Slashdot Mirror

They define privacy as "your first and last name, your Social Security number, your online credentials". That's data actually, identifying data. Privacy, as was figured out as early as 1890, is the right to be let alone. What they describe in the article, companies analyzing and targeting you, is a privacy violation because those companies are not letting you alone. It doesn't stop being a privacy violation if they don't know your identity. They describe why privacy matters without realizing it's privacy they're writing about.

The main difference in OS5 was the addition of "PNOlets", chunks of native ARM code. Chapter 14.

It's still tricky. When I ported Palm's OS4 emulator to Android, I had to do some library coding and tracking down sample source code was... nontrivial. Definitely look for open-source Palm programs, like pssh, and learn from them.

But if you don't have the special contacts, property and cash to co-locate and server farms, you can't take advantage. The reality is special people get special privileged access.

Actually, a 12A supply in a colo facility will cost you about a grand a month. Half that if you are happy to share rack space. The relevant facilities are known to everyone,

Apparently not. :) Also a grand a month is not pocket change, That's more than a lot of mortgage payments. I dare say the majority of people can't afford a second house. So my statement about being specially privileged stands even if it's no longer licensed that way.

you can just ask the exchange if you want to know which warehouse you need to be in. You don't need special contacts; the exchange will tell you what you need to know to trade with it. You need to buy the servers yourself, but that's not exactly privileged knowledge.

You link actually says "the exchange has ended the practice" re flash orders. I wasn't a big fan of them either.

I could not find which practice re: flash orders were actually limited. The orders themselves or the practice of only letting a select group see them. Also the articles point out that regardless of the NYSE's support, other large brokerage firms support the feature internally and even other excchanges are popping up that offer it. This piece was amusing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124940289965505053.html. Plainly stated the exact same thing in both the pros and cons of flash trading (i.e. the flash traders get a better price. This means they got a competitive advantage over other traders). Fundamentally the practice still exists in large volume and is not at this point in time outright illegal. It needs to be.

Sorry, I got a bit muddled up when referring to the "previous" question. I meant to address how one really knows what the market would have looked like without HFT.

Regarding spending/saving/tax, remember that saved money ends up back in the system somewhere. The question of growth is not as simple as deciding the tax rates.

Perhaps, but the market did function before HFT. It's probably safe to assume it would continue to function just fine if it was eliminated. As for what's better for growth? The rich tend to save money not spend it. Money that isn't moving around is not good for the economy. This is an interesting paper about the subject, but it isn't the first place I've read about the idea: http://www.uml.edu/centers/cic/Research/Tilly_Research/tilly-Geese,%20golden%20eggs,%20traps-6.04.pdf

There is *no* explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, or any other doctrine that the USA was founded on. There is a limitation on unreasonable search and seizure, but no explicit right to privacy.

Check out Caroline Kennedy's "The Right to Privacy". A bit dated, but still relevant.

Correct, there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Luckily, there doesn't have to be. Read the Ninth Amendment. Also, check out Warren and Brandeis' "The Right to Privacy". A bit dated, but still relevant.

Excellent catch, armchair expert. I'm sure the real robotics engineers never thought of that. Why don't you lend your assistance since they obviously need your insight so desperately?

http://robotics.cs.uml.edu/home/contact/

Hell, it's not like anybody has ever controlled a dozen or two networked devices before. Absolutely insurmountable, those problems. Unbelievable. Why do they even bother trying?

Fundementals of Financial management

Basically a free book with ads online, a printable PDF version for a small fee ($9.95), a slightly larger fee ($14.95) without the ads and a modest printing cost for the full book ($24.95).

I got the printed book version. Pretty nice book to. It has no bar code but it does have an ISBN and it is marked "Not for Resale" But at under $30 including shipping I don't really care if I can resell it or not.

This business model seems to be new in the area of text books but I like it and hope it takes off. - SR

At this point in time, I'd expect every graduate who wants to be marketable to have some familiarity with C++, POSIX, Win32 and .NET, Java, Cocoa and Objective C, and SQL. Specialization for the young is foolish, like an evolutionary dead end. It limits your options and constrains your thinking.

And wasting valuable University time teaching any of those things is unnecessary specialization. Here's a list of requirements for the school I just graduated from: UMass Lowell CS Reqs. What would you drop to add a mandatory class in Cocoa / Objective C?

