Thanks for the info, freeNAS looks pretty cool. I'm probably going to test it out, see how it works and all that and see if it's right for my home network.
Thanks for this! I checked it out, looks pretty good, particularly the web interface; means I don't have to use another keyboard/mouse/monitor. The other person who posted to my topic talked about freeNAS, which also looks interesting. I'll definitely check this out.
Yeah, totally taken out of context. It's not that I can't search for answers to a problem, it's that I don't want to learn something for absolutely no reason. I know how to fix Windows, I don't know how to fix Linux. I'm sorry, that's all I really have to say to someone like you, your post was just so... stereotypically Linux user. If you want to know why I think that, ask, but otherwise, try not to be so sarcastic next time you reply.
I totally agree that's what we need in a Linux, and for me it would be the server one. I have a crumby computer that could really use the PC-to-server treatment. I dunno, Ubunto maybe, but I'm still a little concerned that if something goes wrong I'll have to go on IRC or something equally unappealing just to get it fixed, as opposed to WinXP where I just 'know' how to fix it.
I want to mention right now that in the original space invaders, the reason why the little aliens would speed up toward the end is because the Atari had to draw less sprites onscreen at one time (because you presumably killed the majority of them), and so could draw and redraw those sprites faster. This was totally unintended at the time but was left in for obvious reasons.
I don't think you are getting the point, if I want to view something fullscreen, I better damn well be able to. And how does viewing say, a picture fullscreen, have to do with drag and drop?
Ha, EE techs go to college for two years, whereas E-Eng's goto university for 4 years. there's usually a big difference in the things you have to learn and the quality of the education. At least that's how it works in Canada...
I'd have to agree with you there, and electrical engineers have to know everything from the ground up; microelectronics, digital logic, computer architecture, assembly, and finally programming languages. All of them have their uses, and when building even basic control circuits you have to use pieces of them.
For example, if I were to build some kind of light controller, I could use... microelectronics knowledge to use a BJT that drives a LED via a microcontroller. The microcontroller uses its analog to digital converter to test some voltage that in turn controls the output to the BJT. I can use some logic circuits to have serial input from a computer to control/program the microcontroller. The computer is programmed in C++, the microcontroller in assembly (or C if you have the neat-o compilers).
Even if pure software people may not have to use it, and therefore think it's irrelevant, assembly is still a big part of the picture when it comes to the nitty gritty parts of electronics design. I've used the C compilers for the PIC microcontroller and they are nice and all, but don't do anything efficient at all, don't support any power saving states, and generally needlessly use up memory. They are great to use to do preliminary design, then you can go in and do some bit hacking if you want your controller to run as fast and as cheaply as possible.
I believe the key part of that paragraph that you so kindly paraphrased from Wikipedia is this:
However, when the disruption travels faster than the photons themselves travel, the photons constructively interfere and intensify the observed radiation. Or more specifically, that in that medium, the disruptions (ie. electrons) travel faster than the speed of light in that medium.
That's pretty much how this thing applies to the article... Also, I like it when people come up with inventive ways to signifying quotes, but it's nice when they just use the "quote" code things. I don't care nearly enough to tell everyone, but in your case it's just a bit... odd... to look at.
I believe that this has something to do with why those heavy water tanks in nuclear reactors glow blue. I'm far too lazy too look it up right now (it's 1AM) but it shouldn't be too hard to find on wiki or something...
DSL is also provided by Telus out west, and they are slowly moving east as they expend their service. I'm not sure how they compare to Bell, but they aren't too bad in my mind. You could also go for cable, which is about the same price. Shaw provides it out here, not sure who does that in eastern Canada, but I know there has got to be one or two out there.
Not that anyone reads these comments down here, but there is a viable *and* diy solution from my fav. feminine fabricator, ladyada. Essentially it's an RF jammer, and apparently it works quite well:).
After reading up on what it is, I think that I'll avoid posting direct links, as that might seem to be 'advertising'. I'm not sure, but I really wouldn't like for her to get fined with 11 grand 'cause of some over-enthusiastic fanboy...
If you knew that if you screwed up, people could die, would you be as as cavalier about an incident like this? But have you seen these things? They didn't have to be cavalier about anything, all they had to do was use some logic to discern that there is no way that these things could contain a bomb. They were literally a black board with some lights and a battery, and unless the batteries were made by Sony there is no way it could have been used as a bomb!
Sure overreaction is fine in certain situations and to a certain extent, but the GP is right, the Boston officials were just being plain stupid...
Face it, if your educational choice does not leave you fit for the job, then the course failed. But education that teaches you how to learn does leave you fit for the job, any job. Employers don't expect grads to know everything, because they would have to know wayyy too much in order to be effective. What they want are employees that can adapt to any situation, and have the problem solving base needed to be effective.
