Slashdot Mirror

No shit.

I mean, I know you were being funny, but I did some digging in to what it actually makes it so difficult to install that the docs are willing to pay ten large.

Here's what I came up with.

A basic installation doesn't look like anything tougher than an afternoon's work.

Maybe it's time to pick up a part time job...

http://www.geocities.com/jonmason1977/gates900.jpg

OOP there it is.
OOP there it is....
OOP
OOP

Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation devised, in addition to some marvelous software, the GNU General Public License (GPL for short). Or the CopyLeft it is sometimes called.

It is quite a revolutionary document, using the "copyright" tool to to protect your right to use free software.

Unfortunately using copyright to protect free software is a lot like using a Jackal to guard the hens.

In fact, various inconveniences relating to this have resulted in modifications such as the LGPL (Library General Public License) and more recently the NPL (Netscape Public License)

I call these matters mere inconveniences, the real damage will occur when the Jackal's, (sorry, I mean lawyers), actually get to test the GPL in court for the first time.

Thus enter my version.

Its very simple.

Entirely consistent.

Completely unrestrictive.

Easy to apply.

The "No problem Bugroff" license is as follows...

The answer to any and every question relating to the copyright, patents, legal issues of Bugroff licensed software is....

Sure, No problem. Don't worry, be happy. Now bugger off.

All portions of this license are important..

• "Sure, no problem." Gives you complete freedom. I mean it. Utterly complete. A bit of a joke really. You have complete freedom anyway.
• "Don't worry, be happy." Apart from being good advice and a good song, it also says :- No matter what anyone else says or does, you still have complete freedom.
• Now bugger off. The only way to get rid of pushy Jackals is to ignore them and not feed them. The GPL is just begging somebody to take it to court. Can't you just see it. Exactly the same thing that happened when some twit (not Linus) registered Linux as his own personal trademark. People got upset, started a fund, and hired, off all ruddy things, a Jackal to try and defend the chicken! Who really benefits from this trademark / patent / copyright thing anyway? The lawyers. Who made it up in the first place? The lawyers.

OK so the last part of the license sounds a bit harsh, but seriously folks, if you are a :-

• Lawyer asking these legalese questions... You should go off and learn an honest trade that will actually contribute to life instead of draining it.
• Programmer asking these legalese questions... You have amazingly powerful tools in your hands and mind, use them to ask and answer the worthwhile questions of life, the universe and everything. Stop mucking about with such legal nonsense and get back to programming.
• User/reader asking these question... Don't worry. Go off and be happy. Have fun. Enjoy what has been created for you.

How is the genetic capacity for communication maintained in the presence of the evolutionary incentive to manipulate signals rather than communicate?

My preliminary research based on the demographic memetic prisoner dilemma (with climate variation) indicates it is very difficult to sustain communication if high migration rates are allowed.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, in this forum, any negative comment about India or China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong) is automatically designated either "troll" or "flamebait". This phenomenon is caused by the fact that SlashDot is essentially a global discussion group, and many Chinese readers actively participate in these discussions. Unlike American moderators, the Chinese moderators do not care about the meanings of key notions: "fair", "balanced", and "ad hominem attack". The Chinese consider any negative comment about China to be "ad hominem" whereas the Americans often accept criticisms about America and rarely designate an article as "troll" or "flamebait" when it criticizes American society. In this sense, the Indians are just like Chinese.

By the way, I did view the special web site about Taiwan. This web site just takes quotes from mostly Western sources like "The New York Times". Indeed, the Taiwanese have stabbed the Americans in the back. Why should I, an American, sacrifice my life to defend this kind of Taiwanese scum? They are a bunch of filthy mercenary pigs.

And the real problem as I continue to point out is that you should solve the equity problem before you remove people's means of livelihood -- not after you have disenfranchised and rendered them politically impotent as most certainly they have been by the globalists.

Although we should not sacrifice American lives to defend the morally bankrupt Taiwanese, we should keep in mind the lengths to which the Chinese would be willing to wage war against us Americans.