The gen-eds? The science requirement? Then you get a computer specialist who basically didn't get a university education.

The math? Then you get a junior technician who can basically never do anything interesting. There are two year "programming" programs at trade schools that give you this. If this is what you want, hire it - no need to try to screw up University CS programs.

The electives? I would have been pretty pissed off if someone told me I couldn't take my class in programming language design or network security because I needed to take a mandatory course in .NET instead.

There's research to do that, but it's decades off being practical apparently

http://www.uml.edu/media/enews/DARPA%20Braunhut%20limb%20regeneration.html

Actually DARPA are funding a project to regrow limbs in adult mammals too

http://www.uml.edu/media/eNews/DARPA%20Braunhut%20limb%20regeneration.html

according to this guy, the windows tax is greater than zero. dell thinks so too.

On the simple page showing prices, Nat Tuck compares laptops that are not equivalent. The Ubuntu laptop's default graphics card is an integrated graphics card with no dedicated memory. The nVidia 256MB video card Dell added as an option for the Ubuntu laptop is a better comparison and results in the exact same price for both systems. (Note that Nat reports a $79 savings for the Ubuntu laptop and upgrading to the nVidia video card costs $79.)

... been doin' teraherz for years - it's just "in fashion" now.

Publication with some terahertz images of concealed weapons on people (towards the article end):

http://stl.uml.edu/PubLib/DickinsonDSS2006.pdf

lots of other THz articles if you chop back the URL to PubLib/

Since renewables can provide all the power we use and more at lower cost than a pie in the sky breeder program

Since breeders can provide all the power we use and more at lower cost than a pie in the sky renewables program...

I guess we'd need hard numbers on both sides to figure out who's blowing smoke where, but... the fact of the matter is that junky old nuclear power plants are providing 22% of the electricity used in the United States today and renewables (other than hydropower, which we've maxed out) don't even show up on the chart. If we don't build modern nuclear plants that can use all that "spent" fuel sitting around, what the hell else are we going to do with it? Dump it in a really expensive hole where it will stay dangerously radioactive for a hundred thousand years?

The reactor designs necessary to allow the use of a reasonable nuclear fuel cycle exist. All I want to see is for it to be legally easier to install a new modern nuclear reactor than it is to install yet another coal plant. Because, let's face it, in the time we've spent arguing another coal plant got built.

But... I've already written this rant. Check out http://www.cs.uml.edu/~ntuck/nuclear/

Hydroelectric power is a reasonably good deal. The dams screw up river ecosystems, but the couple species of fish we lose is probably a small price to pay for the cheap electricity. The problem is, there are only so many usable rivers. We're using almost every easily dammed river in the USA for hydroelectric power today, and it's only supplying 10% of our power needs. Further, our power needs are going up and our hydropower resources aren't, so that 10% will go down as our energy usage increases.

The question to ask is this: Where is the other 90% of our power coming from? It breaks down like this: 55% Coal, 22% Nuclear, 10% Natural Gas, 3% Other. Note that "Other" isn't windmills and solar power, it's mostly burning Petrol and Old Tires.

In the United States, we're not building any new Nuclear plants because of the environmentalist asshole protesters in the 1970's. They stopped new plants opening, and have killed a ton of valuable nuclear research since. Even not building any new plants for 30 years, we still have about 1/4th of the power in the USA coming from old poorly designed nuclear plants.

The rest of our power basically comes from Coal. We need new capacity, that'll be coal too. It'd be better if it were nice clean modern nuclear plants, but the hippies want their power from windmills and unicorns - those plans turn out to be economically absurd, so we get more coal plants instead.

Here's the long version of my rant, if you're interested http://www.cs.uml.edu/~ntuck/nuclear/index.html

This thing probably got caught up in a general order to obscure ALL nuclear plants.

It's a really lame little plant, with barely any fuel. The white thing is a metal containment dome, attached to a 3-story or 4-story research building. It's about 4 stories tall. They give tours; you can look down into a pool of water to see the glowing blue core. It's called the Pinanski Energy Center.

Attacking this plant would do nothing of any real interest, though some idiots would surely freak out. The radiation source is deep below ground and really weak.