Even if new grads did take a crap load of classes that gave them the knowledge to do a specific job right off the bat, they would never be hired as an expected engineer, because they don't have the experience! You have to start from the beginning, in a field that interests you, and go from there. That's how it's done and I'm sure that nearly all professional engineers would agree that this is the way it should be done.
A lot of schools in Canada tend to have a very even balance; four years of school, just like everyone else, but a nice 12-16 month break after third year to go on internship. You gain some experience, then come back ready to learn the most abstract of concepts in your fourth year classes:P.
I totally agree with you here. I'm a third year electrical engineering student at the University of Calgary, and I can say that classes are more about the knowledge base than about whether you can use them in a career. They teach you to learn quickly and efficiently, and that's what employers are looking for. To even become an accredited engineer you need to have 4 years of on-the-job experience, because learning in class is only half of the actual education. There are also programs such as internship that are highly encouraged (we have about 80%-ish of 3rd years apply to internship this year). It's during the experience phase that you learn the meat of what you need to know.
Without the knowledge base you don't have an engineer, you have a technician. The knowledge base is what defines the engineer. Plus, engineering grads get a lot of research done, and you can't do useful research unless you have taken all the basic courses first!
What about a space telescope? The farther out the better, as there would be less atmospheric distortion. And it wouldn't be *that* hard to figure out the math for using the moon to put it into orbit. You just wouldn't be able to do it from a ship 'cause of the motion of the ocean.
Who cares if it comes down fast? And there is no way that the thing will hit you when it falls, statistically speaking. But really, you could keep a satellite in a crumby but still viable orbit by firing it strait up; the orbit would be huge, just like the moon method, but it would still be an orbit.
And AHH! Please, what I was saying about the elliptical orbit was that for it to travel from space to the ground at a tangent to the planet, it would need to be going at a crazy fast pace, and for it to be going that fast, it would need to be fired at a much faster pace in the beginning. But then of course it would just initially leave the atmosphere and continue on forever, but I'm sure you knew that, right? If you did, you really aren't showing it!
That's not necessarily true, as the speed and trajectory of the projectile *could* be just right that it will indeed enter a very shallow, decaying orbit, caused by the moon's gravity. Or you could do it without the moon, simply fire it strait up, and at the perfect velocity that it's not moving that fast when it leaves the atmosphere. It would be partially geosynchronous, and uncontrollable, and will obviously fall back down at some point, but you could still leave it up there for some time.
To say that it would hit the rail gun from behind is really quite impossible, as the projectile would have to be travelling really really fast on the last leg of it's trip so that it could hit the gun, that when you first fired it it would simply fly out too far for earth's gravity to have an effect on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info, freeNAS looks pretty cool. I'm probably going to test it out, see how it works and all that and see if it's right for my home network.
Thanks for this! I checked it out, looks pretty good, particularly the web interface; means I don't have to use another keyboard/mouse/monitor. The other person who posted to my topic talked about freeNAS, which also looks interesting. I'll definitely check this out.
Now that's good sarcasm!
Yeah, totally taken out of context. It's not that I can't search for answers to a problem, it's that I don't want to learn something for absolutely no reason. I know how to fix Windows, I don't know how to fix Linux. I'm sorry, that's all I really have to say to someone like you, your post was just so... stereotypically Linux user. If you want to know why I think that, ask, but otherwise, try not to be so sarcastic next time you reply.
I totally agree that's what we need in a Linux, and for me it would be the server one. I have a crumby computer that could really use the PC-to-server treatment. I dunno, Ubunto maybe, but I'm still a little concerned that if something goes wrong I'll have to go on IRC or something equally unappealing just to get it fixed, as opposed to WinXP where I just 'know' how to fix it.
I guess we can all dream 'eh?
I want to mention right now that in the original space invaders, the reason why the little aliens would speed up toward the end is because the Atari had to draw less sprites onscreen at one time (because you presumably killed the majority of them), and so could draw and redraw those sprites faster. This was totally unintended at the time but was left in for obvious reasons.
Search space invaders in the comments, someone mentions this already.
I think he meant 1984 :P
Kinda a big difference there...
By journalists you mean half-human buffalo herders right?
I don't think you are getting the point, if I want to view something fullscreen, I better damn well be able to. And how does viewing say, a picture fullscreen, have to do with drag and drop?
Ha, EE techs go to college for two years, whereas E-Eng's goto university for 4 years. there's usually a big difference in the things you have to learn and the quality of the education. At least that's how it works in Canada...
I'd have to agree with you there, and electrical engineers have to know everything from the ground up; microelectronics, digital logic, computer architecture, assembly, and finally programming languages. All of them have their uses, and when building even basic control circuits you have to use pieces of them.
For example, if I were to build some kind of light controller, I could use... microelectronics knowledge to use a BJT that drives a LED via a microcontroller. The microcontroller uses its analog to digital converter to test some voltage that in turn controls the output to the BJT. I can use some logic circuits to have serial input from a computer to control/program the microcontroller. The computer is programmed in C++, the microcontroller in assembly (or C if you have the neat-o compilers).
