anywhere else in the world.
I agree with many of your points. But, I'm not sure why you're bringing religion into the argument. I've read a lot about the censorship issue and religion is rarely put forward as a pro-censorship argument. I personally think it'd be silly to mix up two very different and, often, volatile subjects. It's asking for trouble. Conflating "morality" and "religion" (as your post seems to suggest) is a very rocky path to head down...
I doubt it will go through silently anymore. I've written to, and emailed, Conroy several times detailing the absurdity of it all (he at one stage suggested [dunno if he and his office still does support this] monitoring and censoring VPN connecttions, which I stated to him is akin to wire tapping without a warrant) and haven't got a response that doesn't seem like a form letter. Or a letter that basically boils down to "it's for the children". Yeah. Right. That aside, I do think that mainstream media are finally giving the issue the (bad) press this topic deserves. It's just wrong on so many levels.
I saw the preview option and ignored it. Coherence is for wimps.
I doubt it will go through silently anymore. I've written to, and emailed, Conroy several times detailing the absurdity of it all (he at one stage suggested [dunno if he and his office still does support this] monitoring and censoring VPN connecttions, which I stated to him is akin to wire tapping without a warrant) and haven't got a response that doesn't seem like a form letter. Or a letter that basically boils down to "it's for the children". Yeah. Right. That aside, I do think that mainstream media are finally giving the issue the (bad) press this topic deserves. It's just wrong on so many levels.
Yeah, I agree. But for what you're saying wouldn't a "web browser" work? Why waste all this time integrating the crap into Windows 7 when a custom / stripped-down OS that can just run a web browser would do the trick? I'm not arguing that there are good uses for touchscreen--there are. I am arguing that building the functionality into a mainstream OS is not necessary. I am guessing that MS wants Windows 7 to be used in offices; I am pretty sure that my typing speed in Word (for example) is gonna drop when I am using an on-screen keyboard. But if my job was based solely on web browsing or ordering pizzas or turning my lights down I'd be a CEO.
I'm not convinced that the touch screens can replace a keyboard and mouse on a desktop, or even a laptop, for some time.
The touchscreen isn't going to replace the mouse/keyboard any time soon. I say let Microsoft waste time and resources on this absurd idea though. It just further reinforces their detachment from reality.
Why waste developer time on this for a consumer OS? Fair enough if they were developing an OS for a kiosk or touch phone or something. But Windows & is supposed to be for regular PCs. The last thing I, or anyone I know, is for touchscreen capabilities. Not to mention that I've never seen a touchscreen in a retail store. I don't want fingerprints all over my monitor. I can interact with my OS just fine with my keyboard and mouse. Thanks.
Normally if you held your head over a desk and jumped into the air gravity would would make you crack your head on the desk when you came down. Now, if instead of jumping up you just thrust your head straight down to the desk your head would be in zero gravity and gravity wouldn't cause you to crack your head on the desk.
I for one am interested to see how this plays out, be sure to let us know if you try it. :)
You owe me a new keyboard. This one is now full of blood. Also, after I visit the emergency department and the dentist (I lost 5 teeth doing your 'experiment') I might send you the bill. Your experiments should come with a safety warning. :/
I would think that plants would grow faster with little to no gravity.
Maybe. But the question might be more related to how healthy or productive the plants are. Even on Earth we can accelerate plant growth by (as an example) growing light adapted plants in low-light conditions with ample nutrients, or by introducing growth hormones such as gibberellins or adjusting the photoperiod. Often the plants are not 'healthy' though. Stem elongation, weak cell walls, abnormal tugor, reduced or inhibited fecundity all may exhibit themselves. So, to me, the question isn't whether it's possible (it probably is), but whether or not the result is a healthy plant that is able to reproduce and/or meet some other goal like production yields (in the case of vegetative growth then I guess that could easily be met, in the case of grain [seed] production I think it might be harder...)
That's a funny way to look at it. If I save 50 cents a day on my cup of coffee I will have another billion dollars in just 5479452 years (roughly). And that's excluding compound interest!