What you are doing with software is coming up with formal systems that model reality. It is easy to come up with complex models of reality -- just enumerate all the data you have and call that a "theory".

Where science gets its power is where software gets its quality: Parsimony. The problem with parsimony is that it's hard. It's so hard you can't find a better definition for artificial intelligence quality than Kolmogorov compression ratio.

On another note, the Taiwanese actually accelerated investments into China when we tried to slap sanctions against Beijing to punish it for the Tiananmen Square Incident. The Taiwanese aren't friends. We should not sacrifice our lives to defend these Taiwanese.

Right after they do Live Action movies for M.A.S.K., Centurions, Galaxy Rangers, and Denver the Last Dinosaur.

...

Actually, some of those could be pretty cool. :-P

Windmills Do Not Work That Way!

Installing grub and launch it from the nt loader is so easy if you don't fear geocities too much.
Also download the memdisk kernel from syslinux.

kernel (hd0,0)/boot/memdisk
initrd (hd0,0)/boot/MyDosFloppyImage
boot

Another point is that some Western companies do act responsibly. They include both Reebok and Nike . Reebok is a major supporter of Amnesty International. Of course, the best example is all the American companies (except one, Marathon) which signed the Sullivan Principles. The Sullivan Principles is an agreement to treat all employees in South Africa equally, regardless of skin color.

Westerners and Western companies are far more responsible than any Taiwanese company.

Now, consider Stanford University. It recently divested investments in 4 companies doing business in Darfur, where the worst government-sponsored genocide has occurred. What is clear is that much of Western society believes that business and human rights should not be separated although some (like some writers in SlashDot) in Western society believe otherwise.

Nonetheless, contrast the attitudes and behavior of Americans and Taiwanese. The difference is stark.

It's unlikely that Ramanujan made such a claim. It's close to an integer and there are are some deep reasons for for this. See here for some more info. He most certainly wouldn't have discovered this result by a long hand calculation of its value.

I'm 21-years-old and typed in QWERTY for seven years starting at age 12, ultimately reaching 130+ words per minute. Rather than study for a test at uni two years ago, I decided to start learning DVORAK. For the rest of the semester lab reports were hard to write and after a week, I was a steady 40 wpm on Dvorak but my QWERTY speed dropped to about 50 wpm--after such a loss, there was no turning back! After four months exclusively on Dvorak I was at 90 wpm and by the half-year mark I was at 120 wpm.

As for people who compare switching back-and-forth between keylayouts to bilingualism, they either (a) do not speak from experience or (b) do not type fast on either layout. Occasionally switching back to QWERTY is a REAL PAIN. The only words I can type fast on QWERTY include the URL to my uni's webmail page, my first and last name (email login), and email password. I've found that I only reach tolerable QWERTY speeds if I'm going back to QWERTY on a daily basis. I also think it helps to use the EXACT SAME KEYBOARD IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION to really rev up QWERTY rates quickly. Of course, the latter statement sounds like psychobabble, but my muscle memory seems to benefit from these constants.

If you haven't garnered these from DVORAK fan sites, here are some little tidbits:

* 'a' and 'm' are the only keys that are not moved between QWERTY and ANSI Dvorak (more on ANSI later...)
* the Dvorak home row includes aoeu ih htns - (spaces insert for readibilty)
* as an OS X user, I find Dvorak much more amenable to common keyboard shortucts. Quit is cmd+Q and Close Window is cmd+w, which makes for easy muscle-memorisation on a Powerbook keyboard with the keys physically rearranged for Dvorak (http://www.geocities.com/rjpoling/MacOS/dvorak/dv orak_powerbook.jpg)

As for ANSI mentioned above, here's the real doozey: August Dvorak initially proposed an alternate number-row layout in his book Typewriting Behavior (1936, I think?). Rather than 12345 67890, Dvorak liked 75319 02468 (again, spaces inserted for readability). In theory, I don't know how much this helps. In practice, it's kinda useful these days since the '@' character is easily accessed with the index finger. This alternate number layout was NOT included in the standard ANSI Dvorak layout, but keymap files may be easily modified by true fanatics. On OS X, I highly recommend Ukelele (http://www.sil.org/computing/catalog/show_softwar e.asp?id=94). I'm two-weeks into learning the alternate layout and am finally getting good at it.