Even if pure software people may not have to use it, and therefore think it's irrelevant, assembly is still a big part of the picture when it comes to the nitty gritty parts of electronics design. I've used the C compilers for the PIC microcontroller and they are nice and all, but don't do anything efficient at all, don't support any power saving states, and generally needlessly use up memory. They are great to use to do preliminary design, then you can go in and do some bit hacking if you want your controller to run as fast and as cheaply as possible.
However, when the disruption travels faster than the photons themselves travel, the photons constructively interfere and intensify the observed radiation. Or more specifically, that in that medium, the disruptions (ie. electrons) travel faster than the speed of light in that medium.
That's pretty much how this thing applies to the article... Also, I like it when people come up with inventive ways to signifying quotes, but it's nice when they just use the "quote" code things. I don't care nearly enough to tell everyone, but in your case it's just a bit... odd... to look at.
I believe that this has something to do with why those heavy water tanks in nuclear reactors glow blue. I'm far too lazy too look it up right now (it's 1AM) but it shouldn't be too hard to find on wiki or something...
No way, spell checkers make you a better speller! The new firefox was how I found out I was spelling weird wrong all this time.
'Squiggly line eh? That must be a mistake! Woah, weird is spelt 'e' before 'i'??!? Crazy!'
What can I say, I'm an engineer. Not a great excuse, but it works for me.
Yeah, but don't you have the kill the tree then burn it to extract the carbon?
Sounds like a good idea to me!
DSL is also provided by Telus out west, and they are slowly moving east as they expend their service. I'm not sure how they compare to Bell, but they aren't too bad in my mind. You could also go for cable, which is about the same price. Shaw provides it out here, not sure who does that in eastern Canada, but I know there has got to be one or two out there.
Not that anyone reads these comments down here, but there is a viable *and* diy solution from my fav. feminine fabricator, ladyada. Essentially it's an RF jammer, and apparently it works quite well :).
After reading up on what it is, I think that I'll avoid posting direct links, as that might seem to be 'advertising'. I'm not sure, but I really wouldn't like for her to get fined with 11 grand 'cause of some over-enthusiastic fanboy...
Sure overreaction is fine in certain situations and to a certain extent, but the GP is right, the Boston officials were just being plain stupid...
Even if new grads did take a crap load of classes that gave them the knowledge to do a specific job right off the bat, they would never be hired as an expected engineer, because they don't have the experience! You have to start from the beginning, in a field that interests you, and go from there. That's how it's done and I'm sure that nearly all professional engineers would agree that this is the way it should be done.
A lot of schools in Canada tend to have a very even balance; four years of school, just like everyone else, but a nice 12-16 month break after third year to go on internship. You gain some experience, then come back ready to learn the most abstract of concepts in your fourth year classes :P.
I totally agree with you here.
I'm a third year electrical engineering student at the University of Calgary, and I can say that classes are more about the knowledge base than about whether you can use them in a career. They teach you to learn quickly and efficiently, and that's what employers are looking for. To even become an accredited engineer you need to have 4 years of on-the-job experience, because learning in class is only half of the actual education. There are also programs such as internship that are highly encouraged (we have about 80%-ish of 3rd years apply to internship this year). It's during the experience phase that you learn the meat of what you need to know.
Without the knowledge base you don't have an engineer, you have a technician. The knowledge base is what defines the engineer. Plus, engineering grads get a lot of research done, and you can't do useful research unless you have taken all the basic courses first!
What about a space telescope? The farther out the better, as there would be less atmospheric distortion. And it wouldn't be *that* hard to figure out the math for using the moon to put it into orbit. You just wouldn't be able to do it from a ship 'cause of the motion of the ocean.
Who cares if it comes down fast? And there is no way that the thing will hit you when it falls, statistically speaking. But really, you could keep a satellite in a crumby but still viable orbit by firing it strait up; the orbit would be huge, just like the moon method, but it would still be an orbit.
And AHH! Please, what I was saying about the elliptical orbit was that for it to travel from space to the ground at a tangent to the planet, it would need to be going at a crazy fast pace, and for it to be going that fast, it would need to be fired at a much faster pace in the beginning. But then of course it would just initially leave the atmosphere and continue on forever, but I'm sure you knew that, right? If you did, you really aren't showing it!
That's not necessarily true, as the speed and trajectory of the projectile *could* be just right that it will indeed enter a very shallow, decaying orbit, caused by the moon's gravity. Or you could do it without the moon, simply fire it strait up, and at the perfect velocity that it's not moving that fast when it leaves the atmosphere. It would be partially geosynchronous, and uncontrollable, and will obviously fall back down at some point, but you could still leave it up there for some time.
To say that it would hit the rail gun from behind is really quite impossible, as the projectile would have to be travelling really really fast on the last leg of it's trip so that it could hit the gun, that when you first fired it it would simply fly out too far for earth's gravity to have an effect on it.