Slashdot Mirror

Remember how the generic pronoun "he" was considered sexist, and now we're supposed to write the contraction "s/he" to mean "she or he"? Well, it's pretty clear that this discriminates against nongendered species as well as inorganic objects.

Um, there are intersexed and also intergendered people in our species too, you know. Hence the need (in my opinion, at least) for non-gender-specific pronouns: to include everyone in speech, not just those that fit into the gender dichotomy.

There are several sets of non-gender-specific pronouns at various stages of popularity. A useful essay is cached here.

And please note that I'm not suggesting anyone should be forced into using such pronouns, it's just that I personally use them in my day to day life to try and be inclusive. I wouldn't get offended if someone calls me "she" or "he" (which does happen), but probably would be offended at being called "it".

I hope that helps.

Google has a cache , but this has been down a while - makes you wonder if they've gone TU.

Top Ten Reasons 'Top 10 Lists' Suck

10. They usually list items that are still avertised in the meadium of the list. Top ten list of cars for example will never list the Edsel, the Durants or REOs. They will list Honda, Toyota and Fords.

9. Most lists are usually geard to non-enthusiests. They will mention items that most people know about, and won't go too far to explain new, yet important, items.

8. They are filled with lame items so that the list is ten items long.

7. They are filled with duplicates that make the same point.

6. They are filled with duplicated that appempt to make the same point.

5. Top ten lists should really start at Nine and count down to Zero. Especially if they deal with computing or mathmatics.

4. Top ten lists usually forget about the distant past - and only mention items that the reasership is familliar with. Like the list of important historical events that fails to mention items before 1950.

3. Top ten lists get tiring by the seventh item.

2. Top ten lists usually play for novelty - Like a car list wherer the 'flying car' will get mentioned, but the first diesel-engine car won't, even though in the grand scheme of things, the diesel engine is more important - it's considered boreing.

1.5 Some top ten lists will include another item, in order to appear to be cute.

1. Most top 10 lists are lame excuses to try to get attention. Like this one.

My original comment from the Q&A article.

Why isn't Red Hat actively marketing their Professional Workstation Product? Apparently, this is a newly-released offering that hasn't been receiving much attention. It's odd, because it's not even displayed prominently on their site.

However, a Google cache of the page shows the relationship of Professional Workstation to the rest of the RHEL line.

The Red Hat Professional Workstation isn't available online, or through Red Hat, but through a few selected retail channels. Buy.com has it for $82.57, which includes one year of up2date service. It's the same product as Red Hat Enterprise Workstation. I purchased it from my local Microcenter for $99. Here's the RPM list.

It looks like this product was a last-minute addition.... Apparently, it's not crippled or relabeled.

Given my previous rants on Slashdot about the Red Hat shadiness, this looks like a good option.

Even more interesting is the fact that Red Hat didn't put much effort into product differentiation with this Professional Workstation product. I opened the box and the CDs were labeled "Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS". Well, only the first CD was labeled as such. The other CDs are identical to the Red Hat Enterprise AS/ES offering and include the same RPMS/SRPMS. SRPMS build cleanly in every test case I tried. So, buying this and using Enterprise 3.0 SRPMS for future updates is entirely possible. The same RHEL patched 2.4.21 kernel is there, too. Nifty.

Another issues that bugged me about the Red Hat Enterprise Linux move was the poor upgrade path. Reinstalling the OS on production servers that are running Red Hat 7.x or 8 ain't pretty. So, my final test with the Professional Workstation was prompted by a half-page paragraph in the manual that came with the box set.... It stated that in-place OS upgrades were only available for Red Hat Enterprise 2.1 -> Red Hat Enterprise 3.0 systems (via "linux update" at boot)...... however, you have the option of booting the install CD with "linux updateany" to relax the restriction "in case your /etc/issue file is damaged". Hmm.... No version-checking, eh? So I performed a test in-place upgrade on an existing Red Hat 8.0-equipped Proliant server...... It totally worked without a hitch!

