And, FWIW, I think that people who aren't responsible shouldn't be parents. Raising a child is a vast responsibility. If you can't handle it, give the child up for adoption or whatever. But don't come crying to me when you can't be responsible enough to raise your own damn child.
Ideally, we could (and probably should) deal with it this way. Practically, we may not be able to - irresponsible will always be parents, and it'd be an invasion of the very rights we value to stop them.
I tossed in the quoted sentences primarily as a second thought - there are going to be people who can't control their children. I don't have any easy answers to this, and there may not be any. When I wrote it, I was almost thinking more of economic assistance - which we already have. Whether or not we want to keep that is a whole other issue. I meant to imply that there are options (mainly economic) for assistance in raising children, not that we need more. As far as government-assisted censorship goes, I consider this to be altogether intolerable. The gov't shouldn't circumvent the parents' wishes, though, on either side of the "free speech" spectrum.
Everytime something is unconstitutional, they nix it.
That magical place called the judicial branch doesn't always nix these things on their own. The opinions of representatives have always been at least partially influenced by their constituients (that is, the voting body or state/city responsible for electing them). An apathetic attitude of "they'll fix it for me" is one of the first steps toward governmental control. If citizens don't control things, the gov't will have to.
Those legislations are the equivalent of not allowing nudity on television.
Now, about the porn thing - I firmly believe that viewing porn at a public library or school is a little (ahem) outside the realm of free speech. This is a reasonable limitation of expression - I wouldn't do it, and would probably be a bit dismayed if people could. The language in the bill, however, is much broader than this. The bill calls for a local determination of "decent", differing from site to site. What's legal at one location may not be at another, and local/corporate interests could easily make their way into the filtering. Even worse, locations may just rely on some NetNanny crap that filters out all pages with the word "breast" in it. Anyway, how hard is it to simply prohibit using public computing resources to display things defined as pornography? For enforcement, employ the human nodes - if Joe Schmo views porno at his library, Joe is asked to leave. Debates as to what porno is would be relatively rare, especially if libraries drafted a quick policy on what porno is and isn't. These restrictions on intrusive "indecency" are a good thing - the definition of "decent" needs to be limited and tightened up. Nudity is on my television alot (HBO). It's voluntary, though, and within my definition of good taste. (Okay, so HBO was a bad example... heh...)
...to protect kids against pron
"Protection" of kids is a very gray area, infinitely granular depending upon the circumstances. I've known parents who abhor violence yet accept nudity and even to a certain extent pornography. Even a certain kind of pornography. I'm trying to tread lightly here, but I really do believe in a minimum of involuntary governmental control and a delegation of this authority to parents. What about those without responsible parents? There needs to be governmental aid and assistance, but on an as-needed basis. Wait for a parent ask for specific limitations on Internet access for their children - it shouldn't be forced down everyone's throats.
I probably left a bunch of holes in this, but there's a pretty simple central idea - there are easier answers to fostering control over indecency than federal restrictions and mandatory purchases of approved "filters". Those of us with good judgement shouldn't be forced to use some "filter" instead.
This CNN article may shed some light on that inquiry. In China, all users of crypto were supposed to "register" with the gov't in some little federal office somewhere. Well, the 8 million people didn't show up to register, and no one did much of anything:o).
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian situation succumbs to the same fate. Most of the time surveillence is just a scare tactic, but citizens have to take each one seriously to defend their privacy.
Oh yeah, that. Well, I'm sure memory transfer will come along some time (wasn't there a/. story on that about a week ago?), but they're getting a bit ahead of themselves.
Mixing the fictional memory transfer with the (partially) factual cloning method doesn't do alot to convince me. It makes the whole thing seem convoluted and idealistic.
So, in closing, I think the whole thing is either a hoax or a scam.:o)
...but not far removed, either. If you take a look at the EFF site, there's a link to H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice Bill. If you remember the CDA, this should be old hat.
Exhibit A: SEC. 1402. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.
