Slashdot Mirror

One that just works, doesn't bluescreen, people are comfortable with it...

One that just works, doesn't bluescreen, people are comfortable with it...

WTF! am I the only one who thought MS == Shinra as soon as i saw "MoogleSoft" *Shudder*

Or features.... Try following in user.js (remember to remove extra spaces added by lame-o-matic!)

user_pref("mail.citation_color", "#777777");
pref("mail.quoted_graphical", false);
pref("mail.display_glyph", false);
pref("mailnews.send_plaintext_flowed", true);
user_pref("mailnews.display.disable_format_flowed_ support", true);
pref("mail.display_struct", true);
pref("mail.send_struct", false);
user_pref("mailnews.display.html_as", 1);
user_pref("mailnews.display.prefer_plaintext", true);
user_pref("mailnews.message_display.allow.plugins" , false);
user_pref("mailnews.message_display.disable_remote _image", true);
user_pref("mailnews.remember_selected_message", true);
user_pref("mailnews.show_send_progress", false);
user_pref("mail.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.default.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.id1.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.id2.compose_html", false);
user_pref("mail.identity.id3.compose_html", false);

Or use UI provided by Mozilla to change those prefs. You can find other hidden Mozilla prefs here.

You mean that Saddam is not really one of the
Three Stooges?

Considering that Pepsi in fact used that technique 50 years ago ... a not too detailed summary of each's advertising techniques can be found here:

The Coke and Pepsi Cola Wars [Google Cache]

I, for one, would be fascinated if animal mutilations---heck, even one---turned out to be of metaphysical origin. But having seen a whole bunch of pictures of alleged mystical occurrences (whether caused by aliens, satanists, radioactive ants, whatever), I gotta tell you, the metaphysical theories just aren't all that compelling.

Take this photo, for example, taken by an Alabama police officer in 1993. The website says, "There is no evidence of scavenging birds, but rather a precise oval incision which removed the udder while leaving the underlying tissues untouched. The entire operation was bloodless."

It's true---there's no evidence of scavenging birds here, but that doesn't mean that this was an "incision" or "operation," either. There are some basic facts which most of these wide-eyed True Believers never seem to pick up on.

1. In most cases where an animal dies of natural causes, the body stays intact.
2. Once a body is dead, it doesn't tend to bleed much, even when the skin is punctured, particularly when the wound is caused above ground level.
3. Skin naturally retracts when cut for some time after death.
4. Animals (and bugs) tend to go after targets of opportunity with the least possible amount of effort.
5. Softer parts are usually easier to remove and eat, and some parts can be naturally pulled away from the body with some effort (such as ears, 'nads, and so forth). It's also easier to bite into loose skin, such as that around the belly of an animal.
6. Protruding parts are usually easier to remove, but nibbling around existing bodily portals is also good if you're not too particular about where your meat comes from, and most animals aren't particularly famous for their keen sense of microbiology.

In that image, I see a soft, protruding body part was removed. I don't see a "precise oval incision"---in fact, the edges are pretty ragged, and the skin has retracted and slumped away from the wound. It wasn't "bloodless"---there's clotted blood on the surface of the wound. It does appear that part of the wound may have been licked clean, but I see nothing inconsistent with a carnivore finding a dead animal, going after an easy tasty morsel, and leaving before the humans showed up.

Skeptics aren't necessarily curmudgeons. I think skeptics just find it tiresome that some of the most vocal promoters of metaphysical explanations aren't at all interested in finding out whether something's actually metaphysical or not---they just move on to the next "possibility" without stopping for even one moment to engage a single neuron. For a good example, see this breathless account on Paranormal News.

Of course, photos abound. Here's a sampling

• Cow. No details about this image were available; the article in which it appears doesn't make it clear about what's being claimed for this case. However, it is not "bloodless," and it fits rules #5 and #6 above.
• Cow. This comes from the same page referenced above. The article in question gives no details about the image itself---or even mentions it. But I see a fairly clean wound with evidence of retraction (at three o'clock in the image) and tearing (at four o'clock and from seven to nine o'clock). This wasn't a precise operation, and it's not clear what part of the cow this was from. The article purports the image to be of a case that occurred in 2000 in Alberta Canada. The dark area you see in the image (which I would ascribe to oozing tissue permitted to clot and dry in open air) is claimed to be "signs of high heat," whic

I, for one, would be fascinated if animal mutilations---heck, even one---turned out to be of metaphysical origin. But having seen a whole bunch of pictures of alleged mystical occurrences (whether caused by aliens, satanists, radioactive ants, whatever), I gotta tell you, the metaphysical theories just aren't all that compelling.