This, along with the education and bulk-pricing deals leads me to believe that the Red Hat marketing department is working hard to appeal to the people it alienated with its announcements over the past few weeks. But it may not be enough. How can enyone plan for the future when Red Hat seems to be a moving target? We'll see what happens come December 31.

In the section titled GENERIC STRUCTURE, HIERARCHIES , Sutherland describes how he restructured SKETCHPAD in what we would immediately recognize as an OO manner:

"The big power of the clear-cut separation of the general and the specific is that it is easy to change the details of specific parts of the program to get quite different results or to expand the system without any need to change the general parts. This was most dramatically brought out when generality was finally achieved in the constraint display and satisfaction routines and new types of constraints were constructed literally at fifteen minute intervals." ... "Before the generic structure was clarified, it was almost impossible to add the instructions required to handle a new type of element."

Later in the section DEMONSTRATIVE LANGUAGE we see what we might call today the association of classes with methods as Sutherland notes:

"The organization of the demonstrative program in Sketchpad is in the form of a set of special cases at present. That is, the program itself tests to see whether it is dealing with a line or circle or point or instance and uses different special subroutines accordingly. This organization remains for historical reasons but is not to be considered ideal at all. ***A far better arrangement is to have within the generic block for a type of picture part all subroutines necessary for it.***" [asterisks mine].

Would hate to Slashdot Google

Mirror

--

However, a Google cache of the page shows the relationship of Professional Workstation to the rest of the RHEL line.

The Red Hat Professional Workstation isn't available online, or through Red Hat, but through a few selected retail channels. Buy.com has it for $82.57, which includes one year of up2date service. It's the same product as Red Hat Enterprise Workstation. I purchased it from my local Microcenter for $99. Here's the RPM list.

It looks like this product was a last-minute addition.... Apparently, it's not crippled or relabeled.

Given my previous rants on Slashdot about the Red Hat shadiness, this looks like a good option.

Even more interesting is the fact that Red Hat didn't put much effort into product differentiation with this Professional Workstation product. I opened the box and the CDs were labeled "Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS". Well, only the first CD was labeled as such. The other CDs are identical to the Red Hat Enterprise AS/ES offering and include the same RPMS/SRPMS. SRPMS build cleanly in every test case I tried. So, buying this and using Enterprise 3.0 SRPMS for future updates is entirely possible. The same RHEL patched 2.4.21 kernel is there, too. Nifty.

Another issues that bugged me about the Red Hat Enterprise Linux move was the poor upgrade path. Reinstalling the OS on production servers that are running Red Hat 7.x or 8 ain't pretty. So, my final test with the Professional Workstation was prompted by a half-page paragraph in the manual that came with the box set.... It stated that in-place OS upgrades were only available for Red Hat Enterprise 2.1 -> Red Hat Enterprise 3.0 systems (via "linux update" at boot)...... however, you have the option of booting the install CD with "linux updateany" to relax the restriction "in case your /etc/issue file is damaged". Hmm.... No version-checking, eh? So I performed a test in-place upgrade on an existing Red Hat 8.0-equipped Proliant server...... It totally worked without a hitch!

This, along with the education and bulk-pricing deals leads me to believe that the Red Hat marketing department is working hard to appeal to the people it alienated with its announcements over the past few weeks. We'll see what happens come December 31.

However, a Google cache of the page shows the relationship of Professional Workstation to the rest of the RHEL line.

The Red Hat Professional Workstation isn't available online, or through Red Hat, but through a few selected retail channels. Buy.com has it for $82.57, which includes one year of up2date service. According to the various Red Hat lists, it's the same product as Red Hat Enterprise Workstation. Here's the RPM list.

It looks like this product was a last-minute addition.... I recall someone on the Red Hat list mentioning that he received RH WS CDs when he bought the product. Apparently, it's not crippled or relabeled.