Most of the obscured area is just a parking lot. The research building extends to the northwest of the white reactor; they are attached. The area to the southwest is a parking lot for that building and the adjacent ones. The area to the northeast is a parking lot for the gym, which you can see with the white rectangle on the roof. The farthest west obscured area is a pedestrian overpass at the 3rd-floor level that runs between two unrelated buildings, the physics building (north) and engineering building (south). Most everything in the area is 4-story.

There are far more interesting things on campus that a person could attack, starting with the dorms!

You can find pictures on the web, including a lame attack by ABC news.

http://www.uml.edu/maps/pinanski.htm
http://www.uml.edu/student-services/disability/ada services/north_campus/pinanski_hall.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LooseNukes/story?i d=988778

This thing probably got caught up in a general order to obscure ALL nuclear plants.

It's a really lame little plant, with barely any fuel. The white thing is a metal containment dome, attached to a 3-story or 4-story research building. It's about 4 stories tall. They give tours; you can look down into a pool of water to see the glowing blue core. It's called the Pinanski Energy Center.

Attacking this plant would do nothing of any real interest, though some idiots would surely freak out. The radiation source is deep below ground and really weak.

Most of the obscured area is just a parking lot. The research building extends to the northwest of the white reactor; they are attached. The area to the southwest is a parking lot for that building and the adjacent ones. The area to the northeast is a parking lot for the gym, which you can see with the white rectangle on the roof. The farthest west obscured area is a pedestrian overpass at the 3rd-floor level that runs between two unrelated buildings, the physics building (north) and engineering building (south). Most everything in the area is 4-story.

There are far more interesting things on campus that a person could attack, starting with the dorms!

You can find pictures on the web, including a lame attack by ABC news.

http://www.uml.edu/maps/pinanski.htm
http://www.uml.edu/student-services/disability/ada services/north_campus/pinanski_hall.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/LooseNukes/story?i d=988778

Thanks for the links. I took a peek and they're interesting but don't look like they're ready for the real world just yet.

I discovered Lisp last year. Unfortunately I don't have time to learn beyond simple programs (though i still intend to) but i loved the concept of tackling the problem from the other end: instead of having an environment simple enough for everybody to use, have one so powefull that skilled programers can turn it into specific languages for specific problems.
I don't know how this applies to the interface problem, but reading this in your links my mind automaticaly went to lisp. Helps a lot that the basic syntax can be learned in a minute: (function parameter1 parameter2 ... parameterN). The rest can be as problem-specific as needed.

I'm trying to solve that very problem as my PhD. My solution would involve using "semantic web" formats (which are kind of superior forms of XML, or restricted forms of logic) to represent data, and tags (a la del.icio.us) allowing users to build meaningful data collections without programming a backend.

The yet unsolved part is how to give users the power to automate common tasks. I plan to use end-user programming techniques for this.

You've expressed the problem in a very concise way. There are already systems trying to bring the Unix philosophy to the User environment, like Archy and the Haystack project, which use different but related approaches.

The University of Massachusetts in Lowell is building a new $23 million dollar nanotechnology center, with area for corporations to rent for use as assembly systems:
http://www.uml.edu/Media/News%20Articles/article34 6.html

Eeeeew. You want to edit photos with that ???

1. face the CRT west
2. measure the color
3. face the CRT east
4. measure the color

Like that? Here's some more image-related problems.

Both of you are misleaded, thinking as programmers. The concept of abstraction is totally foreign to the average user (at least when related to task automation). Also average users don't need universal programmability - just "good-enough" one. They would have little use for whole Turing completeness.

No, the silver bullet are related to direct manipulation (removing abstraction and simplifying input) and programming by example (again removing abstraction, and simplifying depuration). I should know, I'm a researcher in the End-user Development field.

Natural language? Yes, that might help to some extent - but only until the first "gotcha", due to the inherent ambiguity, ruins the completion of the supposedly automated task.

Or at least, not any time soon.

One of the most feasible design for a solar car that I've seen was the TNE III, from Team New England. The folks who run Sunrayce (GM) specifically changed the rules after 1995, to make sure that the design, or anything resembling it, wasn't allowed again.

What was different about their design? They didn't keep the solar panels in a charging configuration while the vehicle was in motion. They would charge up, pack up the array, then race for the finish line. If they ran out of power, they'd have to stop, unpack the array, then sit and charge for a while.