Take this photo, for example, taken by an Alabama police officer in 1993. The website says, "There is no evidence of scavenging birds, but rather a precise oval incision which removed the udder while leaving the underlying tissues untouched. The entire operation was bloodless."

It's true---there's no evidence of scavenging birds here, but that doesn't mean that this was an "incision" or "operation," either. There are some basic facts which most of these wide-eyed True Believers never seem to pick up on.

1. In most cases where an animal dies of natural causes, the body stays intact.
2. Once a body is dead, it doesn't tend to bleed much, even when the skin is punctured, particularly when the wound is caused above ground level.
3. Skin naturally retracts when cut for some time after death.
4. Animals (and bugs) tend to go after targets of opportunity with the least possible amount of effort.
5. Softer parts are usually easier to remove and eat, and some parts can be naturally pulled away from the body with some effort (such as ears, 'nads, and so forth). It's also easier to bite into loose skin, such as that around the belly of an animal.
6. Protruding parts are usually easier to remove, but nibbling around existing bodily portals is also good if you're not too particular about where your meat comes from, and most animals aren't particularly famous for their keen sense of microbiology.

In that image, I see a soft, protruding body part was removed. I don't see a "precise oval incision"---in fact, the edges are pretty ragged, and the skin has retracted and slumped away from the wound. It wasn't "bloodless"---there's clotted blood on the surface of the wound. It does appear that part of the wound may have been licked clean, but I see nothing inconsistent with a carnivore finding a dead animal, going after an easy tasty morsel, and leaving before the humans showed up.

Skeptics aren't necessarily curmudgeons. I think skeptics just find it tiresome that some of the most vocal promoters of metaphysical explanations aren't at all interested in finding out whether something's actually metaphysical or not---they just move on to the next "possibility" without stopping for even one moment to engage a single neuron. For a good example, see this breathless account on Paranormal News.

Of course, photos abound. Here's a sampling

• Cow. No details about this image were available; the article in which it appears doesn't make it clear about what's being claimed for this case. However, it is not "bloodless," and it fits rules #5 and #6 above.
• Cow. This comes from the same page referenced above. The article in question gives no details about the image itself---or even mentions it. But I see a fairly clean wound with evidence of retraction (at three o'clock in the image) and tearing (at four o'clock and from seven to nine o'clock). This wasn't a precise operation, and it's not clear what part of the cow this was from. The article purports the image to be of a case that occurred in 2000 in Alberta Canada. The dark area you see in the image (which I would ascribe to oozing tissue permitted to clot and dry in open air) is claimed to be "signs of high heat," whic

I, for one, would be fascinated if animal mutilations---heck, even one---turned out to be of metaphysical origin. But having seen a whole bunch of pictures of alleged mystical occurrences (whether caused by aliens, satanists, radioactive ants, whatever), I gotta tell you, the metaphysical theories just aren't all that compelling.

Take this photo, for example, taken by an Alabama police officer in 1993. The website says, "There is no evidence of scavenging birds, but rather a precise oval incision which removed the udder while leaving the underlying tissues untouched. The entire operation was bloodless."

It's true---there's no evidence of scavenging birds here, but that doesn't mean that this was an "incision" or "operation," either. There are some basic facts which most of these wide-eyed True Believers never seem to pick up on.

1. In most cases where an animal dies of natural causes, the body stays intact.
2. Once a body is dead, it doesn't tend to bleed much, even when the skin is punctured, particularly when the wound is caused above ground level.
3. Skin naturally retracts when cut for some time after death.
4. Animals (and bugs) tend to go after targets of opportunity with the least possible amount of effort.
5. Softer parts are usually easier to remove and eat, and some parts can be naturally pulled away from the body with some effort (such as ears, 'nads, and so forth). It's also easier to bite into loose skin, such as that around the belly of an animal.
6. Protruding parts are usually easier to remove, but nibbling around existing bodily portals is also good if you're not too particular about where your meat comes from, and most animals aren't particularly famous for their keen sense of microbiology.