Given my previous rants on Slashdot about the Red Hat shadiness, this looks like a good option.

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. ... As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. "
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002

"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]

As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."


p

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. ... As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. "
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002

"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]

As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."


p

Bless you Google Snippy!

For example:

70% of the cost of Aluminium is electricity.
15% of all the electricity produced in Australia is consumed by their national Aluminium smelting plants. (ref)

Now Aluminium is an extreme example, however I'm sure that you can now see that the potential increase in overall wealth would be due to more than just what you pay for your electricity bill every year.

From what I've heard pilots make very little when starting out as a pilot -- $20K in some cases. Fool.com has data on the salary range of pilots and $250K is on the high end. Some of them qualify for welfare! Michael Moore writes:

"That's right -- $15,000 for the person who has your life in his hands. Until recently, Continental Express paid a little over $13,000 a year. There was one guy, an American Eagle pilot , who had four kids so he went down to the welfare office and applied for food stamps -- and he was eligible! " Google Cache

If they hang in there and are lucky they might get a shot at the $250K. Besides, as you pointed out, people's lives are in their hands. It's worth paying them for quality work.

For whatever it's worth... http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:uhfH21MOZZwJ: www.lionstracs.com/+lionstracs&hl=en&ie=UTF-8. ..

Google cache

If you actually read the patent application, you'll see that they are patenting something much more narrow than you think.

IBM is attempting to patent a UI hack that will detect a signon request from a website or other application, and superimpose their master signon dialog. They are NOT attempting to patent the ideas that are covered by Keychain or Mozilla's autofill. By superimposing their own "widget" exactly where the application specific logon would be, this master signon system preserves the flow of the application UI.

By comparison, the Keychain and autofill solutions can be more intrusive, and can be less secure. IBM's master signon would be entered every time I need to signon. I'd only need to remember one password. By comparison, Keychain and autofill don't require one to log into each application. An office worker can walk away from their desk without locking their screen saver and someone can use their accounts.

Points 10 - 13 explain what it is they are 'inventing' that is different from existing schemes. They list IE's auto complete, and say it has a failing in that anyone using the computer can autocomplete the form (thus it is not very secure), they mention quicken having a very similar method of requiring one master password to complete any password diaglog, but say that it is not ideal because the API is closed for quicken's exclusive use.

The crux of their solution is that they want to make a generic API that allows their 'invention' to provide a password where requested to any application, browser window or similar.

Of course, as other people have already pointed out, this too has already been done. Novell's single-signon pops to my mind, and I'm sure a lot of other people have done this as well.

It looks like the original page was taken down, however you can still see it in google's cache

no, not that I saw in those. But this pdf html does have the graph showing how the WW 500M CPUs are currently using the power output of 4 Hover Dams (9000 MW) and a nice exponential graph.

You don't keed to be Kreskin to look into Microsoft's future. Even a child knows that Microsoft is dying. All major marketing surveys show that Microsoft has steadily declined in market share. Microsoft is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.

Due to the troubles of Santa Claus, scientific investigations and so on, Christmas went out of business and was taken over by Microsoft. Now Rudolph is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

The numbers continue to decline for Santa but Microsoft may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for Microsoft continues in a head spinning downward spiral. In truth, for all practical purposes Microsoft is already dead. It is a dead man walking. It's a fact: Microsoft is dying.

You don't keed to be Kreskin to look into Microsoft's future. Even a child knows that Microsoft is dying. All major marketing surveys show that Microsoft has steadily declined in market share. Microsoft is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.

Due to the troubles of Santa Claus, scientific investigations and so on, Christmas went out of business and was taken over by Microsoft. Now Rudolph is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

The numbers continue to decline for Santa but Microsoft may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for Microsoft continues in a head spinning downward spiral. In truth, for all practical purposes Microsoft is already dead. It is a dead man walking. It's a fact: Microsoft is dying.

Check out this link (Not sure where the original article is, there is probably better articles on the subject, this is just one I found).

