Slashdot Mirror

These benchmarks, by the guys who host most of Gentoo, were done on a dual 2.8Ghz P4 Xeon's, 2Gb of RAM machine (Dell PowerEdge 2650) and (AFAICS) reach broadly similar conclusions - 'best' depends on your usage, but JFS is pretty good, reiser uses a lot of CPU etc.

Mitochondria are about 5 micrometers across and your various cytoskeletal filaments and tubules range between 3 - 25 nanometers in diameter.

Human chromosomes, on the other hand, are essentially 2 meters of DNA packed into a 5 micrometer-wide nucleus. Now that's 6 billion base pairs (A/T's and G/C's), which are wrapped up pretty tight.

If you stretched out the DNA to full length, that's 3.4 x 10e-10 meters per base pair. Taking a randomish gene that's 10,000 base pairs long, that would work out to 3.4 micrometers of DNA, which this laser could work on. But if you think refolding maps is hard, imagine trying to repack 2 meters of DNA back into a 5 micrometer nucleus.

During metaphase, when the cell has all its chromosomes lined up and ready for splitting, the average size of a chromosome is 2 micrometers from end to end. Basically, your 10k base pair gene is now just 1.7 nanometers long. All of this winding and compacting means that it's blessedly hard to hit a single gene and only that gene within the DNA contained in a living cell with a tool this blunt.

Wrong...I did this experiment for a class I'm in. I bought a brand new emerson microwave (I needed one anyway). It worked just fine as long as you take out the turntable.

Check it out- I even blogged about it.

How about Gentoo Enemy Territory CD
Should do what you want.

http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/archives/Old_web pages/osu_record/techbull2.html

Former Communists running the GOP - go figure!

That is because the GOP is not concerned with economic freedom, but endeavors to control the economy and most other aspects of life in America and in the world. If you would like to read an early draft of thier blueprint for gaining and maintaining control, look here.

It's a little dense, and its length does live up to the title, but there has never been a more complete manual for controling the populace of a nation.

You DID have to pay a premium for it. If you look at the cost of your grandparents' mixer in relation to their total income, you'll find that it's a MUCH larger chunk of change than it is today.

According to this link the conversion factor between 1950s dollars and 2003 dollars is 0.131.

To be absolutely clear, this means that the $219 *commercial grade* mixer of today would have cost a whopping $28.69 in 1950. Not knowing what they paid for their 1950s mixer, I can't do the conversion the other way-- but I think you'll find that they cost at least as much as that commercial mixer does.

Of course, if you can't live without the 50's charm, you'll have to stick with antiques.

The point is, this is just how some stuff was made back then. Please try to understand that crap was made back then, too. You've just never seen it.

Celeron=Celerity... or maybe Celebrity

More like Apium graveolens .

Efficeon=Efficient?

As another user pointed out, Efficeon sounds more like a fish. Transmeta should have plundered classic literature again (like it did with Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe), possibly taking the name "Nemo" from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Or maybe not.

That's a compliment like saying the fat girl has a good personality.

You didn't like Shallow Hal either, I take it?

> Sure, I'll pay their salary. Six dollars per day, and not a penny more.

1) Be realistic.
$6 per day is a 1789 figure. Adjusted for inflation we get $120/day.

2) Be generous.
Let's assume those representative work 365 days/year. That gives us $43,800/year.

3) Be critical.
For comparison, a programmer with zero experience who "Relies on instructions and pre-established guidelines to perform the functions of the job. Works under immediate supervision. Primary job functions do not typically require exercising independent judgment" gets a base salary around $46K.

You do not want the job to be so unattractive to people with half a brain that nobody would want it.

> Then the rest of the year, Congressmen can hold jobs where they produce something other than red tape.

Can you say "conflicts of interests"?

The location of the paper is here.

(damn google for giving me an old link)

What you say is technically true, but ssh1 users are still vulnerable to man in the middle attacks even if RSA user authentication is used.

The attack relies on an incredibly non-obvious flaw in the ssh1 protocol which was fixed in the ssh2 protocol. While an attacker cannot get your passwords using this attack, he can interpose between the client and server and intercept all traffic for that session. The error message saying the server host key has changed is your only clue that such an attack is going on.

You can read about the details in this paper. Unless you are using ssh2, you should be very wary of sudden changes in the server host key, even if you are using RSA authentication, and even if you appear to be connected to the correct server.

It's interesting how industry and academic research in systems and languages seem to have been racing neck and neck for the past decade. Visual programming languages have been around for a long time now, all which operate on "parse-trees" (which is largely a misnomer, since there's really no parsing going on). Keep in mind that by "visual," academics don't really mean to emphasize the visual. They mean to emphasize the fact that such computational formalisms allow programmers to operate on higher-level semantics than single characters, while completely avoiding syntactic errors (and often most type errors).

Of course, the difference is that academics build these programming systems because they offer the potential for easier learning and better domain-specific reasoning--and Gosling developed Jackpot because "...[it's] kind of goofy, but entertaining." Both approaches are essential for taking the programming systems community beyond it's archaic language-centric viewpoint. IMHO, Gosling won the programming language race with Java--who will the programming systems race?

Here's some more mirrors I found:

http://ximian.dulug.duke.edu/pub/ximian/
http://ftp.dc.aleron.net/ximian/
http://ximian.oregonstate.edu/
http://open-systems.ufl.edu/mirrors/rsync.ximian.c om/
http://0-open-systems.ufl.edu.library.csuhayward.e du/mirrors/rsync.ximian.com/

There have been a couple of reports of *.iso corruption. So verify your iso using the md5s from the download link

Of course, when a big name school decides to change something, the whole world sits up and takes notice. But this is not a new idea. Most schools have hands on practice in lab courses, as well as projects in the last two years of undergrad. If you're looking for something truly unique, try taking at look at Oregon State University and the TekBots program. The TekBots program starts during the first year for Electrical and Computer Engineering students, with the construction of a simple robot. This robot is used to relate theories from lecture to real world problems, such as what happens to a motors speed and torque as the voltage and current are changed. Now here's what makes the program unique. Instead of the students seeing the robot for just one course, the robot follows them throughout their years at OSU, so by senior year, the TekBot is very advanced. This allows the professors at OSU to teach topics such as Digital Logic, Signals and Systems, and Computer Architecture in a way that is both real and exciting to the students. Plus, each student owns their own TekBot, giving them the ability to "play" with it at home. This system has been expanded into Mechanical Enineering and Computer Science as well, giving students in all four disciplines the chance to see the interactions of their feild with others.

So, come on. What's an example of "un-pulp", or "professional", or "graduate-level" philosophy?

OSU already developed transparent transistors.

At Oregon State University transparent transistors have been developed. I think it would be very cool to see these two innovations combined to produce a completely transparent computing device.

I believe this has already been done at Oregon State University. OSU Engineers Create First Transparent Transistor.

$16 in 1986 would be ~ $26.84 in year 2003 dollars (calculated using inflation adjustments that can be found here.) If, as you claim, CDs averaged $16 in 1986 and $18 in 2003, that would still be 32.9% drop in real price.