Re: But the real issue is
Ok Google, what's in an Easter egg?
2601 posts • joined 19 Oct 2007
You get a non-USA operating system when you install Linux. As for bumping off Windows, Microsoft are trying really hard. Despite their best efforts users are putting up with slurpware. The exact death date for Windows will be a matter of opinion as governments will keep it on life support long after it is brain dead.
I did not say everyone should create their own distribution. I made a toy distribution years ago. I learned a great deal from doing so, but it was a huge time sink. I am sure there are dozens of people on the planet who would benefit from taking the time to create a distribution, but it is not a course of action I would inflict on any but the most hopelessly clueless commentard. There really are hundreds of distributions, and unless you have a really strange requirement, half a dozen of them will almost certainly be a far better choice than spending the time required to create your own.
"Making demands from upstream". I had to wait a while before I was calm enough to respond to this without a foul mouthed screaming rant whilst brandishing an iron plated clue bat. You are not entitled to demand anything ever. You can politely offer you opinion on which way you think a project should go. You can politely tell others why you think one distro is a better choice than another. You can offer money to people capable of creating a change in your preferred direction. You can download the source code, fork it and prove to the world that your way is better (or - as I have discovered - there is often a damn good reason not to try to do it that way).
All the people screaming and swearing and demanding the removal of systemd achieved bugger all. The Devuan maintainers sat down in their comfy chairs and got on with something constructive (They are close to getting into the top 100 on distro watch). By all means follow their example and create Vortux, or use one of the Ubuntu derivatives that does not use MIR.
"Ubuntu is too big for any package or application maintainer to not support." Round objects. Canonical is quite capable of creating packages for any application they want. Application maintainers have enough on their plate without doing anything non-trivial to handle specific needs of any individual distribution.
A very brief search showed that distribution makers were not particularly bothered by Canonical creating MIR. They were peeved by Canonical making statements about competitors to MIR that were not particularly true.
How about a thicko with an big inferiority complex saying "I know, but I won't tell you" when he hasn't got a clue and is trying to hide it. Just tell the emperor he has no clothes and enjoy the spectacular tantrum as he screams "of course I have clothes, but you are too stupid to see them".
There are places where that would be antisocial, but this is free software. If you do not like the direction Mr Shuttleworth is taking his project built with his time any money, use something else. In the free software world, there are always at least dozen elses. For distros, it is far to easy to find 100 elses.
My ISP used to provide a web server accessible via ssh, but then cancelled it without warning and outsourced it to a company that only provided sftp. What they did not say was free for one year only, so a year later the site became unmodifiable and still causes trouble when people find it instead of the replacement.
My ISP used to provide email with the option to run my own email server. Then they <sarcasm>upgraded</sarcastm> to Microsoft exchange, so I lost push email, and adding an account required spending ten minutes interacting with a web interface instead of just typing two words of CLI. Later, email disappeared without warning, with the option of paying per account. (I name accounts after the company I am corresponding with and delete the account if I get spam from it.)
So far I have stayed with this ISP because they have demonstrated competence as a bit pusher. I fully expect that in future they will use deep packet inspection to find out how I access my web server and how I send and receive email so they can block it and make their defective overpriced spying services compulsory. That will be the day I dump them and hope there is still a bit pushing service available.
We support jobs. It's about jobs, also. The F35 program has created a huge number of jobs for Americans. I do not care if it cannot land twice. That is not important. First we want to fix our highways. We're going to fix our highways. We fix the pot holes in our highways, the F35 will not have to take off. We are going to spend another $329billion on the flirtyfive, and we are going to make the Mexicans pay for it.
Until today, I had not read the section on the Ukraine in the Democrat and the Republican platforms. Both are really waffly with vague commitments. I think they are both too fuzzy to call one stronger than the other. The Republicans did weaken their platform concerning the Ukraine. I looked for evidence of something similar from the Democrats. All I found was criticism of Obama's stance from Republicans.
Do you have something that shows the Democrats changed their tune at least as much as the Republicans did?
ULA's plan is to recover only the engines, so the other bit to go wrong is the explosives to separate the engines from the fuel tank. ULA are a bunch of rocket scientists so they have the technical skills for mid-air retrieval. They would need an astronomical budget. As they have a proven record of getting billions from the US government, I would not scribble 'impossible' on their plan. I would go with 'ambitious with a clear smell of desperate', 'expensive' and 'will get delayed at least five years'.
