Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Space, Smallness, Pigeons
5k is more than you think. Drywall writes: "So after much deliberation (and announcement deadline pushed back a few days), the winners of the 2001 5k contest have been announced. It's interesting to note that the judges' assessments were in some cases very different from those of the contest viewers. Check it out."
They took care of the pigeon technicalities, we took care of the computer technicalities. Loco3KGT writes: "My article on the recent RFC1149 test is up on linux.com. It's an interview with Vegard Engen of the Bergen Linux Users Group, your typical followup type thing. Might be worth the read to a few."
Sheerest understatement. Good details here for anyone wishing to provide a nice high-latency, low-bandwidth, high-poop connection between not-so-distant places.
Still fits in your hand. There were some questions raised about the Simputer handheld device mentioned on Slashdot a few weeks ago, now metlin writes: "The Simputer FAQ has been updated, and this time around a few questions that the Slashdot commnunity maybe interested have been added. Some of these include GPLing the design, USB capabilities, IML and some more stuff regarding Linux & the Simputer. Check it out!"
Dave, what sort of meeting is this? Dave? An Anonymous Coward references this review of the Making of 2001, (and perhaps ought also mention Cliff Lampe's review of Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory as well), then writes: "On May 26th ... http://www.isdc2001.org/. 'nuf said." Well, perhaps not quite 'nuf. This is the International Space Development Conference's 2001 meeting, and it's coming up soon -- May 24-28th. The submitter was apparently interested in the 2001: A Space Oddysey Banquet (#5 on this page), which sounds like an interesting dinner, which will be featuring no ham sandwiches (for authenticity).
Let us now praise famous men. Randy Rathbun writes "I just got a email from Peter de Jager, who, as you may or may not recall, is the guy who got all the bad Y2K press because he did his job getting the world to recognize there was a problem. Well, he is finally getting some well-deserved recognition from the Canadian Information Processing Society."
According to an email Rathbun quotes, de Jager says: "Although I've been thanked privately by thousands of people in IT, this is my first formal & public thanks for my work in Y2K and I'm as 'pleased as punch' to use an old Irish expression."
Hear, hear -- (many of) the Y2K enthusiasts deserve congratulations for speaking their mind and contributing greatly to the smooth transition that actually took place. (Anyone besides me have lots of water on hand that New Year's Eve?)
Gee, look how many colors are on this map! After I erroneously described giant game-fest The Gathering as a Dutch event, Rune Kristian Viken of the Gathering's crew pointed out that I wasn't even all that close. An apology to both countries, hope no one buys tickets to the wrong airport ;)
Viken wrote:
"The Gathering is a _NORWEGIAN_ Computer Party not a Dutch one. Its at Hamar / Norway - and nowhere in the Netherlands.Sigh. Earlier in this century people thought that a red-white'n blue flag indicated a ship from the netherlands out of the colors. Now people think that The Gathering is a Dutch party.
*Sigh*. No respect for the Scandinavian DemoScene from you younglings! ;)
"
The SGPL's wording is often similar to that of the GNU GPL. The names are also very similar. It seems to me the Simputer people are trying to cash in on the GNU GPL's success. I believe Richard Stallman should be notified of this.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Pigeon overhead is nasty. Too many "packets" are dropped
It really helps if you squint really hard.
:0)
(It helps when dealing with Ms. Claus, too...
Dancin Santa
When does the Millennium Begin?
..., and you begin the first millennium with the year 0 CE
...) was originally designed by
..., 100, ..., 500, ... Then we can say that the period from 1 A.D.
..., 10). Similarly from 1 A.D. through 100
..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... This is called the "astronomical"
...).
..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2,
The answer is if you use the Gregorian Calendar and start the first
millennium with the year 1 AD then the third millennium begins with the year
2001 AD. But if you use the Common Era Calendar, in which years are numbered
-2, -1, 0, 1, 2,
then the third millennium begins with the year 2000 CE. You have a choice. And
if you opt for the Common Era Calendar you no longer have to put up with the
smug assertion that "there was no year zero (so the new millennium begins in
2001)". There was no year zero when Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian
Calendar in the 16th Century but there certainly is one now, and the new
millennium in the Common Era Calendar begins in 2000 CE.
The number zero was introduced into westerm circles, along with the
Arabic numerals we use to day, in the 13th century, but the church refused to
allow them to be used, simply on the grounds that they were invented by Muslims.
However, zero and the numbering system we use today did eventually make it into
acceptance by the 16th century, and greatly simplified mathematics in Europe.
We can't really blame the church for 2000/2001 issue, because the current year
numbering system that we used (2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD,
a monk in either the 7th or 8th century, before we even heard of the Arabic
numbering system or zero.
Roman numerals do not have a figure designating zero, and treating zero
as a number on an equal footing with other numbers was not common in the 6th
century when our present year reckoning was established by Dionysius Exiguus.
Dionysius let the year AD 1 start one week after what he believed to be Jesus'
birthday. Therefore, AD 1 follows immediately after 1 BC with no intervening
year zero. So a person who was born in 10 BC and died in AD 10, would have died
at the age of 19, not 20. Furthermore, Dionysius' calculations were wrong. The
Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod the
Great, and he died in 4 BC. It is likely that Jesus was actually born around 7
BC. The date of his birth is unknown; it may or may not be 25 December.
