Slashdot Mirror

This would be an amazin accomplishment, but it should be noted that this would not be the first dive from an altitude high enough to require a pressure suit. Forty years ago Joseph Kittinger made a succesfull jump from 103,000'. A quick google search turned up some sites with info on him and his jump. Check some of them out:

Here
and

Hereand
HereDan

a highly inflationary tax cut,

Now that is an interesting state of affairs. Letting citizens keep their own money is inflationary. He have to take it away via taxes to "save the economy" from the ravages of inflation. Has anyone stopped to think that inflation exists because of hte federal reserve? Inflation is actually devaluation of the currency, and is a consequence of there being "too much money" available. Of course, the reason there is too much money available is because the fractional-reserve banking system, lead and controlled by the Federal Reserve, has created too much money. The Fed buys government debt and gives the treasury credits in its Fed accounts. This acts as "reserves" for lending and as backing for the issusance of currency. It is money created from nothing. Commercial banks borrow money at the Discount Window at the Fed -- again, a debt-for-credit swap. This creates more money out of nothing. Banks make more loans based on deposits and Discount Window loans, making more money from nothing.

The sad thing is, because the U.S. has had a debt-based monetary system since 1933 (and earlier, but only partially), we can never get out of debt because it would destroy the money supply. Before the advent of debt-based money, there was usually little debt on national, corporate or personal scales (wars excepted; they simply printed money to finance early wars). 70% of all business growth was self-financed (financed without borrowing from banks) in the 20s. The Fed put a stop to that by offering loans at below market rates with money created out of thin air.

To pay off the national debt, we will first have to switch back to a commodity-based money system, such as the original silver-backed money system. Commodity money systems don't let the government inflate the money supply at will. The other thing we'd have to do is reform banking. Banks should protect your money, offer useful services, and charge fees for doing so. If you want to invest your money, then do that. Currently, a bank invests 97% or more of your money when you deposit it. This is what causes bank runs; if more than 3% of depositors want to withdraw their money, the bank runs out, because it's given it away to other people. Essentially, when you deposit money at a bank, the bank issues to several people the right to withdraw it. It does this by telling you that you can get it back out, and then loaning the very same money to someone else, who immediately withdraws it to pay for their house or whatever. If the bank runs low on "liquid funds," it borrows from another bank. It may also borrow from the Fed's Discount Window. All the loaning out of the money promised to depositors creates more money on the fly. This process gets recycled several times. I borrow $100k to buy a house. I deposit it at my bank to pay for the construction. The bank then loans it back out to someone else. I write checks; the builder deposits them; his bank loans the money out. Repeat. Because of reserve-fraction regulations made by the Fed, this process has a terminus; but it creates nine dollars for every dollar put into the system (approximately). This is the deposit multipler.

Peer-to-peer computing is so new that no one is even attempting to define it. P2P could be servers talking to servers, servers talking to PCs, PCs talking to PCs, or WAP phones talking to all of them.

Oh yes, peer to peer computing is so new that you can't define it. We've never seen a peer to peer based system before. Nope, never. Who would do a thing like that?

All snideness aside, we all know that peers are equal -- This is the most important piece of information to understand a peer-to-peer system. Whether it is a social system in which everyone is potentially equal, but various peers decide who will listen harder to who, thereby defining the balance of power, or a networking protocol in which the same thing happens, the concept of a peer is the same. We see it in video games, in packet radio systems, and in our social lives.

No central server? Is every client a server, and every server a client? Is there no central control? Must be peer to peer. (If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...)

--

Note that we don't 5 billion years left of "the sun as we know it". Not even one.

There are already a number of useful Free-as-in-Speech add-ons to proprietary library tools, such as Prospero and DBA. These are largely possible because they use the standardized bits in the tools to which they add value: z39.50, TIFF, etc. As you suggest, it's definitely a niche which is proven to work, with these small solutions paying off big-time to many institutions. This might seem off-topic, but the more of these small tools we have the easier it gets to start hooking them together into environments like the one the original ? poster is asking about.