Exhibit B: Senate version, 401-406 - formation of industry cartel to restrict access to First Amendment-protected content that some find offensive.
Yeah, we're not logging it yet. BFD. Prohibiting information from libraries/public institutions and forcing private companies to comply is a giant step toward Russia's situation. In fact, logging that information is the next logical step toward compliance with censorship. Before we sit back and laugh at Russia, let's take a good look here at home (in the US).
What I found most disturbing was the horribly misguided and downright scary quote at the bottom of the page:
"Cloning will enable mankind to reach eternal life. The next step, like the ELOHIM with their 25,000 years of scientific advance, will be to directly clone an adult person without having to go through the growth process and to transfer memory and personality in this person. Then, we wake up after death in a brand new body just like after a good night sleep!
Cloning produces a genetically identical copy of an individual, not a consciouslly identical person, as you stated. Clones would differ only in the method of their birth, and in the psychological effects of having an older version of him/her. Not too different from twins, except for the fact that it didn't occur naturally. But I digress.
Its pretty scary to see a group of people who believe cloning is the ultimate answer to our problems as a species. This view contrasts strangely to the overcrowding, overpopulation, and starvation present in many areas of the world. I would chalk it up to just another cult, but I can more than vaguely identify with the way they cling to and are dependent upon others. It says a lot about a species when it is not only able to recreate itself, but is also (at least partially) willing and even eager to.
I don't think it's illegal yet. There have been quite a few attempts to get it to that stage, though. I've managed to track down some of the relevent legislation. This was shamelessly grabbed off of the PhRMA website. You can follow the links to read the full text of each. The top one is probably the most relevant to your question.
In the 106th Congress, we have:
H.R.571, Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Paul, Ron (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
H.R. 448, Patient Protection Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Bilirakis, Michael (introduced 02/02/99) A bill to provide new patient protections under group health plans.
H.R.398,Plant Genetic Conservation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 , SPONSOR: Rep Mink, Patsy T. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to make appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for a plant genetic conservation program.
H.R.358,Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Dingell, John D. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
H.R.306,Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to prohibit discrimination against individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic information or a request for genetic services.
H.R.293 , Genetic Information Health Insurance Nondiscrimination Act of 1999, SPONSOR: Rep Sweeney, John E. (introduced 01/06/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit health issuers and group health plans from discriminating against individuals on the basis of genetic information.
S.374, Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1999,SPONSOR: Sen Chafee, John H. (introduced 02/04/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ro protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
S.326, Patients' Bill of Rights Act,SPONSOR: Sen Jeffords, James M. (introduced 01/28/99) A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
S. 300 Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, SPONSOR: Sen Lott, Trent (introduced 01/22/99) A bill to improve access and choice of patients to quality, affordable health care.
S.240, Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999,SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
S.6, Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999,SPONSOR: Sen Daschle, Thomas A. (introduced 01/19/99) A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health coverage.
Whew. That wasn't that bad, now was it.:) Cloning is certainly a controversial (and gray) area. I get the feeling the site in the story isn't real serious as a business (do they even have the facilities necessary to clone humans?). One attempted cloning, by these people or others, would certainly speed up the debates on the issue, and probably get us a test case in the Supreme Court on human cloning.
Sure, we could do this - I'm not a laywer, but this is similar to the way NDAs work. NDAs just work on a much smaller scale.
But why would we want to submit to this? The DVD-CCA and the DMCA already seek to limit (and to a good extent succeed at limiting) the rights of consumers to use the product they purchased as they see fit. The movie studios and copyright enforcers have some pretty big delusions that consumers are buying "licensed intellectual property". Granted, commercial redistribution should be illegal, but a VHS or DVD purchase is a convienence purchase, not a $15.95 homage paid to their creativity and intellectual property. IMHO, DVDs (and software for that matter) are more like toasters than contractual agreements - you buy it, its yours. If you want to microwave it or something, feel free.
