Comment Re:Nitpick (Score 3, Informative) 57
I have heard of Dobsonian *mounts*, as opposed to telescopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobsonian_telescope#Dobson.27s_design_innovations
Now you have heard of both.
I have heard of Dobsonian *mounts*, as opposed to telescopes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobsonian_telescope#Dobson.27s_design_innovations
Now you have heard of both.
I *did* start my day by putting words in your mouth. I'm sorry about that.
I stand by what I said about calling either technology "horrible" though. Although we seen to agree more or less on that...
If people (or more likely corporations) are ideologically opposed to contributing back to the communtiy because they dont want to mix "their valuable IP" with the communities IP then are a dead weight to us.
And yet even there they are doing something good by using it. This is especially true of FOSS frameworks, libraries, etc. The more jobs that use them, the more value knowing the work becomes and that means you attract more potential contributors. Besides, at some point you run into situations like when Microsoft decided to add intellisense support to jQuery and build solid support into Visual Studio. Then a lot of these people suddenly stiffen up when a company with that clout decides to throw in some of its IP lot with the project.
I agree 100%: just look at Photoshop. Imagine where it would be today had Adobe somehow managed to eliminate all piracy. The answer is, probably in pro use, like it is now. But normal people would have needed something else, and that would have been a competitor. It could even have meant normal people using GIMP more. Who knows, maybe it could have been a blessing for GIMP, leading to more contributors, more pro-level features...
A big userbase makes software stronger. Who cares if some user has the wrong ideology, if he's using your software? Only those who break the license are a problem.
Heh, angry much? Calm down, man. I couldn't even decipher your point, there was so much RAGE in the way.
They are horrible and yet their fanboys will mob you and rip you limb from limb in a heartbeat if you question their absolute superiority for any and all applications.
Shocked? Authoritarianism is deeply engrained in human psychology. This is sad but it's not shocking.
Nice, the situation is completely black-and-white, isn't it? Anyone disagreeing with you is a violent fanboy, are they?
You're doing the same thing as those supposed fanboys with your blanket dismissal. Neither technology is horrible. Incandescents are really inefficient, whereas CFLs are more toxic and fragile.
If you want to get a lot of light for little power (or just a lot of light), incandescents can't beat CFLs. If you need a continuous spectrum, then incandescents can't be beat.
A correctly-installed CFL will save a lot of money compared to an incandescent, and avoid the hassle of changing bulbs constantly. Airtight, hot fixtures will cause problems, on the other hand, and you can't use CFLs in an oven of course.
Both technologies have many strengths and weaknesses: there's no reason to pretend otherwise.
You're really upset about the mercury in conventional fluorescents too, right?
But, I can't make a lightbulb post without hammering the points: CFLs are evil, expensive, toxic, and they don't last anywhere near as long as the packaging claims. I only see them as an effort by the lightbulb industry to get consumers to inflate the value of bulbs in their mind, because the 10 pack of 60W bulbs for $2.50 were obviously not making anyone much money.
Because of the mercury I'm looking forward to LEDs replacing all other lights, which has already started happening.
However, your complaints sound like you've been buying cheap CFLs, at least if the market is anything like it is in Finland. I've bought expensive (up to ten euros) CFLs of two or three different brands, and I can't remember which year I bought a single one of them, they last that long. Even these expensive ones save money, while giving more light. I'm picky about light colour, too, and my Philips bulbs give good, warm colour.
None of my fixtures support the wattage necessary to get the light I'm getting now. I get more light for less money, and avoid the hassle of changing a bulb every year.
I hope you're wrong, and the good CFLs exist there too. That said, even the best ones are not for all applications, and LEDs will certainly be an improvement. Until then, I will be saving money every day.
X.org needs a major rework; X11 was a solution for a slightly different set of problems than we have today, but just because it might not be the right specific solution now, does not be something else automatically is or that the fundamental concepts behind X are wrong.
However, even assuming X11 is fundamentally sound, it does not necessarily follow that the best solution is rewriting it. Writing even a good new thing may be more efficient.