I think the answer to the "why's Z so slow?" dilemma is like what Larry Wall (I think) said about Perl and Python: that Perl's worse than Python because people wanted it worse. Work on z39.50 began _long_ before SQL92 hit the markets in working products.

A key area where many vendors and publishers are starting to work together around new open standards and even code is content linking, mostly because they have to. They don't necessarily want to, but _not_ allowing linking to external sources diminishes value, and they're all catching on finally. So there's some hope, but we've got to keep hacking to keep them honest. Trust me, it works -- when a long-proprietary-code/data-vending .com sees 600 lines of GPL'd perl which can kill off their product line, they're more than willing to start offering up more interoperability if not freeing up their code. It's better for everyone.

When the 11/780 came out, it made CG possible (without getting 1 grant per image)-- look at the SIGGRAPH proceedings before and then after 1982 or 3.

Don't laugh, youngster, we did world class work on that machine (just s-l-o-o-o-w-l-y, like about 15 min. compute time per frame). Check out the SIGGRAPH 1983 proceedings for some samples, and look here for more history (along with some vintage images).

• MMM Group at University of Nijmegen [publications]
• Machine Listening @ MIT Media Lab
• Affective Computing @ MIT Media Lab
• Musclefish

• Music, Cognition, and Computerized Sound, Perry R. Cook
• Music, Mind and Machine, Peter Desain and Henkjan Honing
• The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing, Steven W. Smith
• Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, Christopher M. Bishop

• Tracking Musical Beats in Real Time, Paul E. Allen and Roger B. Dannenberg
• A Model for Musical Rhythm, Jeff A. Bilmes
• Autocorrelation and the Study of Musical Expression, Peter Desain, Siebe de Vos
• A Beat Tracking System for Audio Signals, Simon Dixon
• Prediction-Driven Computational Auditory Scene Analysis for Dense Sound Mixtures, Daniel P. W. Ellis
• A Similarity Measure for Automatic Audio Classification, Jonathan Foote
• Representing Rhythmic Patterns in a Network of Oscillators, Michael Gasser and Douglas Eck
• Adaptive Signal Models: Theory, Algorithms, and Audio Applications, Michael Mark Goodwin
• Recognition of Music Types, Hagen Soltau, Tanja Schultz, Martin Westphal, Alex Waibel
• Irrelevant Features and the Subset Selection Problem, George H. John, Ron Kohavi, Karl Pfleger
• Beat tracking with a nonlinear oscilator, Edward W. Large
• Modeling beat perception with a nonlinear oscilator, Edward W. Large
• Automatic Transcription of Simple Polyphonic Music: Robust Front End Processing, Keith D. Martin
• Musical instrument identification: A pattern-recognition approach, Keith D. Martin and Youngmoo E. Kim
• Music Content Analysis through Models of Audition, Keith D. Martin, Eric D. Scheirer, Barry L. Vercoe
• Musical Sound Information: Musical gestures and embedding synthesis, Eric Metois
• A Machine Learning Approach to Musical Style Recognition, Roger B. Dannenberg, Belinda Thom, and David Watson
• Resonanc e and the perception of musical meter, Large, E. W., & Kolen, J. F.
• Music-Listening Systems, Eric D. Scheirer
• Tempo and beat analysis of acoustic musical signals, Eric D. Scheirer
• Content-Based Classification, Search, and Retrieval of Audio, Erling Wold, Thom Blum, Douglas Keislar, James Wheaton
• Classification, Search, and Retrieval of Audio, Erling Wold, Thom Blum, Douglas Keislar, James Wheaton

Many people thought then, as they do now, that if enough people do it, how can they make it illegal? Well, last I checked, Marijuana is still illegal, despite how many people have used it. ,

You're creating another War on Drugs...