In sum, the Dvorak layout markedly reduces finger movement for standard English text (http://www.acm.vt.edu/~jmaxwell/dvorak/comparePag e.html); it seems to not be so helpful to developers. If you type fast on QWERTY now, you'll lose a lot of it after learning Dvorak. You may be able to get good enough at QWERTY but it won't be soon after learning Dvorak and it won't be fast and your boss will look at you funny when you're hunting and pecking.

Hope this helps.

Jon

The public can be horrably wrong.

The public can right its horrible wrongs, too.

The America public tolerated slavery.

And they fought a war, and declared slavery evil, and have been atoning for it ever since.

The German public condoned mass murder.

You assume that the German public knew what was happening. They failed by voting the Nazi party into power, but I doubt even your infinite wisdom would've allowed you to see at the time what would eventually transpire.

The Islamic public praises the famlies of suicide bombers.

No, Islamic radicals praise suicide bombers. I really doubt all 1+ billion Muslims in the world (or even a majority of them) believe that suicide bombers are good. But feel free to go on believing that all Muslims are terrorists, while you continue to use your watch, soap, paper, cloth, wind-generated power, telescopes, algebra, glass, etc (Islamic inventions).

The Japanese public diden't care about the rape of Nanking.

Again, you're assuming that the Japanese public actually knew what was going on. During war time, there are certain things that happen that may be unsavory in peace-time, but did the Japanese public really know that 80,000 Chinese women and girls were being raped? Probably not.

The Soviet public watched in silence at millions died.

Not to belabor the point, but you're assuming that the public always knows what's happening. That's not often the case with respect to these kinds of events.

The French public enjoyed the fruits of it's Empire.

And why shouldn't they? Imperialism is a valid form of government. Of course, they did have a nice little revolution (you might remember it from your history classes; it was just a little bit after the American revolution).

The public likes WalMart, McDonalds, Toyota and Microsoft.

That's the first time I've ever heard of Wal*Mart, Toyota, or even Microsoft being related to mass murders. But whatever. There's a reason why people like these things:

• Wal*Mart's prices are exceptionally low. You complain that they drive out local businesses, but it's pure economics. Would you really buy a gallon of milk at $4 from your local mom & pop shop when you could get the exact same milk at Wal*Mart for $2? What if you have a limited income, or you can't get a job above minimum wage? As evil as you think Wal*Mart may be, they're doing nothing but following economic rules -- the firm that can sell its goods at a lower price (while following competitive practices, such as not selling below your cost) will get the business. If other firms can't follow suit on price, it sucks to be them.
• While McDonald's may not be the height of cuisine, it fills a niche (sadly, a niche that has become all too often the norm) -- decent food at a decent price, quickly. As well, McDonald's has made an attempt to be healthier (better salds and such), while competitors like Burger King and Carl's Jr were launching extremely high calorie menu items.
• I'm not a huge fan of Japanese cars (for purely selfish reasons -- they just don't "feel" right compared to the German and American vehicles I drive), but Toyota is certainly not evil. Along with Honda, they're the only company really pushing hybrid technology (to the point where many other manufacturers are licensing Toyota's Synergy drive for their own future hybrids). They provide cheap, reliable cars (but are now being beat in this arena by Korean manufacturers like Hyundai and Kia). That American companies like GM can't compete with Toyota or Honda is not the f

From A Net Asset Tax Based On The Net Present Value Calculation and Market Democracy

CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND RISK INVERSION

A fundamental problem with our economy at present is what might be called "risk inversion" where households with high net worth disproportionately invest in low risk instruments while households with low net worth find their savings unwisely invested at high risk by deregulated but relatively unskilled financial institutions.