Since the "Anno Domini" system did not come into effect until the 6th
Century A.D. it is artificial to speak of the years 1 A.D., 100 A.D., etc.,
because people living at that time knew nothing of this system of numbering
years (since it had not then been invented yet). Furthermore the Romans in the
reign of Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.) were somewhat lax in the proper
observance of leap years. But we can project backwards (and forwards) from 525
A.D. by representing the succession of years by the series of natural numbers:
1, 2, 3,
through 10 A.D. (including both years) was a period of ten years (since there
are ten numbers in the series 1, 2,
A.D. is a period of 100 years, and from 1 A.D. to 1000 A.D. is a period of 1000
years.
The word "millennium" means "a period of 1000 years" so we can conclude
that the period from 1 A.D. through 1000 A.D. (including both years) constituted
one millennium, and in fact, the first millennium of the Christian era. So the
second millennium of the Christian era begins with the year 1001 A.D., or more
exactly, on 1st January 1001 A.D. And the third millennium of the Christian era
begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. So for Christians - or at least, for all who
adhere to the Christian system of numbering years - the answer is clear: The new
millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. However, this is not the end of the
matter, because the "Anno Domini" system of year numbering has a major flaw,
namely, it may be OK for years since 1 A.D., but what happens when we consider
earlier years? As is well known, such years are numbered in reverse order, and
designated as years "Before Christ". Thus the year immediately before 1 A.D. is
designated 1 B.C., and the series extends backwards: 2 B.C., 3 B.C., etc.
With the rise of modern scholarship, particularly astronomy, archaeology
and chronological studies, this system was felt to be inadequate for scientific
purposes. For one thing it does not lend itself to calculation using dates. For
example (a very simple one), how many years elapsed between 1st January 6 B.C.
and 1st January 6 A.D.? Twelve years? No. The answer is not obvious (and still
less obvious if we consider longer periods such as that from 535 B.C. to 481
A.D.). So astronomers and chronologists decided to number years by representing
the succession of years by the doubly-infinite series of positive and negative
numbers:
system of numbering years. In this system years from 1 onwards have the same
numbers as years A.D. (year 1 = 1 A.D., and so on), but years B.C. are related
as follows: The year 0 in the astronomical system is the year 1 B.C., and the
year -n in the astronomical system is the year n+1 B.C. (for n = 1, 2, 3,
Conversely, the year n B.C. is the year -(n-1) in the astronomical system. Thus
year -1 = 2 B.C., year -2 = 3 B.C., and so on.
A millennium is, by definition, a period of 1000 years. But it is no
part of the definition that a millennium must begin or end with a particular
year number. If we adopt the astronomical year numbering system then we can
begin the "first" millennium with year 0 just as well as with year 1. Strictly
speaking, there is no first millennium in the astronomical system, since it
simply numbers years by mapping them onto the sequence
..., and we are free to begin millennia where we think fit. It is thus clear
that the answer to the question as to when the new millennium begins depends on
which system of year-numbering one chooses to use. Christians may prefer to stay
with the system of years "Anno Domini", in which case they must answer that the
new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 A.D. Scientists and others who prefer
a more rational and useful system of numbering years may prefer to adopt
explicitly the astronomical system. In this case they are free to begin
millennia from the years 1, 1001, 2001, and so on (in which case the third
millennium begins on 1st January 2001), or from the years 0, 1000, 2000, and so
on (in which case the third millennium begins on 1st January 2000). Thus anyone
who wishes, for whatever reason, to celebrate the start of the new millennium on
1st January 2000 has entirely good and rational grounds for doing so, namely,
(i) the adoption of the astronomical system for numbering years, combined with
(ii) the convention of beginning millennia with years whose numbers end in "000"
(and beginning centuries with years whose numbers end in "00"). Note that this
article does not show that those who hold (as those who adhere to the Christian
calendar must hold) that the new millennium begins on 1st January 2001 are
mistaken. Such people have reasons to justify their preference. But this does
show that anyone who prefers to think of the year 2000 as the first year of the
new millennium has perfectly sound reasons for doing so.
Somebody explain to me why a handheld computer needs a multiuser operating system...or system-level security at all for that matter (I'd go so far as memory protection, etc.).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Let us now praise famous men. Randy Rathbun writes "I just got a email from Peter de Jager
/. told me") or Tom Jones famous? I mean, seriously, i think real fame is achieved when you can't walk down the street without pussy being thrown at you from every direction. Only then can one truly be Cmdr. Taco famous.
Now are we talking secluded linux geek famous (i.e. "i remember hearing this guy's name three years ago, but just now was reminded who he was because the guys at
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
This message is quite clear. Let's go over it:
/shared/functions.asp, line 666
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80004005'
An error occurred inside of a function. 80004005 is your user ID.
Unknown token received from SQL Server
You have obviously tried to board this train without a valid token, report to the station manager immediately.
Microsoft shares functions with the Devil. This is definitive proof that Bill Gates is *not* the devil. He only fills in on occasion.
Better see that station manager if you have any chance to survive, make your time.
Dancin Santa