It uses gtkhtml to compose your mail, giving you the choice (not: optional!) to send HTML formatted mail

Other than this is sounds really good, but PLEASE rethink that crap. HTML is not a suitable or legal format for email. It's bad enough to have all these windows lusers flooding the net with this crap, the absolute LAST thing we need is *nix users doing it too! Come on, we should be setting an example, NOT mindlessly adopting every screwed up so-called "feature" that MS decides to tack onto their bugware!

Even in the windows world the better email programs (Eudora and Pegasus Mail for instance) do not encourage this nonsense! If you really must have email that is formatted beyond the capabilities of text/plain, the proper way to do this is by sending text/enriched (see RFC 1896 ) NEVER by sending HTML.

Please, please, reconsider this "feature." This is BAD. For whatever it's worth, I personally, and many people I know, do not think this is a joke. This is a very serious matter. I've been a supporter and a user of the GNOME project and the software it's produced for over a year now, but I will definately have to rethink things if you continue with this, and I know for a fact that I am far from the only one that feels this way. Text/enriched is bad enough, but at least with it the output is still readable in standard mail readers like PINE (if barely.) HTML is over the line.

Oops. I meant RFC1918, not RFC1718. (Stupid typo.)

By the way, that ISP also blocked outgoing packets (to the Internet) that did not have a source IP address that belonged on its network.

rfc 2465 Management Information Base for IP Version 6:Textual Conventions and General Group.
December 1998
___

What about a distributed search engine type of approach?

Let's see, how would that work.

First, you'd have to have some way of knowing where to start searching. Say, a file listing the sites that knew the further info. There could be several of them, say 13 of them for redundancy.

Then, you'd need a standard protocol for talking to them.

You could type a name into a search tool, and it'd use that standard protocol to go get the information.

Each of those sites would have enough information to know where to go for the next part.

You could break it up by words; so that, for instance, all of the 13 core servers would know where to go for information about .com, and then the servers that new .com would know who knew about .microsoft.com, and then that server or servers would know about support.microsoft.com.

That would let you have as little or as much redundancy at each stage as you cared to.

Then you would have to fully document that standard according to currently-accepted Internet documentation standards.

Would that do the trick?

(serious mode on)

We already have a distributed search engine approach to DNS. It has to be deterministic, however; you don't want somebody typing the address you gave them on your business card and getting your competitor's page.

Or, worse; sending email to your email address and having it go to somebody else.

"Here's your password for online ordering using your credit; we're sending it to what our search engine says is your address. Order away!"

--

What about a distributed search engine type of approach?

Let's see, how would that work.

First, you'd have to have some way of knowing where to start searching. Say, a file listing the sites that knew the further info. There could be several of them, say 13 of them for redundancy.

Then, you'd need a standard protocol for talking to them.

You could type a name into a search tool, and it'd use that standard protocol to go get the information.

Each of those sites would have enough information to know where to go for the next part.

You could break it up by words; so that, for instance, all of the 13 core servers would know where to go for information about .com, and then the servers that new .com would know who knew about .microsoft.com, and then that server or servers would know about support.microsoft.com.

That would let you have as little or as much redundancy at each stage as you cared to.

Then you would have to fully document that standard according to currently-accepted Internet documentation standards.

Would that do the trick?

(serious mode on)

We already have a distributed search engine approach to DNS. It has to be deterministic, however; you don't want somebody typing the address you gave them on your business card and getting your competitor's page.

Or, worse; sending email to your email address and having it go to somebody else.

"Here's your password for online ordering using your credit; we're sending it to what our search engine says is your address. Order away!"

--

There is no good reason anybody should be pinging my system: you ping to test connectivity, and since you cannot connect to my system, you have no reason to be testing if you can connect.

As I've no reason to assume otherwise, I'm guessing you fall into the category of "clever people who know how to selectively filter ICMP packets." Good for you. Deny everything you don't need.