New technologies and job-creating enterprises find it difficult to obtain capital because they are caught in the horns of a dilemma: The wealthy, who have the business experience needed to manage the risks of a new enterprise, have given their money to government or corporate bureaucracies to manage while small savers find their savings accounts squandered in speculative investments by institutions which are, in reality, qualified to do little more than purchase Treasury paper, which is what they should, in fact, be doing.

Even more perverse, the government finds itself stepping away from its traditional low-risk investments in mature infrastructure in order to perform functions for which it is particularly ill-suited, such as technical innovation, while private sector businesses retreat from the very technical risk it is most suited to manage.

The government then finds itself bailing out the failed investments of insured, but deregulated, financial institutions, thus creating even more government debt which is purchased by those most qualified to capitalize business enterprise.

Perhaps it shall be used as a manual for CRobots?
http://www.geocities.com/crobots32/index.html

I've been digging his art for a few years now, but more because of Puffy than Parappa...

Stop moving those goal posts around. Your original claim was that Windows was not "designed with IP in mind" based on the rather shaky assertion that all IP-related configuration was "complex". This has since devolved to basing your far-reaching criticism solely on the UI for setting up IP printers (a relatively uncommon task, even in networked environments).

I hope you realise how silly this line of reasoning is. It's like saying "Linux wasn't built with SCSI in mind" because fdisk is hard to use.

In any event, my comment on the OSI model was because you are trying to compare something at the network layer (IP) with something at the session layer (NetBIOS). NetBIOS runs *on top of IP* (or NetBEUI, or IPX, or probably anything else you want it to).

These links may be of assistance.

Windows BY DEFAULT prefers to use NetBIOS to IP.

Assuming you _really_ mean the old, unroutable NetBEUI protocol (that operates at the same level as IP), and not NetBIOS, it hasn't since Windows 98 (and even then, I seem to recall Windows 98 defaults to NetBIOS over IP - but it's been a long time since I've installed Windows 98).

NT variants of Windows have preferred NetBIOS over IP (as opposed to NetBIOS over NetBEUI, which is what I think you're talking about) since at _least_ NT4 (probably even earlier, but it's been a very long time since I've installed earlier versions of NT).

However, all this is irrelevant - Windows is no less (or more) "designed to use IP" than OS X is "designed to use Firewire". IP is simply a minor implementation detail of getting network data from machine A to machine B, just like Firewire is a minor implementation detail of how to connect a hard disk to a computer.

The ad-hoc filesharing which was mentioned earlier in the thread (right click, share this folder): what is that based on?

SMB (or CIFS, depending on what you want to call it). Again, complete independent of the network layer - it can run over IP, NetBEUI, IPX/SPX, etc (just like AFP on MacOS).

However, consider the paradigm: in Unix, EVERYTHING is manually editing obscure text files.

Ah, but some are more obscure than others. By your reasoning, some Linux distributions aren't "designed with IP in mind" and others are, despite being the same OS, merely because they happen to have a more complex UI for IP configuration.

Would you say that windows 95 was "built with IP in mind," or was IP "grafted on"?
Ditto for NT.

I would say it's completely and utterly irrelevant. Both of them were built to be network OSes. It's like asserting an OS was "built with SCSI in mind" or "built with AGP in mind" or "built with SDRAM in mind" whereas others had it "grafted on".

Again, I repeat my claim that IP on windows is in the Mac OS 8 realm: it works, but it's clunky, and it was treated as an afterthought when the OS was written.

And I repeat that basing your criticisms of low-level OS design on one example of clunky *user interface* is idiotic.

http://www.geocities.com/agseventyfour/Lucy.html Also, the only part that was "not" mathing to that of a chimp was the knee joint... which was accidentally mislabeled by the person who found it (miles away i might add) and then left there because he wanted credit for finding part of it.... there's accuracy for ya.