Besides that their car was one of the only ones with trunk space (although, it was filled with the solar array), their design gave more space to the driver compartment. Provided it's used for simple commuting (office, home, charge, repeat), their design makes perfect sense.

Now ... why won't solar cars ever come into real use? They're not strong enough to pass crash safety tests. They draw at most 2kW. That results in major weight stripping -- they weigh at most 700lbs with a driver in them. They also reduce the cross section ... maybe 0.5 to 1 m^2 ... which means it has about the visibility of a motorcycle (worse, as they're so low to the ground).

Combined with a Suburban or a semi, whose driver isn't paying attention, and it's a death trap on wheels.

The only way that I see fully electric vehicles really coming into their own is in a controled environment where they're not mixing with larger vehicles. (planned cities, golf courses, etc.)

I'm personally for planned cities -- visit a town like Venice, and you'll see that it's perfectly possible to get around without owning a vehicle, so long as they're a little bit of public transit Think about how much cleaner New York could be if people couldn't bring vehicles in from outside, and there were only delivery vehicles, mass transit, and taxis.

I would actually expect alternative fuels, most likely oil, but not necessarily petroleum based, to be the most likely candidate for the next generation -- biodiesel, or byproducts from trash digestion or biomass recycling.

I'd say that the car companies realize that people are willing to pay a premium for more environmentally friendly cars (just like they used to be able to sell 'agressive' looking cars, more comfortable rides, 'luxury', or carrying capacity), but they have to weigh that against making sure it's reliable. They could go bankrupt from lemon laws if they don't make sure they're rock solid, and aren't hazardous to their passengers.

If the W3C isn't a standards body, then how on earth can you represent their documents as standards that should be adhered to?

Where have I done that? I hold the opinion that browser vendors should attempt to write software that conforms to the W3C's specifications, but I don't call them standards.

Why do we call browsers and sites "Standards compliant" if they're not standards?

We don't. You might, but you are incorrect when you do so. "Standards compliant" is just a buzzword people hang onto.

BTW, the only place the words W3C exist in either rfc 1866 or 1738 is under TBL's name. They were part of the IETF working group, not a W3C one.

I don't see the relevance, but that's probably because I don't know who you are referring to when you say "they".

Oh, and ISO-HTML *IS* W3C HTML 4.01. It's just an ISO ratified version.

This is not true. Read the standard:

This International Standard describes the way in which the HTML language specified by the following clauses in the W3C Recommendation for HTML 4.01 shall be used, and does so by identifying all the differences between the HTML language specified by the W3C Recommendation for HTML 4.01 and the HTML language defined by this International Standard

It then goes on the list sixteen sections in which it differs from HTML 4.01. A bit odd for something that you claim is identical, huh?

Being only a few years removed from high school, I can tell you that the robotics would probably go over well. There is an annual Robotic Egg Hunt here at UMass Lowell that is pretty cool to watch. For anyone who has done the simplest bit of coding you get the sense that what you are watching took _a lot_ of time and effort and is quite impressive to see in action.

Black is black, color is accurate, pixels are sharp, and video bandwidth is not a problem.

Your CRT has massive problems displaying fine vertical lines. Try test to see just how bad your CRT is.

You can test your monitor now.

test your monitor now to see just how awful analog video really is

It's terrible advice for a Windows-optimized CRT. These days, black-on-white is the standard. If you use white-on-black, the vertical lines will be a bit darker than the horizontal ones. The effect is especially bad with high resolution, high refresh rates, cheap analog cables, and any video card not made by Matrox.

Test your monitor now.

I'd think it may have inspired by the way that our children play today versus how they played twenty years ago.

Actually, the main point of the lego mindstorms was to change the way kids learned... to make learning and playing the same.

The prototype for the mindstorms toy was built at the MIT media lab by roboticist Fred Martin. (who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell at a budding robotics lab). Fred really wanted to know about how to use computing to educate kids, and lego offered a sum of money to the media lab in order to foster a new type of marketable toy that had "engaging computing" potential. So he built a lego brick with a computer inside, which was the base of the toy.

Interesting enough, Fred Martin also built the handyboard, which is a great way to get into amateur robotics. As shameless self-promotion, the work I did in Fred Martin's class can be found here.