The point is that the assertion that fossil fuels come from plants is just a theory, there may well be a lot more oil undergroung than we ever thought there was, and it may be something that existed prior to any plants.

But also about inefficiency of natural fossil fuels.
Key Fact.
Since only about one-10,750th of the original carbon in ancient plant material actually ends up as oil, multiply 4.14 kilograms by 10,750 to get roughly 44,500 kilograms of carbon in ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas.

google cache of old-news biofuel breakthrough

Note they are claiming they can eliminate dependance on oil importation with agricultural waste alone. No other cultivation necessary.
And the point is. Once we use the biofuels, we are in the carbon cycle. No more pumping carbon out of the earth.

Google Cache for http://www.versalaser.com/english/

to the Google Cache. Go go Slashdot Effect.

Anything else can be rigged, including the paper trail it produces.

Open source can be rigged too. In order to rig a simple system of printed paper ballots (where for example a touchscreen voting system prints out a ballot which only has the desired candidate names printed, in easily scannable fonts, and the voter then folds this ballot to hide the vote from view and places it through a slot into a transparent case), one would have to physically interfere with the ballots at many separate polling places. In order to rig a system of verifiable paper ballots, one would have to crack public key encryption. In order to rig a system of open source, entirely electronic polling, one would only have to find (or create) an exploitable bug and keep it secret, or make sure that the published source code isn't the same as the source code on the running machines, which would only require those machines to be of proprietary design or to be out of inspectors' sight for a brief time.

FYI:

Is your state backwards as well?

Mine (Texas) is not. But then again, we do have other problems. :P

"I can't prove it, but I can make it sound plausible thereby making someone else prove me wrong" Sorry, that kind of logic belongs on a play ground.

There, or in an election process. The whole reason we have these time consuming certification processes is because we believe the burden of proof should be on those people involved in running an election to demonstrate that they couldn't have rigged the system. If the use of electronic voting machines without verifiable receipts (or even a simple paper output trail) makes this burden of proof too hard, then perhaps those machines shouldn't be used at all.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BAqUaiHp3yAJ: www.24hourmuseum.org.uk/nwh_gfx_en/ART18464.html+s tonehenge+laser+scan&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Yeah right, so that's why there are web pages dedicated to listing all the security flaws that are still unpatched months after being discovered. Gates is applying some form of whacked out selective logic, where apparently the only flaws that exist are those that make it up the chain to upper management -- those are patched pretty quick. But the dozens of others that MS replies to with "nah, we don't think this is serious at all" just cause the person who discovered it to write an exploit and wait his 30 days or whatever after notification before divulging the exploit... Only THEN does MS even begin to take note.

If I had a dime for every message posted to BugTraq that followed this pattern, I'd be rich: "Discover bug. Notify MS. Be ignored. Write exploit. Post exploit. Patch arrives, several months after initial notification."

I was wrong. You were wrong. There were more than a dozen in Google's cache .

Google cache

Isn't this article a dupe? I know I've seen this stuff before...

"Ashcroft is actually now teaching local law enforcement how to misapply anti-terror legislation to petty crime"

can you link me to some articles concerning this revelation?

A little Google never hurt anyone.

Not only is Ashcroft spending thousands on drapes to cover lady Justice, but he has printed glossy brochures inviting people to lectures on how to extend the PATRIOT Act! And he's been going on tour on our dollars!

Here are some more choice selections for you. Remember the missing WMD in Iraq? Maybe it was Crystal Meth!

so if you have no idea what im talking about how can you call me a liar ? why dont you do yourself a favor and do some Research first.

and dont assume shit, it makes you look like a moron.

once more ... google doesnt like IPs

Nope, it is just /. that doesn't like your way of posting links. Here is a working link.

Here

Here is the google cache of this article as well.

Yours sincerely, Sir Haxalot.

Looks bad but I am suspecting microSCOft is dos'ing the site as i type this.