Finding the relevant PDF is well beyond the ability of a PHB. If a techy left one visible on his computer or left hard copy lying around the PHB would not even try to read it. The more likely scenario is a PHB got hold of a sample battery and enclosure, measured them with a ruler and decided that they ought to fit together.
In summary, fleshies cower miles away and race in as fast as they can after the landing. This can still take hours. During that time the motion of the drone ship causes the rocket to walk across the deck. On a bad day the rocket could walk into the sea before anyone can stop it. Luckily, where humans fear to tread, a robot is ready to rush in and prevent its friend from committing suicide.
"I really just want people to be aware that this is a president who's clearly more concerned about what people think of him than doing things of substance,"
I think people who made even a small effort to investigate Donald are relieved that he is more concerned about what people think of him than doing things of substance. Douglas Adams caught on years before the rest of us.
The USA sank so low precisely the same way the UK did.
I have been given "we own everything you ever think of" papers in the UK before. The task of getting the it signed was offloaded to a minion, presumably because the boss was afraid of hearing my thoughts on the matter. I read the document on company time. By the time I finished, the minion wandered off. I put the document in the round filing cabinet under my desk and no-one ever mentioned it again.
Could be worse. I have been offered "A legal dispute is grounds to withhold payment" together with "Withholding payment is grounds for a legal dispute".
Please take a look at the pretty Feynman diagram. On the left you can see an electron and a positron getting closer together, annihilating each other and the energy being conserved as a photon, then the photon decaying into a quark/anti-quark pair. From another point of view, an electron is happily moving forwards through time when it hits a photon, and bounces backwards through time. From our point of view, an electron going backwards through time is an anti-electron (aka positron). The same sort of thing is also on the right of the diagram: an anti-quark happily moving backwards through time bounces off a photon and ends up going forwards through time where we detect it as a quark.
Really going back in time??? I have no idea, but the pretty pictures help remind physicists that single quarks (and leptons) do not just appear out of nowhere alone. Any time you get a quark you also get an anti-quark.
If you have been paying attention, you may have noticed that the entire galaxy is made out of electrons and up and down quarks. Where are all the positrons and anti-quarks that must have come out of nowhere with them? Physicists have been looking for ages. They are not behind the cushions on the sofa. Have they been stolen? I blame the budget cuts.
If I go with you analogy, you set up a huge grid of milk bottles then send two fully loaded car transporters zooming towards each other. Afterwards you have a record of which milk bottles broke. Some of the broken bottles form lines radiating from the impact site, but some of the lines meet at points far from the impact point. Clearly some cars joined together, flew over the bottles, landed, broke apart and started breaking bottles.
The half life of these new particles is really short, but the are going really fast - fast enough for lots of time dilation from special relativity. The new particles can go a measurable distance before they decay into things the detectors can record. 'Particles' is a rather inclusive word. There is a smallish number of fundamental particles, and a huge number of composite particles made up of several fundamental particles. The new five are all made of the same fundamental particles, but the component parts are moving faster in some than in others.
Quantum mechanics limits the speeds to a sequence of values: our cluster of joined cars can spin around once, twice or three times per second. They cannot spin at 1.414213562 times per second. This is usually considered enough of an excuse to call them different particles rather than one type of composite particle with a range of possible internal energy states.
We have some words from a politician determined to portray himself as either clueless or malicious. A politician's job involves making unfounded allegations, finding no problem then taking the credit for fixing it. People who were not born yesterday will remember FAST telling us that pirate DVDs fund terrorism. They had a duty to turn over evidence of terrorist funding to the police, but they provided absolutely nothing. In real life, DVD pirates had paper thin margins because they had a piracy problem. If there is real evidence of Google funding terrorism, send it to the police so it can be dealt with.
Part of my pension fund is invested in Google. The same is probably true of millions of others in the UK. I think Google should concentrate on paying cash out in shareholder profits. Part of doing that is rewarding youtube contributors - which they do - so they will create more cat videos and provide hours of entertainment for hundreds of millions of people.
I can see why the government would want to put a stop to that.
Labour MP Chuka Umunna quoted the operating profit for the whole of Google and compared it to the reward for 1000 views on youtube. I tried to find figures for youtube's gross income, expenses and payouts to contributors. I could not find anything definitive. Sensible guesses are about 50% of revenue goes back to contributors and 25% for infrastructure. Take your pick:
Chuka Umunna did some proper research and selected the figures that sounded worst.
Chuka Umunna is so clueless he did not even notice he was comparing air craft carriers to oranges.