What you are after is iSCSI. iSCSI standards for Internet SCSI and is a "method of encapsulating SCSI over TCP/IP". iSCSI allows a network share to appear as a local scsi drive to the operating system. So you need a server that supports the iSCSI protocol and a client that support it also.

This site seems to be quite informative on the status of the various Linux projects. Check this out for a server implementation

It seems pretty clear to me that the zeno paradox is not a paradox at all but just our inability to intuitively solve maths with infinite terms. It reminds me of those visual illusion drawings that cause our brains to make sense of things in a missleading way. Check it out.

At the same time, this does not disprove his paper since the article, is not well writen enough to be useful in determining the validity of this work.

You might try running RAID over something like iSCSI (if it can be done), and re-exporting that filesystem from a central server.

i know that it isn't ieee 1394, but if you want SAN capability hosted by an off the shelf linux box, you may want to take a look at some early implementations of the draft iSCSI spec. basically, it'll let you present scsi devices over IP, giving you a SAN over any IP network (preventing you from dropping $$$ on fibre channel infrastructure).
--------

Lead-acid batteries are not used in modern electrics AFAIK, because, well, they're crap.

Actually, lead-acid batteries are quite used in electronic cars. Check out The Center For Electric Car and Energy Conversion for more info. Ni-Cad's dont generate enough current to be able to cold-crank a car engine, or power the car continuously for that matter.

Plus, I could be mistaken, but the last time I checked, sulfuric acid and lead sulfate, byproducts of lead-acid batteries, isn't exactly sold in the health-food section of your local supermarket.

From the San Joaquin County Recycling Info Page:"The average lead-acid battery contains 17.5 pounds of lead and 1.5 gallons of sulfuric acid. An estimated 2.4 million lead-acid batteries are disposed of improperly-possibly exposing California's environment and water supply to 210,000 tons of lead and 3 million gallons of sulfuric acid.

Sounds like a problem to me.

check out University of Maryland University College, or Continuing Ed at UMass Lowell.

Things UMass Lowell needs before taking on such a lavish venture:

• Working residence hall fire alarms.
• Parking (and not just for faculty, students go here too).
• Elevators that don't trap people between floors every week.
• Working shuttle bus service. My last class on Tuesdays and Thursdays ends at 15:15 on south campus. The shuttle bus delivers me to my dorm around 15:50, covering almost two miles. (Thanks to a friend, I get a ride back to my dorm in 5-10 minutes).

UMass Lowell doesn't even run the campus network in an ethical and sane manner (pulling connections for groundless abuse complaints before conferring with the alleged abuser), I sure as hell won't trust them with any computer I use. This is all gee-whiz stuff; they hope that this laptop computer craze will mask all the other problems.

Not if you don't care about the population. Recall the Centauri bombardment of the Narn Homeworld in B5 ?? Similar effect, but add an Ice Age as well. . . .

Not if you don't care about the population. Recall the Centauri bombardment of the Narn Homeworld in B5 ?? Similar effect, but add an Ice Age as well. . . .

Moving my stuff is a pain in the ass, as I will certainly remind you of when it is time to move in and out of the dorm. The biggest pain is moving my computer.

Half the battle is untangling the wiring and other debris and freeing the major components, the other half is dragging the crap to the car. The monitor and computer cases are big and bulky. I'm no lightweight, but a handle would certainly ease hauling the stuff around, particularly since I could use my free hand to carry other stuff.

In spite of a lot of searching, I have yet to find cases which offer a carrying handle. Lack of a market isn't a reason, I bet plenty of college students would love easy-carry cases without getting an iMac.

This travel case modification looks like one solution to my problems, but all I really need is a damn handle (or computer equipment that levitates itself into my car trunk).

This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

The Loci Project has its own window manager and desktop system which place icons and application windows into a tree structure...literally.

This screenshot shows program icons connected or 'piped' according to their hierarchy. Double clicking on an icon reveals or hides the program's window (shown as a 'label' widget in the screenshot). And the desktop can be scrolled around in all directions.

Now imagine having dozens of programs running. With traditional window managers, you would have them all open on the desktop and/or represented by buttons on a taskbar or by icons. How do the programs relate to each other in a hierarchy??? You have no idea: that information is never shown anywhere! With Loci, you always know the hierarchy, because the windows are attached to the icons, and the icons are connected with lines.