Googles cache from yesterday

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:HKiJVA4VELMJ: counter.li.org/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.41.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcounter.li. org%2Fnews%2Ften-years-counting.php

http://216.239.41.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcounter.li. org%2F

The Beginning
On September 30, 1993, a message appeared on the then-newborn newsgroup comp.os.linux.announce:

From: hta@uninett.no (Harald T. Alvestrand)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
Subject: Counting Linux users: an attempt

Hello,

there have been many attempts at defining the size of the Linux
user base. None of them contained hard data.

Now, in an attempt to establish a lower limit on the number of
Linux users, I have put up a MAIL SERVER that does counting. ......
(In fact, the first registration happened only 2 days before, on September 28 - this was not a project that did a lot of testing before world-wide deployment!)
A few days later, on October 15, 3000 people had registered - a response both encouraging and challenging!

Little did the brash young engineer behind the message know that this would be the start of many years of work, involving people from many continents and hundreds of thousands of registrants.

Growth, change and (some) maturity
Once the rush had died down, things became boring for a while. Stats were fun; twiddling with some Perl programming to give people the option of giving more information was fun (and greatly increased the relevance of the "per country statistics" that have been a staple of the counter almost since inception!)

The next big change was triggered by an email from the Netherlands, from Patrick Reijnen, saying "I have made some web pages that send email to the counter - are you interested?"

I, then being a neophyte in all things Web, was of course interested - and soon after, in December 1994, the first Web interface to the Counter was a fact, and the registration rate once again hit the roof. People enjoyed the Web!

At this time, the counter was still running on a not very privilleged account on a server that UNINETT, the university network of Norway, also used for many other things; this can be seen from the counter being located at port 29659 (a number derived from my birthday).

After some time, the counter moved to port 80 on its own virtual Web server; the first announcement of the counter at its traditional URL of "counter.li.org" is seen in February 1997.
(The name has its own history, btw - being something of a technology purist, I resented the "conventional wisdom" that all Web sites should be named "www", and have its own domain name directly under .com - instead, I contacted Linux International and got allocated the subdomain "counter" from them, and used the domain name directly as the web server name. It works!)

It was not until I moved from UNINETT to EDB Maxware in 1997 that the counter (eventually) got its own machine. This was a Pentium 90 with 32 Mbytes of RAM, "liberated" from use as a workstation by someone who thought it was too slow. It also served as my personal mailserver and a lot of other purposes. But it worked!

Just how well it worked could be seen in February 1999, when the counter was first mentioned on Slashdot. 1400 people managed to get registered that day, and amazingly, the machine worked under the load. Just barely!
The next time, with the configuration a little better tuned, 2600 of the visitors got registered. A lot at the time!

This, however, left me with a permanent worry on how to enable the service to survive if it re

http://216.239.41.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcounter.li. org%2Fnews%2Ften-years-counting.php

http://216.239.41.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fcounter.li. org%2F

The Beginning
On September 30, 1993, a message appeared on the then-newborn newsgroup comp.os.linux.announce:

From: hta@uninett.no (Harald T. Alvestrand)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
Subject: Counting Linux users: an attempt

Hello,

there have been many attempts at defining the size of the Linux
user base. None of them contained hard data.

Now, in an attempt to establish a lower limit on the number of
Linux users, I have put up a MAIL SERVER that does counting. ......
(In fact, the first registration happened only 2 days before, on September 28 - this was not a project that did a lot of testing before world-wide deployment!)
A few days later, on October 15, 3000 people had registered - a response both encouraging and challenging!

Little did the brash young engineer behind the message know that this would be the start of many years of work, involving people from many continents and hundreds of thousands of registrants.

Growth, change and (some) maturity
Once the rush had died down, things became boring for a while. Stats were fun; twiddling with some Perl programming to give people the option of giving more information was fun (and greatly increased the relevance of the "per country statistics" that have been a staple of the counter almost since inception!)