In that image, I see a soft, protruding body part was removed. I don't see a "precise oval incision"---in fact, the edges are pretty ragged, and the skin has retracted and slumped away from the wound. It wasn't "bloodless"---there's clotted blood on the surface of the wound. It does appear that part of the wound may have been licked clean, but I see nothing inconsistent with a carnivore finding a dead animal, going after an easy tasty morsel, and leaving before the humans showed up.

Skeptics aren't necessarily curmudgeons. I think skeptics just find it tiresome that some of the most vocal promoters of metaphysical explanations aren't at all interested in finding out whether something's actually metaphysical or not---they just move on to the next "possibility" without stopping for even one moment to engage a single neuron. For a good example, see this breathless account on Paranormal News.

Of course, photos abound. Here's a sampling

• Cow. No details about this image were available; the article in which it appears doesn't make it clear about what's being claimed for this case. However, it is not "bloodless," and it fits rules #5 and #6 above.
• Cow. This comes from the same page referenced above. The article in question gives no details about the image itself---or even mentions it. But I see a fairly clean wound with evidence of retraction (at three o'clock in the image) and tearing (at four o'clock and from seven to nine o'clock). This wasn't a precise operation, and it's not clear what part of the cow this was from. The article purports the image to be of a case that occurred in 2000 in Alberta Canada. The dark area you see in the image (which I would ascribe to oozing tissue permitted to clot and dry in open air) is claimed to be "signs of high heat," whic

No, not an April Fool's joke. Peter Jackson's desire to re-make King Kong goes way back. In fact, he had the go ahead in 1997 to make it, even completing a script. When the project was cancelled by Universal, Peter found another project to keep himself busy (hint: it was a trilogy).

Who designed the Tacoma Narrows bridge? The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway? The De Havilland Comet 1? The Ocean Ranger oil rig? The L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport, Connecticut? Pre-Challenger solid rocket boosters? Hubble space telescope optics? The Cypress Structure (collapsed in 1989 Loma Prieta eauthquake)?

I knew I should have put a caveat in there

Ok 99.99999% reliable. In most of the cases you mention the reason for failure was encountering a novel method of failure, that hadn't been seen before which is quite rightly the engineers fault for not anticipating it or basic human error which will happen in any situation, but should still be designed against by the good engineer.

Tacoma Narrows bridge - One of first examples of resonance in a large structure caused by wind. Regency hotel Walkway - Predominantly human error in communication coupled with a poor engineering decision Ocean Ranger rig - Engineering design coupled with human incompetance and poor safety routines. DeHavilland Comet- New intensity of cyclic stress strain loading in 1st commercial jet plane.L'ambiance Plaza Generally poor design in a (fairly) new technique.Rocket boostersDesign and checking failure on a massively complex project, obviously pushing the boundries. Hubble optics Not realy in the same catagory, but poor checking procedure, again pushing the envelope.Cypress StructureOver zealous engineers working to code, in an environment they didn't realy understand. Also a relatively novel construction when built.

I know it's not an excuse to say 'we didn't know it worked like that we'll do it better next time'. Compared to the number of structures built the number of failures is very small, engineers have a high level of training to keep it that way. It's a shame that (in the UK at least) we tend to sell our services cheap which doesn't reflect on the importance and responcibilty that we have. When individual code monkeys can get sued for the money a company lost due to there poor code, then they'll make themselves into engineers.

I personally like WormLang++ better, I don't have a good whitespace-showing text-editor. This programming language actually uses 2 characters ' ' and '.'. But that's alright I guess ;)
And here is the url. Released a few days ago actually.
I don't think there is a compiler for it yet... there might be, or else someone could just write one, just hack the preprocessor of some compiler and you're done.

Time for this longtime "OO troll" to step in here. While I think OOP might contribute minor improvements for components with simple, stable interfaces (a relatively thing), it is no magic bullet by any stretch. I have not seen the alleged "proof" in this book, but most other cases of "proof" I have seen had warped reasoning, especially about how things tend to change over time.

The world's patterns of change tend not to be hierarchical nor polymorphic. These "taxonomies" are artificial structures introduced by OO authors, but there is usually no "tree cop" or "polymorphism cop" in the real world that assures that new changes fit the shape of these concepts. Change is more random in my observation than OO proponents assume. Marketers and bosses that ask for new features don't care about the shape of OO when they invent requests. OO books present an artificial view of change patterns, and students take it as gospel. We need more science and less doctrine. To build good, lasting software, one has to first become a student of change. The change patterns I have observed so far do not fit OO for the most part.