The rocket equation is really horrible. The basic idea is fuel+oxidiser go down, payload goes up. At the start, most of the power is used to accelerate the remaining fuel+oxidiser in the wrong direction. As the rocket goes up, things get worse - more an more power has to go into dealing with the fuel+oxidizer going very fast the wrong way. Near the end of the burn, you are lifting a big empty fuel tank. Recovering a Falcon 9 first stage requires an extra 30% fuel+oxidiser. The reason SpaceX is pays for the extra fuel (and reduced payload) is that it costs 1% of the launch fee and recovers a stage 1 that costs 25% of the launch fee.
ULA's initial concept did not include recovering the engines. In order to look remotely credible they had to bolt some kind of engine recovery onto their partially developed design. Some bombs to blow away the fuel tank, an inflatable heat shield and a parachutes should be much lighter than the SpaceX solution. Explosive bolts have been around for decades, so the separation should be as easy as rocket science. The inflatable heat shield is an old idea with one successful 3m diameter test (the shield on the video looked about 25m across). Catching tiny payloads with a helicopter sometimes used to work, and a pair of rocket engines are easily small enough to be carried around by a big modern helicopter (How much do helicopters and drone ships cost?).
ULA's plan is not bat shit crazy. It does have plenty of R&D cost and enough development to keep ULA out of the cost competitive launch business until well after the first reusable Falcon 9s get retired.
[SpaceX should be launching Echostar 23 about now. No landing this time.]
Has someone anonymously posted a comment on the net that is not whole hearted praise for your work? Did they imply you did something illegal? No need to spend time and effort working out who they are. Just put the URL and a small quote from the offending comment in out web site: http://duopoly.net/customer-data/, fill in your credit card number and we will send you the name, address and bank details of the offensive toe rag.
Why not sign up for our automated service? Any mention of your name in a negative context will trigger an automated alert to the NSA, DHS, or ATF. Put the video of the resultant swatting on youtube for an immediate chilling effect. At duoploy.net we have the data to keep voters in their place. Let's change the law so we can put this data to good use.
Here is a one man electric helicopter. That baseline has a pair of 4.74m diameter counter rotating rotors, 75kg of pilot, about 40kg of batteries and 10 minutes of endurance. If we glue four of these together, we have enough lift for a second (quadruple weight) battery to double the endurance and 65kg left over for a passenger. Our vehicle is 9.5m wide. A popular "standard" two lane main road width is 7.5m with 1.8m pavements, so this contraption requires both lanes and half the pavement on each side.
Upgrading the batteries to something futuristic allows bigger passengers with shopping or more endurance. The rotor size can be reduced but you then need bigger motors, bigger batteries and a bunch of lawyers to deal with complaints from recently deaf neighbours. (The sonic boom from the rotors will also smash the counter rotating rotors.)
"more economical": does this mean cheaper or pay an extra £300 to save £50 of electricity?
For me, thinner means more fragile, higher cost and extra status symbol bragging points for twits (can the screen be used as a mirror without using the camera?). If they had said the power brick was a USB hub with Ethernet and HDMI ports then that would have caused a sarcastic "well that only took 3 years". A feature that I look forward to would be to make the finger print scanner removable and a pre-paid envelope to send it straight for recycling.
I just checked memory usage: 2GB installed, over half has no better use than as a cache for the SSD. I suspect that as usual I am not their target market.
I think Microsoft know exactly how much value people place on Windows 10. That was why they made it a free
upregrade and rammed it down peoples' throats so hard they got sued. Despite their best efforts to infuriate their customers, they are still getting a net profit of a about $1B/month. They can afford not to care.
You forgot the Sony Memory Stick. (not to worry, so did everybody else.)
In other news, what has happened to Andrew Orlowski? The article contained only one half hearted kick at Samsung. Why hasn't he blamed Google for the bad weather or found Julia Reda guilty of witchcraft? I accidently read a couple of his articles recently and there were no ad hominem attacks or baseless slurs of character. Should I let him off the naughty step, or is someone ghost writing for he while he is on holiday?
The SpaceX price list shows a Falcon Heavy costs $90M compared to $62M for a new Falcon FT. I could not find a link to the price for a second hand FT launch. IIRC that costs about forty few million. A one-off flight round the moon would cost way more than $100M, but as a part of a sequence of launches including re-use the price should be profitable. SpaceX has already sold 3 other Falcon Heavies. If they do not start re-launching soon, they will run out of places to put spare rockets. There must be about half a dozen used stage 1's lying around by now. The first re-launch is planned for late March.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019