Unfortunately, a great number of people on the Internet seem inclined to block all ICMP packets in fear of ping and traceroute, and your message might accidentally encourage more users to do so. As you probably know (but others reading this might not), this goes against RFC1191 and breaks Path MTU (PMTU) discovery. To all those frightened admins out there: please reconfigure your firewalls to allow ICMP Destination Unreachable messages marked "Fragmentation Needed and 'Don't Fragment' Set".

Who knows? It might even fix the mysterious web and email problems your users keep complaining about. (See: http://www.worldgate.com/~marcs/mtu/)

For MacOS, there's NiftyTelnetSSH, which includes SCP support. (and decent, fast terminal emulation, unlike NCSA telnet.)

All these programs are gratis, but NiftyTelnet might not be libre. (PuTTY and pscp are.)

For Unix, of course, there's OpenSSH.

For VMS, there's an FAQ, which recommends a server and a client.
#define X(x,y) x##y

Given that the focus of this list is Computational Algorithms (rather than Analytical Algorithms), I believe some implicit biases must exist: The
algorithm must be elegant to implement and efficient to run on a computer.

But beyond that, there are algorithms that "mediate" between our world and the world of the computer. Chief among these is the most fundamental problem of Computer Graphics: What is the best way to draw a line or a curve onto a rectilinear array of pixels?

The problem is VERY non-trivial! "Good" lines must look the same if drawn from A to B as they do when drawn from B to A. Many early line drawing
programs failed miserable at this task, forcing drawing programs to sort the line endpoints before calling the drawing algorithm.

Bresenham's Line Algorithm was the first to meet these constraints (when properly implemented, of course) in a manner that was also EXTREMELY
computationally efficient. Not only did this algorithm give you "good" lines, it also gave you "fast" lines!

The problem gets worse with curves: In addition to directional symmetry, they must also exhibit reflective (not rotational) symmetry. That is, an arc drawn from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock must be identical to all of its mirror reflections: The horizontal reflection from 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock, the vertical reflection from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock, and the combined reflection from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock. Deviations from such symmetry are extremely noticeable to the human eye.

For the generalized ellipse (which trivially includes the circle), an algorithm that meets the above requirements will have an extremely valuable
secondary effect: The algorithm need only be used, at most, to draw just one quadrant of any closed ellipse, since the other three quadrants can be drawn by reflecting the original arc. For a circle, only a single OCTANT (1/8 of a circle) is needed!

While other circle, arc and ellipse algorithms preceded Bresenham's, again none was simpler, more accurate or faster.

The underlying problem has to do with errors: When is it appropriate to turn on this pixel instead of that one? The "easy" result is to work in floating point, with fractional pixels, then round to 1 or 0 to decide if a specific pixel is on or off. And this, in turn, would seem to demand the use of trigonometry, in the case of a circle! Clearly, doing floating point and trig just to draw a line or circle is impractical, yet that is exactly what many of the earliest hardware accelerators did!

Bresenham's algorithms managed to draw accurate and precise lines and circular arcs, accurate to within half a pixel, without floating point math.
Now that's what I call one hell of an algorithm.

More complex curves, including arbitrary curves, lacked an "adequate" solution until the advent of the B-spline and NURBS techniques. While extremely efficient, they resemble elephants compared to the cheetah of Bresenham's.

And, of course, Bresenham's algorithms don't generalize well to meet the contemporary need for things such as alpha blending and dithering in the
color space. But the best of such algorithms still have a bit of Bresenham at their core.

A very good summary of the derivation of Bresenham's Line Algorithm may be found here.

Bresenham's Algorithms (along with many other graphic algorithms such as flood and fill, and "XOR" cursor drawing) are fundamentally what made
"Personal Computing", that is, interactive computing with a GUI, possible with inexpensive hardware.

Bresenham's Algorithms (especially the Line Algorithm) are a glaring omission from the list.