OOP Criticism Website

dremel cnc

big links

mini zoltar cnc(using dremel)

If (the programmer can be programmed) {he is not an engineer.} Else {he is an engineer} Link

One technique for programming with meta-deta is data dictionaries

It takes a while to hone the usage of such things, especially WRT handling unexpected requirements, but there is a point where they start to pay off handsomely in my experience.

Very young kids have problems with attention span, reading, typing, etc. so you may want to use something like Lego Mindstorms instead of text-based programming.

Actually it's not just kids how have attention span issues who can benefit from Lego Mindstorms. If your siblings haven't yet taken high school geometry yet (or haven't had enough exposure to boolean logic), then Lego Mindstorms is a really cool to get a day-to-week-long introduction. Past that, I'd say, based on my own experience, that (when I was 11) C was difficult for me to pick up until after I learned Pascal. They both have similar structures, but Pascal was a much better introduction because of its use of natural language in most of its syntax.

You can find some tutorials here, here, here, here, and here.

The only problem with Pascal (nowadays) is that compilers/debuggers seem hard to come by. Here's a free one that might help. If that doesn't work, then you could always try something this, but I wouldn't recommend it for the beginner who doesn't even know what compilers or linkers are and why they are necessary.

Very young kids have problems with attention span, reading, typing, etc. so you may want to use something like Lego Mindstorms instead of text-based programming.

Actually it's not just kids how have attention span issues who can benefit from Lego Mindstorms. If your siblings haven't yet taken high school geometry yet (or haven't had enough exposure to boolean logic), then Lego Mindstorms is a really cool to get a day-to-week-long introduction. Past that, I'd say, based on my own experience, that (when I was 11) C was difficult for me to pick up until after I learned Pascal. They both have similar structures, but Pascal was a much better introduction because of its use of natural language in most of its syntax.

You can find some tutorials here, here, here, here, and here.

The only problem with Pascal (nowadays) is that compilers/debuggers seem hard to come by. Here's a free one that might help. If that doesn't work, then you could always try something this, but I wouldn't recommend it for the beginner who doesn't even know what compilers or linkers are and why they are necessary.

Reminds me of the Super Mario Bros. Movie :)

*hangs head in shame for knowing that*
=Smidge=

Here you go!

get used to it, Slashdot is run by a bunch of clowns

http://www.geocities.com/killereaglesoftware/archi ve/rot13.htm

None of which makes it worth banning, of course. Generals marketed itself on a morally retarded militaristic worldview that's definitely on the rise in this country. But censoring never made anything go away.

g

Five space cowboys on robotic horses, and a cowboy computer h4cX0r. YEAH!

A group of women take revenge on rapists. Very bloody. Lots of fun.

A Gun For Jennifer

Try here: AS400 Stuff Theres even tetris for AS400, Written in RPG/5250 as well!! Tony

For me it has to be that classic Kiwi road movie Goodbye Pork Pie. I guess it helps when you know some of the locations from your home town rather than somewhere on the other side of the world. While watching it for the first time you had to wonder how many bits they can take off a Mini and keep it running. A couple years after the movie was made I found myself flatting in the director's house, Geoff Murphy. They actually used three Minis in different states of disassembly to make the film. Geoff kept the good one, which I drove once !

Countryman
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6074/mov cm.htm
Countryman is about a rastafarian super-hero, of sorts, named Countryman. From holywood.com, "A peaceful Rastafarian fisherman becomes an unwitting player in an international political scheme when an airplane crashes into a nearby swamp. Later, when violence breaks loose, he displays an almost magical ability in hand-to-hand combat." With a soundtrack featuring Bob Marley and many other big names in reggae, Countryman is THE all time classic reggae movie. Unfortunately it's difficult to find.