The next big change was triggered by an email from the Netherlands, from Patrick Reijnen, saying "I have made some web pages that send email to the counter - are you interested?"

I, then being a neophyte in all things Web, was of course interested - and soon after, in December 1994, the first Web interface to the Counter was a fact, and the registration rate once again hit the roof. People enjoyed the Web!

At this time, the counter was still running on a not very privilleged account on a server that UNINETT, the university network of Norway, also used for many other things; this can be seen from the counter being located at port 29659 (a number derived from my birthday).

After some time, the counter moved to port 80 on its own virtual Web server; the first announcement of the counter at its traditional URL of "counter.li.org" is seen in February 1997.
(The name has its own history, btw - being something of a technology purist, I resented the "conventional wisdom" that all Web sites should be named "www", and have its own domain name directly under .com - instead, I contacted Linux International and got allocated the subdomain "counter" from them, and used the domain name directly as the web server name. It works!)

It was not until I moved from UNINETT to EDB Maxware in 1997 that the counter (eventually) got its own machine. This was a Pentium 90 with 32 Mbytes of RAM, "liberated" from use as a workstation by someone who thought it was too slow. It also served as my personal mailserver and a lot of other purposes. But it worked!

Just how well it worked could be seen in February 1999, when the counter was first mentioned on Slashdot. 1400 people managed to get registered that day, and amazingly, the machine worked under the load. Just barely!
The next time, with the configuration a little better tuned, 2600 of the visitors got registered. A lot at the time!

This, however, left me with a permanent worry on how to enable the service to survive if it re

Pic of cell phone exploding

Quit your bitching and take a karma hit. btw, here is a site you might like.

The parent behind this lawsuit:

Ron Baiman
205 S. Humphrey
Oak Park, IL
708-445-9052
rbaiman@uic.edu>

Source of parent name: This article and these Oak Park Board of Education meeting minutes.
Source of address and phone number: This message.
Corroborating source plus e-mail address: This.

Disclaimer: This information was provided for those who wish to contact Mr. Baiman to express their opinions and/or discuss this matter in a legal manner. It is not posted for any other purpose. The contact information may be incorrect or outdated and I do not guarantee its accuracy.

The machine turns, turns and must keep on turning -- for ever. It is death if it stands still. A thousand millions scrabbled the crust of the earth. The wheels began to turn. In a hundred and fifty years there were two thousand millions. Stop all the wheels. In a hundred and fifty weeks there are once more only a thousand millions; a thousand thousand thousand men and women have starved to death.

you trying to say that a critical failure in a microsoft operating system couldn't cause death or injury? What about when the government uses it for navigation of a Navy Submarine? What would have happened if that was also running the big, red, nuke button?

Do you know who beta tests Microsoft products?
The paying consumer.

Who beta tests automobiles?
Hundreds and hundreds of professional test engineers until the end product is as safe as the government regulates.

Currently, in the US, it is illegal to write or knowingly spread a malicious virus or trojan. Isn't the Microsoft Windows series of operating systems guilty of spreading malicious viruses and trojans?

or here

funny, I think google is getting /.'d after all: they've started using alternative servers. note that 216.239.41.104 kinda looks like google.com, but not exactly. (is there a google.com in, say, Farsi?)

In case Google gets slashdotted, here is the Google cache for Google.

Google Cache Action!

For a research project I've actually been doing a bit of reading about RDF and OWL yesterday. When you do, you occasionally come across these types of remarks.

> java + XML = demand for 4+ghz CPUs

Let's make one thing clear: RDF is not an instantiation of the XML syntax. You can use XML to transfer RDF statements, but for reasoning other, internal, representations are to be preferred.

As I'm working on a Prolog project that needs RDF I use the SWI-Prolog RDF library, which, according to
this recent paper (pdf)* speeds up processing 22 folds compared to using the RDF/XML serialization syntax. Please note that Mozilla uses Prolog+RDF as well.

(*) here's google's html version of the paper