If you want the UNIX/Linux world to enjoy the sort of success Windows did in the 95-2005 years its about catering to the centralization, decentralization cycle and having a modern ( ie not X11, but maybe an X12) display solution that is hardware independent, portable, and network transparent absolutely is the thing to do. Plan for 2015 - 2025 rather than trying to implement the ideas and compromises of 1995. Wayland and Mir are backward looking.
I think it's important to remember that MS didn't really know what they should be doing - except for the NT kernel, which I hear is beautiful.
Until XP arrived, desktops used 95, 98 and ME. 98 would last about a day on my box before crashing, while 2000 pretty much just didn't crash on the same hardware. 95 shipped without TCP/IP, and Microsoft pushed their own non-Internet network before they had to give up. XP was not ready for what the net was to become, and suffered inexcusable security problems.
My point is pretty much this: one can not predict the future, and sometimes sloppy work gives good results. Writing good code and providing something which does well at *something* is all anyone can do. Trying to do everything well WILL fail, however.
If Wayland gives better fullscreen video, then I'd like that. Someone running a server won't have to do the same, though - it's not like X11 will disappear at the first sight of Wayland success.
While the Russians may severely dislike homosexuality, to the point of criminalizing it, at least they're honest about it. They don't pretend to be against discrimination, while simultaneously engaging in it, like the political correctness crowed constantly does.
Two wrongs still don't make a right.
Also, there is no uniform "political correctness crowd", and you didn't provide a single example of its supposed discriminatory actions.
Send the network to prison for spreading the gay.
I'm sure a firewall could be arranged.
Yeah, but then they'll have to deal with the iconic Firewall Riot!
At least according to http://theodoregray.com/periodictable/Elements/031/index.s7.html gallium and at least some of its alloys are really sticky, leaving residue on most anything. "Unfortunately, it stains your hands and is hard to get off, so I don't recommend it. In fact, it stains or sticks to just about anything, which is very irritating because it would otherwise make a very nice substitute for mercury where a liquid metal is called for."
I've used one of those gallium-containing fake-mercury thermometers myself, and after a few uses the liquid metal got stuck to the glass tube, and it never worked again. They could have made some better alloy of it or something, but that's not mentioned in the abstract, at least.
(Also, someone is actually using Medium? Impressive, I was compelled to use it for a course, and it was the most dead "social network" I've ever seen.)
WE HAD AN SR-71 DRONE THAT WAS PROGRAMMED TO FLY AUTONOMOUSLY
Calm down, man. Whatever way this stuff works, it's not worth SCREAMING and swearing about.
Also, your post is a reply to my post above, yet you're addressing the sibling poster. If you don't have the time to check who you are replying to, you're probably in too much of a hurry to post.
Saying your point is made won't make it automatically true.
You're saying that they had the tech to deliver cargo in cities by drone because there was a military drone in the 70s which flew at high altitude, couldn't take off and couldn't land?
If you think about it, I think you'll notice that drone was missing more than a few capabilities needed for cargo delivery.
We've had this technology for years. Just because it is marginally cheaper to make, and significantly easier to program doesn't mean that the ***other*** reasons the tech wasn't viable will not still be in play.
RC aircraft and civilian drones have recently gained the capability to reliably use electric engines. This is due to brushless engines, excellent lithium batteries and vastly superior computer control.
Flying electrically in the past would have meant heavy nickel cadmium or *maybe* NiMH cells, powering electricity-hogging older electric motors.
Your statement is literally correct, just because of programming things will not change. However, other technologies have also developed, changing things completely. Before the new electric propulsion systems, a workable drone would have had to use an internal combustion engine. Even if the exhaust had been somehow okay, the noise pollution would have made it impossible. Internal combustion RC aircraft need their own designated fields, whereas electric aircraft are on the same noise level as normal traffic.
Now, this Amazon thing may be a stunt. But it's not the first new application enabled by these new technologies, and it certainly won't be the last.
Did you notice that you advocated blatant corruption, just now?
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.