Homegrown
This review from http://www.lycaeum.org/books/reviews/review.22710. 1422863305.shtml pretty much sums it up
"Homegrown is set in the lush "green triangle" of northern California, where the scenery is breathtakingly gorgeous, the dope is potent and profitable, and everyone - everyone - is in on the business. The film revolves around three growers: Jack, the overseer (Billy Bob Thornton, the guy behind Sling Blade), Carter, the botanical whiz (Hank Azaria, best known (to me, at least) from the Simpsons), and Harlan, the aspiring kid in it for the free samples as much as the money (Ryan Phillippe). They are camping out, attending their crop, when their boss Malcolm (John Lithgow in a wonderful cameo) shows up in a helicopter for a surprise inspection only to be shot by the pilot. The trio are left with a body, a lot of pot, and a possible murder rap. The plot evolves wonderfully as they sort out Malcolm's business and family connections and try to cash in on 1500 pounds of killer weed. Along the way, they meet a variety of wonderful characters: Lucy (Kelly Lynch), revolving girlfriend and manicurist (and I'm not talking about nail polish, either), Danny (Jon Bon Jovi), the super-smooth buyer, Sierra (Jamie Lee Curtis), the matriarch of the farming community, and Judge Reinhold as a decent, upstanding crooked cop who is smart enough to recognize pot as the fountainhead of prosperity in his community."
These guys aren't the biggest names in movies, but they are all big names. With a lineup like this, I'm suprised this movie wasn't more popular. I guess it was stigmatized by being about growing weed.

NOT! These awards seem only for open source. Not Big Brother but UCOSA.

Who knows maybe RedHat could win a UCOSA award for it's new version!! Being the most popular distro, I would think they had a chance!

They could win some serious awards for this buddy, especially with the UCOSA's premiering this year! Lets hope they get nominated!

Yes, Galaga is the best, now bow down and worship it!

Just as I mentioned last time this was posted, this story is a complete ripoff of these sites. It's almost a word for word copy - take a paragraph from site #1, a paragraph from site #2 and boom! You have an article. Kinda like an unethical college student.

I think that someone is asking for a lawsuit.

Die, USA!

Well, I will agree that Mac users are probably much more loyal to the cause regarding buying software. I've not heard of Executor, since I use the Basilisk II emulator. Escape Velocity Classic works perfectly ... very fast. Escape Velocity Override works less well, and has some graphics issues with big ships. However, Escape Velocity Nova does not work. I think the reason is that most Emulators that I've heard of ar 68k emulators, and I believe that Escape Velocity Nova is based on a more modern architecture, unlike EV Classic. I'm not sure about Executor however. Basilisk II does use an authentic Macinosh Rom file (the website I got this from provided ROM files). That same site also gives instructions specially for Escape Velocity, if anyone is interested.
-Dae

I was a member of an Escape Velocity Classic/Override mailing list at one point, and when the announcement came that Escape Velocity Nova was coming out for Windows came, we had a big discussion about the morality of this decision. I was the only Windows user there (you can find instructions for an emulator here). Anyway, the consensus among the Mac users was that this was a bad idea. Their argument was that if Ambrosia started to make games for Windows, then they would realize that they were making much more money there, and decide to stick with Windows, and eventually give up on the Mac community. As I said, I am a PC user, and I am naturally biased in favor of porting to Windows. However, I do think that the Mac community needs to have some game creator that it can call its own. I suppose it all depends on how you feel about the issue.
-Dae

Uh, I forget this from the previos answer. What you think that will recognize a 14 years old guy? this ones as the good guys or those as the entire cast?

Uh, I forget this from the previos answer. What you think that will recognize a 14 years old guy? this ones as the good guys or those as the entire cast?

There are millions upon millions of gameboys worldwide that have used the z80 processor. Nintendo used them up until 1998 (with an 8MHz z80-esque processor made by sharp). There was still a market for them, possibly a larger market then the 8080 processors. The z80 passed test of time, while the 8080 just disappeared into oblivion.
heres a website with a lot of info on the z80

The U.N. estimates the death toll from the bombings and their consequences to be in the order of 500.000. This is approximately the number of Iraqi children who have died because of the U.N. sanctions since 1991 (others report higher numbers. Read about it here).

So, before you attempt to justify the bombings, think again. Do you know what the main difference between the European's (esp. the Germans') and the USA's citizens attitude is? The Europeans know that in many cases, a just cause isn't as just as the leaders say and blindly obeying orders is *not* a good excuse for killing people. We learned that during WW2 and thereafter. Apparently, you guys in the U.S. have never learned that lesson.

Some people have commented on how good it would be if there were other writers working on Star Trek. One writer I would love to see involved either in Star Trek, or in adaptations of his own works, is Ian M. Banks. His "Culture" books are witty, entertaining, meaningful ... the kind you read till 4 in the morning. He could make Star Trek good.

You mean the one by Kid Rock?

It must not be taken out of context

I had Gem on my 8088 (512K, 30Mb HDD) and had a funky graphics card that would do CGA hi-res in 16 colours. So Gem was nice and colourful (though fixed windows, unlike atari Gem).

