A PCjr with cartridge BASIC. Back then all of the listings in Byte Magazine were for Commodore's and Apple II's. I had to translate them to PC basic. Fortunately IBM provided a nice fat 3 ring binder with the entire language.
The machine was neat because back in 1981 it had 3 channel sound! I was born in late 1974, you do the math.
What was the IP address of that XP server that's been running on autopilot for 5 months again?
Really, I find Web Browsing is my a#1 source of crashes. Even under Linux. Though by crash I mean the browser locks up, dies, and I restart if from my otherwise unperterbed desktop. The only time I really manage to kill a linux box is doing something hardware related using experimental software.
What about an uber-specialized applicance like a PS/2 that CAN play Vice City without crashing... well not crashing often. Ok, well at least without destroying anything in the process of crashing and without forcing me to upgrade to YET another version of DirectX. Of course the upgrade to DirectX somehow whomps the drivers for my dirt old ATI all-in-wonder card, and upgrading the driver to that takes out DVD playback under windows media player...
Software will not stop breaking until it stops relying on a rigid structure. Unix is relatively stable because after 30 years it still resembles a large puddle of water.
Each program is like a pebble. Small, easily handled, and not easily broken. Where have our greatest problems been? In large libraries like Glibc and GTK, where massive rigid structures are created. Once you have a large rigid structure, it is difficult to change it without destroying everything attached to it.
I think the future of programming is not with large object-oriented systems. I think the future is with scripts tying together elemental components. Yes they are "ugly". But they work. Indeed, they tend to work for years, accepting change.
The only computer systems that can create novel solutions to problems are genetic algorithems and nueral networks. Both operate by sucking slightly less over successive generations of random trials.
Assuming you did get a computer of human intelligence, what would make it better than a human human? It would still be processing the same incomplete information. It would still have the same learning process. The only difference would be the medium through which the thoughts were processed.
I have no doubt that at some point we are going to develop sentient machines. I think we are going to find they are monsterously expensive to produce, take 20 years to train properly, and hardly an improvement over a human mind. Indeed, at least a human can draw on life experiences. Plus we are so cheap to make.
I'm told the Network stack for Windows 2000 was "largely based on" BSD's. However, BSD is free and clear of any IP claims. Novel largely LOST a similar "They stole my ideas suit" back in 1993. BSD yanked 3 files, and Novell was barred from any further litigation.
It should be noted that Berkley was pondering a countersuit, claiming that Novel's code lifted large portions from BSD without copyrights or attributions.
Why will the Matrix fail if Neo takes the door to save Trinity?
The matrix will "fail" to the machines because the conditions in the system are outside of the design parameters. Remember, the computers are a strictly end-sum mentality (and the ones the show any creativity are exiled.)
The problem is that the folks in Zion are getting too good at freeing minds, and Neo has this habit of completely breaking the rules in very public displays. Too many people questioning the program breaks the program.
Why can't Neo save trinity and then deal with the Architect - and take her with him to start the new Zion?
Neo can't because no one in Zion can know that there ever was a Zion previous to the present one. Granted they could wipe her mind, but they would not really be "saving" Trinity now would it?
Why does the Architect put Neo in so much danger if he is required to keep the matrix stable? Why not just kill him in Zion?
Because his whole job is to be a level of control over those that think they are in control. From the start of Zion, the inhabitants are fed this prophesy. Neo is the fulfillment of the Prophesy. Neo is also the signal that things are getting way out of control and it's time to hit Zion with a can of RAID.
Why does the Matrix need to use Zion to deal with the anomaly?
Zion is what we would call a honeypot. It keeps the hackers busy exerting "control" over a completely controlled environment, and more importantly, away from anything that is really important.
Zion, the prophesy, and the war all ensure that anyone with revolutionary thoughts is kept sufficiently busy as to not have time to see the world for what it truely is.
How does having Neo start a new Zion temporarily fix the anomaly?
