Or even just the headline of TFA (if the A itself is too much to handle):

"Japan accepts court ban on Antarctic whaling"

(Emphasis mine.)

This was a tricky one to answer. "I'm interested, but wary of hype" and "Not terribly interested in gaming headgear" are both answers that apply to me. I'm not particularly interested in fancy, expensive gaming equipment in general. But I remain interested in the general notion of VR. I just don't want to invest in it purely for gaming! Games are fun, and all, but simply not that important to me.

I have a quite high tolerance for hot peppers, but for me, the important factor is: do they taste good? I find some peppers have a better flavor than others, and it doesn't seem to correlate with the heat level.

And where did I say anything like "X sux..."? I said Wayland is going to have the benefit of the work that was done on X to create drivers, and the benefit of people on its team who generally understand those drivers. And you attacked like some sort of rabid mongoose.

I like X. I use its remote features regularly. And I'm quite satisfied with its performance. I'm going to be reluctant to switch to Wayland until it supports (directly or through XWayland) all the features I need. Nevertheless, I think I'm probably going to end up running Wayland/XWayland in the not-too-distant future. It's already installed on my system, since most of its libraries were dragged in by some package dependencies I haven't bothered to track down. And I like variety and options, so I'll probably start playing with it soon. I have tried the sample terminal client, and that seems to be working just fine.

It's still referred to as an orbit, even if it doesn't resemble a classical orbit.

Except that, unlike what's usually referred to as a wave at that level, it has nothing to do with frequency. It's more of a probability wave. But it's still subject to the exclusion principle, which really complicates matters. Two electrons can't occupy the same location, but location itself is a tricky concept at that scale.

Anyway, all of that just goes to make my point. The very small (and the very large) are not like what we experience at the human scale. Reality is not fractal in that sense.

Dig deeper, and you soon hit the Planck length, so, no. Really small things don't resemble larger things at all. That's why QM is so counter-intuitive. Heck, you don't even have to dig that deep to realize that an atom does not resemble the solar system, even though both have small things orbiting a large central mass.

For that matter, go the other way, and you hit the light-speed barrier, which has a huge effect on the way really big things work. The very large and the very small are both immensely different from each other and from things on what we consider a normal, human scale. Your notion is poetic, but contradicts most of the physics discovered since the early 20th c.

The Wayland developers are, for the most part, the X developers, so they not only have access to all that existing X driver code that took so long to write, they're the folks who best understand that code, and know how to adapt it to a new environment. They're standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases, are the giants).

The biggest changes we should expect to see are in the API. Under the hood, I expect to see a whole lot of code that's identical to the current Xserver, or nearly so. As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is making sure that Wayland has the security X always lacked. Security, rather than hardware details, is probably the biggest obstacle to getting the acceleration in.

Turbo Pascal came out in 1983, two years before the first release of GNU Emacs. However, Maestro I (1975) seems to be generally credited as being the first IDE (although some argue for Dartmouth BASIC from 1964).

So, uh, yeah. :)

Except that only Ceres is big enough to have become a spheroid under the pressure of its own gravity. Which is actually a pretty significant feature (unlike the orbit nonsense), and a fairly solid reason for putting something in a separate category from "random rock".

Vesta was actually on the bubble for a while. Despite the big chunk missing from one side, the final decision about whether it would be a dwarf planet or asteroid wasn't made until the Dawn mission gave us a better close-up look.

I'm actually more interested in making Ceres an official planet. Pluto's a big comet. It comes from the Kuiper belt, and doesn't really resemble anything in the inner system. I can certainly understand giving it a different classification. Ceres, on the other hand, is more similar to Mercury than Mercury is to Jupiter, and I don't see any reason at all to classify it separately.

I can see using "cleared its orbit" to separate classes of planets, so Ceres can be a dwarf planet, but "dwarf planet" should be a type of planet! It's got planet right there in the name! We could even have other classes of planet, like Gas Giant, so the whole "Mercury is classified with Jupiter instead of Ceres" nonsense would be resolved.

Frankly, I'd just as soon see them drop any mention of orbits from the definition. Why *shouldn't* Luna and Ganymede and Titan be considered planets? They'd still be moons, but there's no reason something can't fit into more than one category.

Heck, there are so many more interesting features they could have used to define categories: does it have an atmosphere? Does it have its own satellites?

The current definition is a horrible compromise designed to piss off as many people as possible, without offering anything useful. I realize it was intended to try to rock the boat as little as possible, but it hasn't even done that!

Your reading skills are weak. I said zero in the right position, but two (MD) in the right order.

That's silly. How do I (someone who routinely uses ISO8601) describe my birthday, or any other annual event? Certainly not by reversing the order of MD from what ISO prescribes, even if ISO won't certify the result as a valid date. Christmas last year was 2013-12-25. Christmas in general is *-12-25, or 12-25 for short.

Here's a quick comparison:

Fields in the correct position: European: 1; American: 0
Fields in the correct order: European: 0; American: 2

By that measure the American style gets two things correct; twice as many as the European.

In addition, when the year is omitted (very common), the results are even more striking:

Fields correctly ordered and placed: European: none; American: all.

I don't think anyone has anything to brag about here, except perhaps the Chinese and Japanese. :)

Or: I can turn on compiler warnings and clean up any problems later.

Ah, well, I can't comment on this particular course, since I know nothing about it, but in general, courses designed for working professionals whose companies want them to learn new skills and continue to be useful for the company are not cheap. It's not like taking classes at your local community college.

Of course, the fact that you're talking about spending your own money suggests that you don't work at a company that values ongoing education for its employees, in which case, sucks to be you! :p ;)

Really? The same people? You have proof of this, I assume? 'Cause there's a hell of a lot of people using Linux these days, in all sorts of forms, and all sorts of environments. Many of these people have (and I realize this may come as a complete shock) wildly differing opinions on things! Some love SELinux, some hate it, and some are neutral. Some even think it's appropriate in some situations but not others, and these might fit in your hypothetical category, but in my experience, most of those think SELinux is mainly useful for servers, and a waste of time for personal desktop systems, which makes it unlikely that they'd be complaining in this instance.

Now I don't mind some hyperbole. I personally know several linux subforums that contain no mention of SELinux, pro or con, but I understand what you meant by your last sentence, and agree with the underlying notion, even if the words aren't literally true. But your suggestion that it's actually the same people who say "disable SELinux" who are complaining in this case strikes me as so preposterous that it needs to be challenged. You're basically trying to paint all Linux users with the hypocrite brush. (Or, at least, all those with an opinion on SELinux.) And I want some damn good evidence before I buy that line of crap!

Do you also think the people who proclaim that consoles are dead and that PC gaming is king are the same ones out buying all the new consoles? Because that makes just about as much sense. They're all gamers, and all gamers think exactly the same. Right?

Really not sure how you got modded "insightful", but hey, this is slashdot...