I have several NCR 3125 NotePad computers that originally ran PenPoint OS.
These devices were what Microsoft now calls "Tablet PCs".

When they first came to market, Microsoft panicked and announced "Pen Extensions for Windows" (which added very little to Windows 3.1) and claimed that a buch of new systems were coming out to use it. Typical Microsoft vaporware tactics... everyone decided to wait for the wonderful new MS product instead of buying the PenPoint devices, and the market for them collapsed.

Considering that it took them this long to actually produce a product, they obviously only made the annoucement to kill any potential competitor from gaining a foothold.
Call it a conspiracy theory if you wish, but it's a court-proven tactic that MS loves to (ab)use and is quite famous for.

The handwriting recognition in PenPoint was actually very impressive, by the way.

Never, if the Jesux people can do something about it.

"Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

I am working on a Google Map page for specifying routes based on my GPS data, which means only segments I've ridden, rather than arbitrary roads, can be used. So far, I just have a page that shows a log for a single route, but all the infrastructure for a route planning page is there. For example, here's where I rode yesterday.

This seems higly analogous to the situation where you have one electrical standard for interoperation of devices and power generators.

Gates struck deal that gave him a natural monopoly. There were other operating systems for the 808x family around and any one of them could have been the predominant one shipped by IBM with its PC. Any one of them would have formed a natural monopoly on that platform and made the owner rich.

Such monopoly profits are called "economic rent" which everyone with any sort of mental faculties about economics, including such staunch advocates of laissez-faire capitalism [wikipedia.org], as Milton Friedman recognize as the most appropriate source of tax revenue. Since economic rent is subsidized, rather than taxed -- due to the abandonment of the principles of Henry George -- Gates was given state support as he imposed a horrible operating system on the world and became its richest man as a consequence.

Like any welfare queen -- it corrupted his character which wasn't that good to begin with.

He can't recover his character by giving away all his wealth to fashionable causes -- he's not much of a rock star anyway. He might try getting something like a replacement of income and capital gains tax with a tax on net assets passed through the wealth-owned political system -- or at the very least a tax on market capitalization.

He might also fund a technology prize or two. Why do guys like Gates, Allen and Ellison leave it up to folks like the Ansari's to do the noble thing and stop schmoozing with people as a test of their worthiness for money? Are these guys that lonely?

Then there are the followers of the IPU (invisible Pink Unicorn).

If google hits are any indication, the IPU has a much larger following (498,000) than the FSM (88,200). And she's a lot cuter (though invisible).

There's gotta be a bunch of others ...

For EBAY FRAUD OF ALL KINDS

I have a friend who's unemployed--he's collecting unemployment insurance. This guy has never worked so hard in his life as he has to keep this thing going. He's down there every week, waiting on the lines and getting interviewed and making up all theses lies about looking for jobs.

If they had any idea of the effort and energy that he is expending to avoid work, I'm sure they'd give him a raise.

I've never seen someone to such a tremendous job, not working.

I, for one, tweaked my NetPliance (now Tippingpoint) I-Opener.

Took a Damn Small Linux, Qt-Embedded, Wireless USB, Firefox browswer and poof. A real looker that I can use in my Kitchen for my browsing needs. This is in clear violation of my Acceptable Usage Policy set forth by now defunct Netpliance.

Is the AUP enforceable? Why is it that we have to wait for the company to belly up before we can raid the hardware?

If we bought it, damn the license. Same goes for my DVD players, WinTV-HDTV, Tivos, Trio cellphones and iPODs. We're consumers who wish to spread around what we call "a GOOD THING".

Witness above where you assign 'human carrying capacity' to an unmanned spacecraft!

Hmm... seems you're right. What am I thinking of then? /Me starts digging

Ah, the Soyuz capsule of which the Progress is a derivative of. My bad. :-)

Actually, it's probably considerably *more* than four flights - since your quoted capacity to LEO is based on the 28 degree orbit of Skylab rather than the 56 degree orbit of ISS.

