When was the last time a 2.0 series kernel was released with a new patch?
According to The Linux Kernel Archives, the last release of the 2.0 kernel, 2.0.39, was released on 9 Jan 2001 (2 years ago this Friday). However, 2.0.40-rc6 (release candidate 6) was released 25 Jun 2002, which implies that 2.0.40 should be released any day now:)
I know this is supposed to be funny and all, but Windows 98 still runs on top of DOS. So does Windows ME. Therefore, technically, a Windows 98 user is an MS-DOS user.
The first consumer grade OS from Microsoft that's finally free of the DOS legacy is Windows XP Home Edition.
Apparently, the war in Afghanistan was largely due to the desire for an oil pipeline to gain access to the Caspian Sea resources, and had been planned as far back as 1992:
Linking to the World Socialist Web Site doesn't exactly lend you any credibility. Besides, it's more than 2 years later, where's the oil pipeline?
This is why the U.S was able to go to war in Afghanistan within weeks - detailed war plans had already been finalized - while it took well over a year to get ready for war in Iraq.
Some common sense is in order here. First, the US military had detailed war plans for Iraq in 1990, and they've been in the region ever since. The Pentagon has detailed war plans for a wide variety of possible contingencies, and updates them regularly, as situations change.
Second, after 9/11, world opinion was on our side. More countries supported our effort in Afghanistan than Iraq, even without UN approval. Due to the diplomatic quagmire, Bush spent an entire year trying to gain support for the Iraq war.
Third, time was much more crucial in Afghanistan. If we had made large scale preparations and a force build-up before Afghanistan, most of al-Qaeda would have left, and we'd have captured even less of them.
And finally, the Taliban didn't have any decent military capability to speak of. Our own troops weren't even really engaged in ground combat, they served mostly as advisors and spotters for airstrikes. Iraq, however, used to have a fairly capable military, and if they'd stayed to fight we probably would've needed even more forces in-country.
Its a conservative theocracy, yes, but believe it or not the people wanted it that way.
Key word here being wanted, as in past tense.
The Shah was pretty oppressive, living in luxury, and using the SAVAK (his secret police) to stay in power. The people of Iran just wanted change. The revolution was an odd pairing between Islamic fundamentalists and liberal reformers. But the honeymoon didn't last long, and the Islamists turned out to be just as oppressive as the Shah.
The people of Iran elected a pro-reform president in 1997, Muhammad Khatami, and overwhelmingly re-elected him in 2001. Unfortunately, his administration's decisions can, and routinely are, vetoed by the ruling religious leaders. In the last year or so there have been lots of protests and demonstrations in Iran. But, they're usually broken up by armed Islamist thugs.
The situation is hopeful though. There's lots of international attention on Iran. A female Iranian human rights lawyer won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. And Iran seems to be cooperating with UN inspectors regarding their nuclear program. Also, there are lots of Iranian blogs, both Farsi and English, so information seems to be getting out, without being censored.
That's Arab culture, not Islamic culture. Arabic culture encourages women (and people in general, really) to be fully covered*.
* Interestingly, part of the reason why this is required is because of the desert climate of Arab countries. Not covering up is a good way to get burned by the sun. Other Islamic traditions have similar origins in desert life. There are restrictions against eating ham, because historically, ham goes bad extremely quickly in desert climates.
Veiling is neither an Arab or Islamic tradition. Women in pre-Islamic Arabia were oppressed (as in most of the world), but were not required to be veiled. Islam actually gave women much greater rights and privileges originally. The origin of veiling was from outside influence, possibly Persian upper-class custom.
Also, your reason for the prohibition on eating pork may be right, but not for Islam. It was already a law for Jews for millenia, and one of the Jewish practices incorporated into Islam. (FYI: Another one was prescribed prayer. At first, Muslims prayed 3 times a day towards Jerusalem, like the Jews. But after a conflict with some Jewish tribes in Medina, it was changed to 5 times a day towards Mecca.)