This is a level of control over the level of control. The idea is to keep the one person who sees through the second level of control so busy starting a civilization that he/she never questions the world beyond the world.
The meaning of what you have to say is inversely proportional to the amount of words required to express it completely.
Philosophy is supposed to help the human mind comprehend the world. Thus a philosophy, rightly or wrongly, needs to operate withing the limitations of a human mind of average intelligence.
At the very least you need to be able the explain you philosophy it to the people of average intelligence who are paying you to think it up.
I'm glad I wasn't the only person who understood the whole damn movie. I had to explain, at length, all of the rules of the game to everyone in the group I was with.
Okay, well my background in Computer Engineering, OS Design, and a brief stint coding military simulations probably helped.
On the contrary. I felt the movie was far too deep. The characterizations were a bit stiff and woody, because everyone in the movie was actually being playing along to a higher script.
You really can't be told the plotline of Reloaded. You have to see it for yourself.
Self correction: System 5 had 4 releases. The latest was in 1989. Several patents may well apply, assuming that IBM can't produce a reciept of purchase.;)
US Copyright Act, Section 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
Even if code snippets were somehow copyrightable, you have to prove that the a large proportion of the work involved was scooped from the infringed source and/or a large part of the infringed source was dumped into the derived work.
If SCO is talking about a line or two of code, even (gasp) a function, AND assuming that this particular part was not subject to the GPL after SCO released SCO Linux and/or Caldera, they have to show that a large chuck of that part Linux was stolen from SCO, or Linux contains most of SCO's code.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been accused of being one on enough occasions.
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work
In other words, you can copyright a binary, or you can copyright the actual printout of the code (verbatim.) You cannot however copyright any workalike code.
As far as patent infringement goes, they would have a leg to stand on if they were to prove which specific patents they were seeking to enforce. Given the System V was released in 1983, any and all patents on System V expired in the year 2000. Worst case scenario, they were pending for 2 years, and would have expired in 2002.
Considering IBM's license to all of that technology is an established fact long before any of the events described, I think SCO is going to find itself in the hurt box if this case is placed before a Judge.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheese!? You must not remember the time before computers had mice!
The machine was neat because back in 1981 it had 3 channel sound! I was born in late 1974, you do the math.
Really, I find Web Browsing is my a#1 source of crashes. Even under Linux. Though by crash I mean the browser locks up, dies, and I restart if from my otherwise unperterbed desktop. The only time I really manage to kill a linux box is doing something hardware related using experimental software.
What about an uber-specialized applicance like a PS/2 that CAN play Vice City without crashing... well not crashing often. Ok, well at least without destroying anything in the process of crashing and without forcing me to upgrade to YET another version of DirectX. Of course the upgrade to DirectX somehow whomps the drivers for my dirt old ATI all-in-wonder card, and upgrading the driver to that takes out DVD playback under windows media player...
Each program is like a pebble. Small, easily handled, and not easily broken. Where have our greatest problems been? In large libraries like Glibc and GTK, where massive rigid structures are created. Once you have a large rigid structure, it is difficult to change it without destroying everything attached to it.
I think the future of programming is not with large object-oriented systems. I think the future is with scripts tying together elemental components. Yes they are "ugly". But they work. Indeed, they tend to work for years, accepting change.
In the process you have also probably generated a segmentation fault. Hmmm. Nirvana in a core dump...
Of course it the application is the inittab it is still subject to the endless cycle of crash an restart.
(Digging through my pile of vulnerabilities...)
Say, could we get an address on that box? Muhuahahahaha
My uptime is largely limited by kernel upgrades and the fact I cycle the power once per month to prevent the drive head from sticking.
Assuming you did get a computer of human intelligence, what would make it better than a human human? It would still be processing the same incomplete information. It would still have the same learning process. The only difference would be the medium through which the thoughts were processed.
I have no doubt that at some point we are going to develop sentient machines. I think we are going to find they are monsterously expensive to produce, take 20 years to train properly, and hardly an improvement over a human mind. Indeed, at least a human can draw on life experiences. Plus we are so cheap to make.