Unix doesn't "run" the internet. If you're looking for one particular target to assign such blame, it would probably be Cisco. Anyway, Unix is hardly homogenous

IMHO,
DeanT

Unix doesn't "run" the internet. If you're looking for one particular target to assign such blame, it would probably be Cisco. Anyway, Unix is hardly homogenous

IMHO,
DeanT

One condition I wanted to report was colloquially described as "News is on fire" so I checked the appendix.

The 4xy series is for "Transient Negative Completion reply", i.e. errors which are temporary, indicating the client can try again.

The x5y series is for "These replies indicate the status of the receiver (mail) system vis-a-vis the requested transfer or other (mail) system action."

Since it was the first error in this series, I arrived at error 451, which gave me a chuckle...

...so that companies like Microsoft and AOL have a way to tear us down.

See t his

Read RFC 2131.

In "dynamic allocation", DHCP assigns an IP address to a client for a limited period of time.

By definition, that makes the address dynamic (from the host's perspective).

-jerdenn

Providing convenient links to external sources of information is one thing that some news-sites are good at, and some are really bad at. There is one way down at the bottom of the MSNBC story that goes to a press releas from the researchers themselves (at Ohio State) that has slightly better images, but I had to hunt for the links and know what I was looking for.

I give MSNBC a 4 out of 10. A couple points for having links at all, a couple points for having more than one link, but no points for visibility or integration with the story, and I'm deducting a point because they never ever have click-throughs to decent sized images.

It could be worse. You could be trying to send IP over pigeon. From rfc2549:

"Patent Considerations: There is ongoing litigation about which is the prior art: carrier or egg."

It could be worse. You could be trying to send IP over pigeon. From rfc2549:

"Patent Considerations: There is ongoing litigation about which is the prior art: carrier or egg."

As for writing portable code that work on other OS platforms than BSDs, I've found the Glib is an excellent tool for that. It's even Win32 enabled.

Sorry, that host is behind the firewall and may only be accessed internally. But since I'm a nice guy, there's a preview here

Yeah, I like it! Socrates naked and petrified (naked on the top of his head, that is). I also tried the obvious variation, but got no response. Could you please set up that one, too?

my permission denied page here

It is worth noting that malicious, as opposed to merely badly-behaved, hosts, can overload the network by using many different source addresses in their datagrams, thereby impersonating a large number of different hosts and obtaining a larger share of the network bandwidth. This is an attack on the network; it is not likely to happen by accident.

That's the fundamental problem; there's no way in IP to validate source addresses. There's IPsec, which provides cryptographic authentication at the IP level, but nobody uses it yet. This new attack may result in a move to implement IPsec more broadly. This is the proper technical fix.

A related problem is that attacks based on taking over a large number of unsecured hosts and using them as zombies to attack a single site is indistinguishable from heavy load. If the zombies simply make legitimate HTTP requests, the traffic looks completely normal.

... could anyone (previous poster even) dig up a link to a page which explains how OSS created the internet?

Hmmm. I don't think I have a link that says, specifically, "OSS created the Internet". For starters, the term "Open Source Software" hadn't been coined yet. Besides, assertions are worthless alone; it is the proof that backs them up.

So take a look at the Internet Engineering Task Force and this archive of Internet Requests for Comments (RFCs). You will find the Internet was developed through the same process of open development, code sharing, and peer review that define OSS software development. Everything you use on the web today, from the Domain Name System to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol to HTTP itself was developed using OSS principles. "We believe in rough consensus and working code", to quote David Clark of the IETF. That seems to define OSS pretty well.

I thought Al Gore did that.

Cute. :)

The BeOS would never have been developed if it was open source.

See above about assertions without proof.

The sheer slickness of it is testament to how much close planning and discussion went into its design.

OSS and planning and discussion are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, discussion is one of the key tenets of OSS. OSS projects are often characterized by the intense, often heated discussions that take place on their mailing lists. It may be a process of beating it into shape rather then careful artistic planning, but the end result seems to be the same. One man's hammer is another man's paint brush, so to speak.