By restricting the DeCSS code with a NDA, we'd be a logical extension of exactly what we're trying to fight - illogical and unfounded restrictions dictating what we can and can't know about our property. The problem is because its in source code form - the DVD-CCA is afraid of the knowledge of their "technology" rather than use of it. It's the fact that they possess the sole knowledge of the encryption scheme that gives them power over consumers and smaller corporations - the power to region-lock movies, the power to artificially drive up prices, the power to extract thousands of dollars from a business for a "key" which offers no benefits.
They fear OpenDVD because it reduces their monopoly and cuts into their already gargantuan botton-line. It's a classic power struggle.
I'm beginning to think that the new site (http://linuxppc.apple.com) is a replacement for their old mklinux project page. Mklinux.apple.com currently has no DNS records (according to squid).
The Apple mklinux page was quickly being abandoned anyway - when I was attempting to ressurrect an old NuBus Mac, the really useful page was mklinux.org. It's nice to see them finally move toward the "official" kernel port, even if it doesn't support NuBus;-)...
For an open source bot, check out the AliceBot, winner of the Loebner Prize (a Turing Test competition) for this year. The source, in both C and Java form, is released under the GNU GLP.
Check out Nasa's Website, specifically the page on STS-99. The shuttle will be fitted with a large arm, capable of creating high-resolution topographical maps of Earth. The mission is eleven days long and dubbed the "Shuttle Radar Topography Mission".
They mention that one of the motivations for the research is the fact that we currently have better maps of other planets than of our own...
I was just reading a couple days ago that Mandrake, of Enlightenment fame, was helping these guys with the build system and automation of the build process.
This seems to fill a nice gap in free software, right beside Optical character recognition. Even if the quality is subpar (I don't know yet - I haven't looked at it), its still a starting point and a motivator for those who are interested in the field, yet reluctant to start a project from scratch.
I agree. I read one of the early documents written by the DVD CCA (when they were seeking the preliminary injunction) that was littered with what were purported to be "public opinion" and "expert" comments (coming mainly from this Slashdot thread). Not only were there no human sources attached to them, but they had all kinds of eerie ellipses and edits in them. The CCA took the 3% of the Slashdot posts that were either in favor of the injunction or neutral, and quoted them. One of them was even an AC's "fuck the law" post. That must have looked real good...
They weren't quite "naked and petrified" posts, but they were pretty damn close, at least from a standpoint of content.;-)
This is a joke. This is only a joke. Had this been an actual kernel patch, I probably would have thought about the device creation/usage issue for more than 2 seconds.
Yep, the admin creates/dev entries, kernel modules and the kernel create/proc entries. Big hairy deal.;-)
I would like to take this time to announce a new kernel module, recently ported to Linux 2.3.41 - uptime.o.
Uptime.o creates a/dev/uptime entry with major number 199, minor number 0. Want to upgrade to the latest development kernel but don't want to lose your precious 325 day uptime? Do you (gasp) not have a 325 day uptime? Uptime.o is the kernel module for you!
To use, simply run insmod uptime, and then echo the number of seconds of your uptime to/dev/uptime. The kernel module sets your system uptime accordingly. For example, echo "28080000" >/dev/uptime restores your 325-day uptime. Version 0.0.2 will be enhanced with scientific notation support and support for 512-byte uptime values. An example of what is possible with uptime.o:
Never become the target of low uptime jokes again! Download uptime.o today - amaze your friends, terrify your enemies, and become king of all that is Linux!
I could have sworn there were bugs just like this under IIS 4.0 for Windows NT 4.0. Vulnerability in IIS... blah blah... access to page source... blah... sensitive data... blah. Do they even migrate their previous fixes to their development code?
According to the article, Mitnick only got five years. Even relatively weak (and 5-year-old) encryption held off "intruders" who had physical access to the data. Anyone willing to bet he would have received a few more had the data been left unencrypted? Mitnick should take the loss - what could the Feds want with the key other than to use it to lay on more charges?
On a side note, are there any legal precedents or restrictions regarding how long Federal officials are allowed to hold confiscated equipment/data? I've heard stories of equipment being kept even with no charges being filed...