Note: Loci is a combination of a desktop and a graphical programming language for the management of data processing projects. It is not a general purpose desktop.

This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

The Loci Project has its own window manager and desktop system which place icons and application windows into a tree structure...literally.

This screenshot shows program icons connected or 'piped' according to their hierarchy. Double clicking on an icon reveals or hides the program's window (shown as a 'label' widget in the screenshot). And the desktop can be scrolled around in all directions.

Now imagine having dozens of programs running. With traditional window managers, you would have them all open on the desktop and/or represented by buttons on a taskbar or by icons. How do the programs relate to each other in a hierarchy??? You have no idea: that information is never shown anywhere! With Loci, you always know the hierarchy, because the windows are attached to the icons, and the icons are connected with lines.

Note: Loci is a combination of a desktop and a graphical programming language for the management of data processing projects. It is not a general purpose desktop.

This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

I opted for a Master's over a Ph.D. partly because I want to switch topics (and get a Ph.D. elsewhere) but also because of the politics in the environment--I just want to get of there for a while.

Getting a Ph.D. puts you in the heart of highly political academia, and since some fields are pretty much Ph.D.-only, like science, the subjugates can't avoid it.

In my frustration with the political nature of science, I started "The Open Lab", which applies the Open Source Software model to science (the former was modeled after the ideal of the latter; but we ought to strive for that ideal):

http://theopenlab.uml.edu/

This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

Yeah, baby!

<shameless_promotion>
http://theopenlab.uml.edu/pygtools/
</shameless_promotion>

This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

"Bioinformatics" is branch of biology that is completely computer-based, and typically involves the analysis of data stored in public databases on the Internet. This is my field of study.

As you may know, scientists in all areas tend to work secretively on projects for many years before publication, often limiting access to discoveries and innovations to those who work in the very same room! And that is something that has always bothered me about science. It seems we are to share our ideas with humanity (which we often do, if and when we publish in a refereed journal), yet the priority is really to protect one's self from being "scooped". It appears to me that we (scientists) care more about getting credit for the discovery than the discovery itself. Does this remind anyone of the mindset of the proprietary software developer?

A thought I had was that bioinformatics, being computer-based research, may present an opportunity to make an "open laboratory" or "collaboratory". Following the model for open-source software development, an open lab would place on the Internet all of the work in progress for a particular research subject (analyses and/or new techniques). Communication between collaborators, which would include anyone who comes along and decides it is an interesting project, can take place via mailing lists, and so on.

The only worry, even still for me, is that someone can come along and swipe the whole project and take credit for it. But of course anyone who gives away software code would have the same concern. It really comes down to human nature: Just how much are we willing to share with others, at the risk that someone may take it all away?

But I think even temporary measures to prevent yourself from being scooped are restrictive and contrary to the scientific ideal. Why? Because these measures very much squelch free thought and exploration, what science is supposed to be all about.

The one thing I particularly enjoy about free software development is the ability to brainstorm with anyone anywhere over a new project, without fear of idea-theft. To me free software is not just about seeing the code or downloading free binaries--something even a closed organization can accommodate. What I like about GNU- or Linux-style development is the open exchange of ideas--the "bazaar" model Eric Raymond refers to.

My whole point is that it's something VERY MUCH MISSING in all research projects prior to publication--when the scientist feels there is nothing to lose and nothing left to be gained. I just want to see that change.

So I started The Open Lab, or "The Open Collaboratory of Molecular Bioinformatics," a non-profit organization established to promote open collaborations for research and free software development in the field of molecular bioinformatics.

http://theopenlab.uml.edu/

Jeff

This sort of thing has cropped up before. And it has always been due to human error.

Check out the Linux wishlist. AFAIK, this is kind of a compilation of stuff taken from various Linux newsgroups and mailing lists about features people would like. Note that some of the things listed have already been implemented, and most things listed won't be implemented in the near future (i.e. 2.3) if at all.

I'm not familiar with the status of the Python/Qt bindings or their quality, though, with the QPL finally looking like a usable licence, I probably should.

Yes, we beat SunOS 4 (BSD-based) and SunOS 5 (Sysv-based Solaris) on Sun's own SPARC hardware. We were also the first 64-bit OS on the UltraSPARC, and Sun management was not pleased with the Solaris team over that one!

mp3.gif