The business model, in Be's case at least, can work very well for developing high-quality products...

Certainly; BeOS itself is evidence of that. I was never arguing against BeOS. However, the fact that closed development can work does not mean that open development cannot.

... because of the fact that each programmer is working in sync with everyone else.

Again, that happens in OSS as well. True, as you note, you often find different people and projects overlapping. However, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing. For one, it offers a form of redundant protection against failure. Second, it fosters an almost Darwinian approach to software development. Many ideas are put forward, and the best selected.

Look at Gnome and KDE. Two projects aiming to accomplish the same thing, and thousands of hours of work wasted.

Interesting. When two companies compete against each other, that competition is generally viewed as a Good Thing (here in the USA, anyway). No one (other then socialists (no, I'm not calling you a socialist (nor am I offering opinions on socialism in general, one way or the other))) calls that competition "a waste". Why should it be any different for OSS development? The GNOME and KDE projects are both offering different solutions to the same problem. Cooperation between the two is quite good, so compatibility should be high. The end result is more choice and better software, as the good ideas live on and the bad ones die off. I don't regard that as a waste at all.

The fact is that the BeOS is a more technically sophisticated, better designed OS that Linux, and it is thanks to closed source design that it has gotten this far.

Ohhhh, inflammatory and unsupported in the same sentence! Did you do that on purpose? :-)

Anyway, BeOS and Linux each have their strengths and weaknesses. You don't put forward any arguments for either of your points: BeOS "better designed" then Linux or that closed development has gotten BeOS this far. I could as easily say that "BeOS would be much further along if it was OSS", but I don't. Please add some justification for your argument, or stop cluttering up the discussion. Thank you. :)

I, at least, meant what I wrote. See the other references.

Ok, I looked in Websters. Pedophile is a word, "pedicator" is not. So, I still don't know what you mean.

"Websters" is hardly the end-all and be-all of whether something constitutes a `word' or not. Most of us laugh at "Websters", you know. The OED is a good starting place, much better than any old "Websters" silliness, but even that isn't absolute. Words aren't what you think they are. They derive from many sources, and anyone, especially a native speaker, has full licence to invent new ones.

In this case, however, I did not. In fact, the word in question has seen use for around twenty-four centuries at least, and probably more. I suppose you'd try to tell me that fajitas and quedadillas "weren't words" either, just because "Websters" was ignorant of them.

Furthermore, "Websters" is not a well-defined term. Any one can publish a "Websters". And many people have. And most of them are crap.

Most importantly, I already posted a reference in this thread which, if one were to follow the link, would in graphic and offensive detail explain precisely what the word means, and why. Today, I choose not to violate the delicate sensibilities of the gentle readership of this august forum by printing verbatim such foul material as to be found in that link. Kindly respect that position. Here's another such link that the prurient may read if they're interested.

The alleged connection to pædophile is suspect at best, since the pædo- stem did not appear in pedicator. Circa 110 AD, Suetonius wrote in De Vita Caesarum, Divus Iulius (The Lives of the Caesars, The Deified Julius), citing the earlier C. Licinius Calvus, the following: Bithynia quicquid et pedicator Caesaris umquam habuit.

I don't see why pedicator would be related to pedometer or pedology. I think you're confused pæd- (often written paed-) and ped-. The prevalent America spelling of pædophile as pedophile not only confuses those of us accustomed to and reliant upon proper stemming, it probably also annoys the pedestrians and podiatrists, with the only folks happy with the confusion being the pædogogues. :-)

On the amazon page, Ulrich Gerlach from the department of Mathematics at Ohio State University gives a pretty long list of things wrong with Mill's theories.

I don't understand the arguments at all, but nobody has mentioned the page yet. Ulrich does indeed exist (http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~gerlach/ ). He's the only scientific reference I've seen in this mess so far.

Then again, anyone is free (able) to use any scientist's name on amazon.