The focus is on DOS because Jim Hall is the project leader/coordinator of the FreeDOS project, a GPL emulation of DOS. It's a free product, a free license, and a free interview - and I'll take one free interview over no free interviews any day. Also, If anyone has ever had to work around DOS before (and I'm sure we all have), reading answers from someone who knows its internals is pretty exciting stuff, even if its architecture is a few years old;-).
So, its not worth complaining about the topic. The focus is on DOS because (DOS = OS history) and (OS history = interesting), at least in this forum.
The HTML got clobbered around question #7 (sob... and that was my question... sniff). Is there any way to correct this to make it a bit easier to read?
If the answer is "deal with it", I'm sure I'll get over it eventually;-)
Slashdot Mirror
And, FWIW, I think that people who aren't responsible shouldn't be parents. Raising a child is a vast responsibility. If you can't handle it, give the child up for adoption or whatever. But don't come crying to me when you can't be responsible enough to raise your own damn child.
Ideally, we could (and probably should) deal with it this way. Practically, we may not be able to - irresponsible will always be parents, and it'd be an invasion of the very rights we value to stop them.
I tossed in the quoted sentences primarily as a second thought - there are going to be people who can't control their children. I don't have any easy answers to this, and there may not be any. When I wrote it, I was almost thinking more of economic assistance - which we already have. Whether or not we want to keep that is a whole other issue. I meant to imply that there are options (mainly economic) for assistance in raising children, not that we need more. As far as government-assisted censorship goes, I consider this to be altogether intolerable. The gov't shouldn't circumvent the parents' wishes, though, on either side of the "free speech" spectrum.
Heh... try one of those new (and really, really small) MiniDisc players. You have no excuse now ;-). You can run, but you can't hide.
I can see it now... AIBO + VAIO = Fun for the whole family.
Human: Here AIBO... Come here... Ready?
AIBO: Arf!
Human: (Fling) Go get it! Fetch!
AIBO: (Runs back with MP3-stick in mouth)
Human: Good AIBO! Good Boy!
Everytime something is unconstitutional, they nix it.
... heh...)
...to protect kids against pron
That magical place called the judicial branch doesn't always nix these things on their own. The opinions of representatives have always been at least partially influenced by their constituients (that is, the voting body or state/city responsible for electing them). An apathetic attitude of "they'll fix it for me" is one of the first steps toward governmental control. If citizens don't control things, the gov't will have to.
Those legislations are the equivalent of not allowing nudity on television.
Now, about the porn thing - I firmly believe that viewing porn at a public library or school is a little (ahem) outside the realm of free speech. This is a reasonable limitation of expression - I wouldn't do it, and would probably be a bit dismayed if people could. The language in the bill, however, is much broader than this. The bill calls for a local determination of "decent", differing from site to site. What's legal at one location may not be at another, and local/corporate interests could easily make their way into the filtering. Even worse, locations may just rely on some NetNanny crap that filters out all pages with the word "breast" in it. Anyway, how hard is it to simply prohibit using public computing resources to display things defined as pornography? For enforcement, employ the human nodes - if Joe Schmo views porno at his library, Joe is asked to leave. Debates as to what porno is would be relatively rare, especially if libraries drafted a quick policy on what porno is and isn't. These restrictions on intrusive "indecency" are a good thing - the definition of "decent" needs to be limited and tightened up. Nudity is on my television alot (HBO). It's voluntary, though, and within my definition of good taste. (Okay, so HBO was a bad example
"Protection" of kids is a very gray area, infinitely granular depending upon the circumstances. I've known parents who abhor violence yet accept nudity and even to a certain extent pornography. Even a certain kind of pornography. I'm trying to tread lightly here, but I really do believe in a minimum of involuntary governmental control and a delegation of this authority to parents. What about those without responsible parents? There needs to be governmental aid and assistance, but on an as-needed basis. Wait for a parent ask for specific limitations on Internet access for their children - it shouldn't be forced down everyone's throats.