With first Word Plus and Timeworks DTP, the machine was excellent for doing schoolwork and stuff.

Now this PC I got also came with 2 operating systems, MS-DOS 3.2 and DOS Plus - Due to software compatibility, I tended to use MS-DOS, dos plus was slightly more memory hungry. I made the choice to use MS-DOS because it *was* a better operating system.

I remember windows 2 coming out and being quite excited - I remember starting it up - waiting ages - running in monochrome (it didn't support my weird graphics card) and played othello for about 30 minutes and then uninstalled it. My opinion: windows is a flop. (DOS is still good though!)

I used Windows 3.0 on some machine or other (not mine) and thought that it was a big improvement on 2.0.

I then got my 486 (33MHz w/ 8mb ram) with windows 3.1 installed! Oh-My-God it was *so* good, people talk about the shortcomings, but they either didn't use win3.1 or didn't have powerful enough machines to appreciate it properly.

There were 1 million hacks available for win3.1 to do whatever you wanted (icons on the desktop etc.) and it was skinnable too.

The underlying technology didn't really matter to me, I still played my DOS games in DOS and ran windows when I wanted to do something like use Word - remember word 2 folks? It's almost the same as the current word that we use today - all the elements were in place and it took first place on my machine.

I played with a couple of linux distros around that time or just after (Slackware and a thing called mini-linux that I've never found any references to again). But they just couldn't compete for a desktop experience for me and they didn't run doom!

Nowadays I run mandrake linux on my pc and debian (knoppix) on my laptop because I feel it's time has come.

Look on those old windows shots with the pleasant nostalgia they are intended to invoke. Suppress the anti-M$ urge on this one!

I love the linked image!!

It has a tiny picture of a hand holding the flashlight, labeled "actual size". Do they mean that it's actually the ~1/2 inch size I see on my screen, or does it mean that they aren't using a stunt double super mega-large hand to illustrate the size?

Rongorongo, the hieroglyphic script of Easter Island

The Voynich Manuscript, 200 pages, probably written in the 13 century

Indus Valley scripts from Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan, 4000 years ago

Etruscan

The Disc of Phaistos, from Crete, 3700 years ago

Meroitic hieroglyphs of ancient Nubia

Zapotec script
Have fun!

And don't forget games like F.Saddam:

http://www.geocities.com/fsaddam2003/.

Grenade launchers and squad tactics are one thing, but nothing reinforces patriotism and hatred for the enemy like repeatedly shoving a pile of sh!t (among other things) down his throat and getting points for it.

War *is* something to be avoided. But when all preferable alternatives are eliminated, the hand is forced. It's time to see past myopic instincts and appreciate the big picture: Homo-Sapiens are inherently tribal, and tribes (houses, families, clans, whatever you want to call them...) CAN NOT live in harmony for more than a short and unstable period of time. It is important to defend what you believe in, and often this means preventing the other guy from becoming too powerful.

This web site / mini-game is somewhat tasteless, but captures some of the patriotism that drives us now to F. Saddam, and may help clarify some of these points:

http://www.geocities.com/fsaddam2003/

New evidence exists at:

http://www.geocities.com/fsaddam2003/

The line about thousand island dressing is great. It's a commentary on the education of our moderators.

Congrats to Ashtead, who is so far the only /.'er in this thread who grasps the central idea that imaginary numbers are not in the least imaginary - they are about as "real" as real can get, as in how God made the world ... physical processes. Seen from this vantage point, in the common meaning of the words, it might be our stupidity which is the better part of "imaginary." And yes, that He not deprive us of the necessity of eternity, God had to make that too.

The serious can check out Professor Frandreyer's translastion of Gauss' original 1799 discovery (http://libraserv1.fsc.edu/proof/gauss.htm). Believe it or not, his is the only available English translation!!! Those who believe that Gauss was "nailing down" an end-point in his proof of the fundamenal theorem of algebra, should think it through ... why then, if they all reach the same end point, did Gauss do his proof 4 different times?

Also Bruce Director's Riemann for Anti-Dummies(http://www.geocities.com/antidummy/) occupies maybe a year or two of thinking, for the American-educated reader.

...that make you go ooh thats clever. I've always found the difference to be between a good sysadmin and a great sysadmin is when they do something and you go wow now thats smart. Some one like this

Rus