So I believe that the all-numbers is merely a convention (and not a requirement) and also an InterNIC restriction.

(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead.

RFC 1178 has some good things to say on the topic, too.

check rfc2100 out. This is a _true_ guide to naming a box (and it's in iambic pentameter).

Also, the company i work for has a customer who named all of their boxes after sesame street characters. You'd think it'd be easy , but try and name 10 of 'em...after you get past the big birds and oscars, you end up spending hours trying to figure out the name of the garbage man (bruno)..

More importantly, the IPv6 spec suggests (not mandates) the use of the 48-bit mac address for use as part of a local-use address. The local-use address as defined has only local routability scope - it will not trickle out onto the greater Internet. This was designed to provide an easy bootstrapping mechanism, and for non-Internet connected sites to configure their computers easily. However, the use of the 48-bit mac address is completely optional; it's not an automatically assigned address.

Third, people who connect to the Internet via a DSL or modem connection don't need to worry. In the DSL case, their IP address is the IP address of the DSL modem. Since their IP address is provider assigned, and their DSL modem is provider assigned, there's no difference! A user who dials up via a modem will have an IP address assigned by their provider, just like they do now, and it will have no correlation to the hardware address of anything they own.

For more infromation, Robert M. Hinden has a great article, "IP Next Generation Overview". Alternately, the story posted in the Times a few weeks ago provided a cogent introduction to the reality, not the hype, of IPv6. If you're an RFC type, check out:

• aloni.com's IPv6 resources which include a fairly full list of the IPv6 RFCs.
• Or just look directly at RFC 1887, the IPv6 unicast address allocation document.

I've seen other people report this as a limit as well, but I don't believe it's true.

From RFC 1034:

The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior characters only letters, digits, and hyphen. There are also some restrictions on the length. Labels must be 63 characters or less.

Then, again, we know this isn't quite right either, since we have, for instance, www.3com.com

m. Wealthy U.S. businessman a closet revolutionary and Nazi

Ip. 154 (cV-75)

A very wealthy and famous businessman in the U.S. will be secretly involved with the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan in the south. The man's sole ambition in life is to overthrow the American government as it is presently constituted. The man will be involved with politics but will stay low-key, spinning webs of power and expanding his influence behind the scenes. This groundwork will prove useful for the Antichrist later on. The man will have a puppet, a figurehead, but he will pull the strings. The link will not be known until the time of the Antichrist.

Does that give you the chills or what? Wonder if it's Billy G..

Wow - are the bits in secti on 6/8 talking about Bill Gates (antichrist), or what!!! I liked the bit at the end about the length of the antichrist's reign... ;)

perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: ,hacker Perl another Just)'

Well, AIX's max filesystem size is 1TB, max filesize is ~64GB, and max total system addressable disk of ~2PB (that's PETAbytes).

Check out th e AIX FAQ section which goes over this.

Remember, Linux is not the only OS out there......

Eric
--

Conventional Fusion
FAQ

by Robert F. Heeter of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Scientific American "Ask the Experts"
Q&A

The FAQ is rather long, but the Q&A summarises various viewpoints of fusion scientists and is worth reading.

Actually, it is easy (no sneering :) I tried to figure it out months ago, it's not hard, but the problem is that there's just no step by step procedure outlines. So I made one. See http://socrates.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ccunning/samba .html. That simple procedure is all it took for me, can't guarantee results for everyone :) One word of caution though, access restrictions aren't really well implemented yet.

One of the best descriptions of file paging is here. It give a fairly solid, humorous description. Long live the Thing King!

See also http:/ /www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/compi lers/free/part2/faq.html for a PL/M compiler, and http://home.sol.no/~egilk/download.html for a PL/M to C converter.

While you're at it, [Plug] check out my classic computers site and the Vintage Computer Festival.[/Plug]

Ohio-state has a FAQ on using [mv]getty for voice mail.

Tribute.