I probably left a bunch of holes in this, but there's a pretty simple central idea - there are easier answers to fostering control over indecency than federal restrictions and mandatory purchases of approved "filters". Those of us with good judgement shouldn't be forced to use some "filter" instead.
That it is. I stand corrected.
This CNN article may shed some light on that inquiry. In China, all users of crypto were supposed to "register" with the gov't in some little federal office somewhere. Well, the 8 million people didn't show up to register, and no one did much of anything :o).
It wouldn't surprise me if the Russian situation succumbs to the same fate. Most of the time surveillence is just a scare tactic, but citizens have to take each one seriously to defend their privacy.
Oh yeah, that. Well, I'm sure memory transfer will come along some time (wasn't there a /. story on that about a week ago?), but they're getting a bit ahead of themselves.
:o)
Mixing the fictional memory transfer with the (partially) factual cloning method doesn't do alot to convince me. It makes the whole thing seem convoluted and idealistic.
So, in closing, I think the whole thing is either a hoax or a scam.
...but not far removed, either. If you take a look at the EFF site, there's a link to H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice Bill. If you remember the CDA, this should be old hat.
Exhibit A:
SEC. 1402. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.
Exhibit B:
Senate version, 401-406 - formation of industry cartel to restrict access to First Amendment-protected content that some find offensive.
Exhibit C:
Senate version, Section 1504 - mandatory ISP provision of filters
Yeah, we're not logging it yet. BFD. Prohibiting information from libraries/public institutions and forcing private companies to comply is a giant step toward Russia's situation. In fact, logging that information is the next logical step toward compliance with censorship. Before we sit back and laugh at Russia, let's take a good look here at home (in the US).
What I found most disturbing was the horribly misguided and downright scary quote at the bottom of the page:
"Cloning will enable mankind to reach eternal life. The next step, like the ELOHIM with their 25,000 years of scientific advance, will be to directly clone an adult person without having to go through the growth process and to transfer memory and personality in this person. Then, we wake up after death in a brand new body just like after a good night sleep!
Cloning produces a genetically identical copy of an individual, not a consciouslly identical person, as you stated. Clones would differ only in the method of their birth, and in the psychological effects of having an older version of him/her. Not too different from twins, except for the fact that it didn't occur naturally. But I digress.
Its pretty scary to see a group of people who believe cloning is the ultimate answer to our problems as a species. This view contrasts strangely to the overcrowding, overpopulation, and starvation present in many areas of the world. I would chalk it up to just another cult, but I can more than vaguely identify with the way they cling to and are dependent upon others. It says a lot about a species when it is not only able to recreate itself, but is also (at least partially) willing and even eager to.
In the 106th Congress, we have:
Whew. That wasn't that bad, now was it.
Sure, we could do this - I'm not a laywer, but this is similar to the way NDAs work. NDAs just work on a much smaller scale.
But why would we want to submit to this? The DVD-CCA and the DMCA already seek to limit (and to a good extent succeed at limiting) the rights of consumers to use the product they purchased as they see fit. The movie studios and copyright enforcers have some pretty big delusions that consumers are buying "licensed intellectual property". Granted, commercial redistribution should be illegal, but a VHS or DVD purchase is a convienence purchase, not a $15.95 homage paid to their creativity and intellectual property. IMHO, DVDs (and software for that matter) are more like toasters than contractual agreements - you buy it, its yours. If you want to microwave it or something, feel free.
By restricting the DeCSS code with a NDA, we'd be a logical extension of exactly what we're trying to fight - illogical and unfounded restrictions dictating what we can and can't know about our property. The problem is because its in source code form - the DVD-CCA is afraid of the knowledge of their "technology" rather than use of it. It's the fact that they possess the sole knowledge of the encryption scheme that gives them power over consumers and smaller corporations - the power to region-lock movies, the power to artificially drive up prices, the power to extract thousands of dollars from a business for a "key" which offers no benefits.
They fear OpenDVD because it reduces their monopoly and cuts into their already gargantuan botton-line. It's a classic power struggle.