Considerably more? Doubtful. Four flights is 472,000 kg to LEO. The final weight of the ISS is supposed to be 419,000 kg. That leaves us with 53,000 kg to spare.

Now the Shuttle drops about 8,000 kg of cargo capacity to reach the 51 degree orbit. (If you've got a good calculation for the Delta-V required to get there, now's a good time to jump in. Otherwise I'm going for the educated guess.) 8,000 kg is about 28% of the 28,000 kg to LEO. Using the decrease of 28%, we get a S-V rating of ~84,960 kg per flight. Which works out to about 5 flights with some room to spare. Just to be on the safe side, we'll call it six flights. That's still far less than the 21 you're suggesting. It's true that the shuttle also carries people up, but I'll get to that in a moment.

It's less of a savings than you might think. The marginal cost of a single Shuttle mission is around 50-80 million dollars US. OTOH - a single Saturn V costs around 500 million dollars US. (Shuttle flight costs are sensitive to flight rate, whereas Saturn V flights are virtually non sensitive to flight rate.)

The Space Shuttle currently flies for about 500 million per flight. This article suggests that the average cost of a shuttle flight is 1.3 billion! (backed up here)

For each shuttle flight vs. S-V flight you get less cargo, and more costs! And using the 1.3 billion figure per flight, you could launch TWO Saturn V's per shuttle flight! One with Space Station parts, the other with a dozen or so humans in a capsule.

Which is hardly surprising - as it's role isn't as a lunar support base. Even if it were in a more friendly orbit, it's hideously unsuited to being a lunar support base. (More millions to convert it - less saving than you suppose above.)

Except that one of the original roles of Space Station Freedom was as a lunar staging point.

NASA's budget wasn't significantly cut during the Clinton years - it was virtually level.

The funding cuts to the Space Station Freedom program, not the cuts to NASA as a whole. Budgeted funding for the program was cut time and time again until the plan was finally cancelled and the ISS given the go-ahead in its place.

The PDF of the Nature article is available here.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html

In Shakespeare's day, nobody worried about English spelling in large part because serious people wrote serious things in Latin, where the spelling was thoroughly standardized. Because Latin was the language of the educated, nobody had bothered to standardize the spelling of the vernacular.

Since that time, English spelling has been standardized, and very few of us have reliance on Latin as an excuse today. English spelling isn't difficult: it follows two sets of simple rules. We have a set of rules for the words adopted from Latin (about half the language) and another set for the words derived from Anglo-Saxon. Foreign borrowings generally retain their foreign spellings. See my English spelling page for some pointers to resources for learning how simple it really is.

Those worried over form, miss content.

Those who don't worry over form obscure their content, and ensure that it will be missed or misconstrued. It's just plain rude to deliberately or carelessly use bad grammar and orthography: it shows contempt for your ideas and for your audience.

Looks like General Sherman to me.

You could say go to google. google Click Fraud and click "Click Defense"'s add on the right hand side 10-20 times just for added good mesure :p

Ok, only FYI (as many of these topics were covered in other replies) and certainly not for karma (as this topic is dead at this point), here is the definitive guide for playing Lucasarts/Sierra games on modern PC's:

First, Linux PC's:
Lucasarts games: http://www.scummvm.org/
AGI Sierra games (Lsl1, Sq1, Sq2, Kq1-3, etc): http://sarien.sourceforge.net/
SCI0 Sierra games (Sq3, Lsl2-3, Kq4): http://freesci.linuxgames.com/
SCI1 Sierra games (Sq4-5, Lsl5-6, Kq5, etc) and oddballs like willy beamish and all those old games like tunnels of armageddon: http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/
Windows Sierra games (Sq6, Lsl7, etc): http://www.transgaming.com/ (or apt-get install wine)

Any platform, Sierra games: This guy has done the unpossible, writing timing fix patches for the games so you don't have to kludge them with slowdown utils: http://geocities.com/belzorash/

Windows PC's:
LucasArts games: http://www.scummvm.org/
AGI Sierra games: http://www.agidev.com/nagi.html
SCI Sierra games: http://sourceforge.net/projects/vdmsound/
Windows games:
http://home.planet.nl/~harms646/larry7.html
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancement s/ResChange.shtml
Games that just don't work right:
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/

And just for grins, because it's freaking awesome:
http://www.agdinteractive.com/
http://people.freenet.de/lucasfangames/maniac/game s_eng.htm
Good luck, let me know if you have any problems.