It should be noted that Berkley was pondering a countersuit, claiming that Novel's code lifted large portions from BSD without copyrights or attributions.
You are right. There are a hell of a lot more than 43 morons in the conversation topic.
The matrix will "fail" to the machines because the conditions in the system are outside of the design parameters. Remember, the computers are a strictly end-sum mentality (and the ones the show any creativity are exiled.)
The problem is that the folks in Zion are getting too good at freeing minds, and Neo has this habit of completely breaking the rules in very public displays. Too many people questioning the program breaks the program. Why can't Neo save trinity and then deal with the Architect - and take her with him to start the new Zion?
Neo can't because no one in Zion can know that there ever was a Zion previous to the present one. Granted they could wipe her mind, but they would not really be "saving" Trinity now would it?
Why does the Architect put Neo in so much danger if he is required to keep the matrix stable? Why not just kill him in Zion?
Because his whole job is to be a level of control over those that think they are in control. From the start of Zion, the inhabitants are fed this prophesy. Neo is the fulfillment of the Prophesy. Neo is also the signal that things are getting way out of control and it's time to hit Zion with a can of RAID.
Why does the Matrix need to use Zion to deal with the anomaly?
Zion is what we would call a honeypot. It keeps the hackers busy exerting "control" over a completely controlled environment, and more importantly, away from anything that is really important.
Zion, the prophesy, and the war all ensure that anyone with revolutionary thoughts is kept sufficiently busy as to not have time to see the world for what it truely is.
How does having Neo start a new Zion temporarily fix the anomaly?
This is a level of control over the level of control. The idea is to keep the one person who sees through the second level of control so busy starting a civilization that he/she never questions the world beyond the world.
That does sound a bit more accurate.
The meaning of what you have to say is inversely proportional to the amount of words required to express it completely.
Philosophy is supposed to help the human mind comprehend the world. Thus a philosophy, rightly or wrongly, needs to operate withing the limitations of a human mind of average intelligence.
At the very least you need to be able the explain you philosophy it to the people of average intelligence who are paying you to think it up.
emerge sync
emerge -u world
(Then of course, run out for coffee.)
You rendered shit in those days with a hell of a lot of PEEK and POKE statements. I would spend days getting the DATA lines all right.
chroot
Think about it, they rebels are always looking for their "exit"
Okay, well my background in Computer Engineering, OS Design, and a brief stint coding military simulations probably helped.
You really can't be told the plotline of Reloaded. You have to see it for yourself.
You had a floppy! Most folks I knew had to run their stuff from Casette tape. And THEY were grateful!
I recall from previous discussions that they do.
Even if code snippets were somehow copyrightable, you have to prove that the a large proportion of the work involved was scooped from the infringed source and/or a large part of the infringed source was dumped into the derived work.
If SCO is talking about a line or two of code, even (gasp) a function, AND assuming that this particular part was not subject to the GPL after SCO released SCO Linux and/or Caldera, they have to show that a large chuck of that part Linux was stolen from SCO, or Linux contains most of SCO's code.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been accused of being one on enough occasions.
From the text of the Copyright act:
In other words, you can copyright a binary, or you can copyright the actual printout of the code (verbatim.) You cannot however copyright any workalike code.
As far as patent infringement goes, they would have a leg to stand on if they were to prove which specific patents they were seeking to enforce. Given the System V was released in 1983, any and all patents on System V expired in the year 2000. Worst case scenario, they were pending for 2 years, and would have expired in 2002.
Considering IBM's license to all of that technology is an established fact long before any of the events described, I think SCO is going to find itself in the hurt box if this case is placed before a Judge.
I still have my Incan Monkey god I would put on the test-bench to ward off evil spirits. He lives in the data center in the basement now.
In the one reported case of a cell phone detonating a service station, the person involved was also smoking a cigarette.