I'm beginning to think that the new site (http://linuxppc.apple.com) is a replacement for their old mklinux project page. Mklinux.apple.com currently has no DNS records (according to squid).
;-)...
The Apple mklinux page was quickly being abandoned anyway - when I was attempting to ressurrect an old NuBus Mac, the really useful page was mklinux.org. It's nice to see them finally move toward the "official" kernel port, even if it doesn't support NuBus
For an open source bot, check out the AliceBot, winner of the Loebner Prize (a Turing Test competition) for this year. The source, in both C and Java form, is released under the GNU GLP.
Check out Nasa's Website, specifically the page on STS-99. The shuttle will be fitted with a large arm, capable of creating high-resolution topographical maps of Earth. The mission is eleven days long and dubbed the "Shuttle Radar Topography Mission".
They mention that one of the motivations for the research is the fact that we currently have better maps of other planets than of our own...
I was just reading a couple days ago that Mandrake, of Enlightenment fame, was helping these guys with the build system and automation of the build process.
This seems to fill a nice gap in free software, right beside Optical character recognition. Even if the quality is subpar (I don't know yet - I haven't looked at it), its still a starting point and a motivator for those who are interested in the field, yet reluctant to start a project from scratch.
Now all I want is GnOCR... heh...
I agree. I read one of the early documents written by the DVD CCA (when they were seeking the preliminary injunction) that was littered with what were purported to be "public opinion" and "expert" comments (coming mainly from this Slashdot thread). Not only were there no human sources attached to them, but they had all kinds of eerie ellipses and edits in them. The CCA took the 3% of the Slashdot posts that were either in favor of the injunction or neutral, and quoted them. One of them was even an AC's "fuck the law" post. That must have looked real good...
;-)
They weren't quite "naked and petrified" posts, but they were pretty damn close, at least from a standpoint of content.
This is a joke. This is only a joke. Had this been an actual kernel patch, I probably would have thought about the device creation/usage issue for more than 2 seconds.
/dev entries, kernel modules and the kernel create /proc entries. Big hairy deal. ;-)
Yep, the admin creates
Um... its fake. Doesn't exist. Kidding. Joke. Ha ha.
Uptime.o creates a
To use, simply run insmod uptime, and then echo the number of seconds of your uptime to
Never become the target of low uptime jokes again! Download uptime.o today - amaze your friends, terrify your enemies, and become king of all that is Linux!
- Hat (with too much time on his hands)
I could have sworn there were bugs just like this under IIS 4.0 for Windows NT 4.0. Vulnerability in IIS... blah blah... access to page source... blah... sensitive data... blah. Do they even migrate their previous fixes to their development code?
According to the article, Mitnick only got five years. Even relatively weak (and 5-year-old) encryption held off "intruders" who had physical access to the data. Anyone willing to bet he would have received a few more had the data been left unencrypted? Mitnick should take the loss - what could the Feds want with the key other than to use it to lay on more charges?
On a side note, are there any legal precedents or restrictions regarding how long Federal officials are allowed to hold confiscated equipment/data? I've heard stories of equipment being kept even with no charges being filed...
You're the best. Now we need a "Roblimo" award to go along with that "Hemos" award. I'd have an easier time deciding *that* one ;-)
The focus is on DOS because Jim Hall is the project leader/coordinator of the FreeDOS project, a GPL emulation of DOS. It's a free product, a free license, and a free interview - and I'll take one free interview over no free interviews any day. Also, If anyone has ever had to work around DOS before (and I'm sure we all have), reading answers from someone who knows its internals is pretty exciting stuff, even if its architecture is a few years old ;-).
So, its not worth complaining about the topic. The focus is on DOS because (DOS = OS history) and (OS history = interesting), at least in this forum.
The HTML got clobbered around question #7 (sob... and that was my question... sniff). Is there any way to correct this to make it a bit easier to read?
;-)
If the answer is "deal with it", I'm sure I'll get over it eventually
Heh... We can even slashdot servers that *don't* exist... :)