These links may help you survive until the day the faithful await arrives. (According the the voodoo lady in MI4, she's got a 5 game contract, but without Gilbert the series quality suffered, and the market isn't that big, so it's pretty iffy if MI5 will happen. Don't play MI4, it'll make you cry if you liked 1 and 2)

Day of the Tentacle

Monkey Island 2: Le Chuck's Revenge Mac Version

The Secret in The Secret of Monkey Island

The Secret of Monkey Island Spanish Version

The Secret of Monkey Island

Lechuck's Revenge

This post is ancillary to the discussion at hand, but I use Postfix for one reason only: to get mail from my favorite email client (mutt) to my ISP's server, which requires authentication and sometimes encryption. And for that purpose alone, it's a pain in the butt. I see how Postfix is a great program for people running servers or routing hundreds of messages of day. I only need it because Mutt's dogmatic adherence to the Unix philosophy (each tool does one trick and one trick only, but interfaces nicely with other tools) means I need to go through a lot of work to get my mail to the ISP. SUSE made this easy for me, through YAST2, which dealt with all the tricky configuration necessary to get Postfix talking to my server, but I never understood how it worked. When I moved to Kubuntu I was forced to dive into the Postfix config files more deeply than I felt confident doing. I'd love either a mutt patch that provides SMTP-auth capability (whoops, google is my friend: http://www.geocities.com/win32mutt/patches.html - why isn't it used by default?) or a simple DEB package that provides mini-SMTP-auth capability for people like me that only send out 10-20 emails per day, and always to our smarthost.

http://www.geocities.com/penguinlineup

Here's the C# source for DVD John's GVPatch.Exe

http://www.geocities.com/vishalmishra/GVVPatch.cs. txt

Both Microsoft and Google have acted like Taiwanese companies and catered to Beijing by censoring words and phrases, like "democracy" or "human rights", that conflict with Chinese society. Microsoft is Nixon. Google is Breshnev. Who is better?

Yes!

I still love and play Starflight from the 80s! It had alien diplomacy, exploration, space combat, resource management, several mysteries and a count down to doom....it was awesome. I still like the exploring in the game..

Here's a link to a fan site for Starflight I & II
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Maze/4979/sta rflight.html

There is even thoughts about Starflight III
http://www.starflight3.net/

The project looks a bit stalled...but that is what online communities do with projects right? ;)

The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program - not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this program in the early 1970's (when I was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true; we raised the budget in order to take 20% off the top of the larger funding, to try all of the hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.

Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation management thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since then, the ERDA/DoE has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue big-budget support. This worked so long as various Democratic Senators and Congressmen could see the funding as helpful in their districts. But fear of undermining their budget position also made DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any kind of new approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE to fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared.

This article is worthless without mention of the Intellivision controller. Especially as they slam the old Atari one some much. Where the Atari's was simple, the Intellivision's was a complicated affair with a weird disk and a keybad that you could attach overlays too. Check out In Defense of the Intellivision Hand Controller for an interesting look at this oddball of a controller.
Also worthy of retro note is the bizarro Bally Astrocade gun grip controller which could function as both joystick and paddle.

Drives better, too.

--saint

The Taiwanese have indeed stabbed both the American people and the Tibetans in the back.

The Taiwanese have indeed stabbed both the American people and the Tibetans in the back.

So I guess everyone is right.

google this guy for a lot or reading: Harry J. Anslinger

q