In Islamic countries outside of the Arab regions, there are no such restrictions. Islamic women in India and Bangladesh, for example, do not cover their faces. Indeed, traditional dresses often expose the midriff and lower back.
Remember the pictures from Taliban-era Afghanistan? Most Afghans are Muslim, but they're not Arab. They were even stricter than the Gulf Arabs, who allow womens' eyes to be visible. Also, there are plenty of Arab countries that don't require women to be veiled at all.
Arabic, on the other hand, speaks them from right to left.
No, numbers are an exception to the direction of writing and speaking in Arabic. It's a right to left script, except numbers are written and spoken left to right, and the tens and ones places are reversed (similar to German and Dutch I learned elsewhere in these comments).
Persians didn't adopt the Arabic script for their language until after their conversion to Islam. I have no idea what they used before that.
On a related note, the Turks also adopted the Arabic script after converting to Islam, but Turkey changed to the Latin alphabet in 1922, and the Turkic countries in Central Asia adopted the Cyrillic alphabet after Russia conquered them. I think some of the Central Asian countries switched back to Arabic script after independence from the USSR.
As far as speaking is concerned, I don't know whether they say the biggest figures first or in the order they come when read right to left - any Arabic (or other RTL-language) speakers around to comment?
Arabic is written right to left, except numbers, which are written and spoken left to right. The exception is the order of the tens and ones places, which are reversed. From reading the rest of this thread, I find it interesting that German and Dutch are the same way.
I now wonder if Vandenberg has an air strip. It's probably not long enough if they do, but maybe they will make an aircraft carrier version of the Space Shuttle some day.
Yes, they have a 15,000 ft runway designed for shuttle landings. But, like SLC-6, it was never used.
Fun trivia fact, the runway at Vandenburg is the same length as at Edwards, but actually a few feet wider. Therefore it's the largest paved runway in the world. (Edwards has a much longer unoaved runway though, about 9 miles long.) Ironically, the only aircraft at Vandenburg are a few UH-1 helicopters and private aircraft from the Aero Club.
I don't think France would allow Santa overflight anyway. Since they're seriously considering a ban on head scarves, yarmulkes, and large crucifixes, I doubt they would take kindly to the celebration of religious holidays.
If you're going to be pedantic the King James Bible wasn't "written in several-hundred-year-old English". It was written in completely contemporary, up-to-date English, several hundred years ago.
Contemporary English for when it was written, 1611. One of the few things I distinctly remember from my trip to the newly opened British Library, is how archaic and foreign the English looked in the original King James Bible. I could barely make out any of the words by themselves, it was only in context that I could tell what some of the words might be in modern English.
Since it sounds like you're in London, do yourself a favor and go check it out at the British Library. It's a good museum in general.
To each and every corporate KDE user, UserLinux has become effectively worthless in one fell swoop.
If a corporation is already using Linux and KDE, UserLinux isn't intended for them. It's being developed to attract corporations who aren't using Linux on the desktop yet.
You've taken some leaps of logic in your post that don't stand up under scrutiny.
Don't forget that the war was started on the premise that there were weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's possession. He doesn't have any.
I think it's safe to assume Saddam doesn't have any WMDs today, since he's in US custody. However, it would be very bold to assert he didn't have any before the war.
When the UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998, it was virtually undisputed that Iraq still had chemical and/or biological weapons. What happened to them since then is still a mystery. But Saddam offered no evidence that he destroyed them, and blocked efforts of inspectors at every turn.
Despite what the headlines would have you believe, the main point of the David Kay report a few weeks back was not that we haven't found any WMDs yet. In fact, it told that Iraq had been purposefully deceptive in its dealings with inspectors, and actively engaged in efforts to acquire technology for banned missiles and precursors to chemical weapons. Besides, Kay's team had only searched 10 of the 130 suspected WMD sites at that point.
Let's also not forget that American people who drive SUV's were labeled supporters of terrorism because they use more gas.
Only by people on the extreme left.
And don't forget that people who do drugs are also supporting terrorism.
Only by people on the extreme right.
Yeah right. Lots of lies and lots of the media slanting what is really going on in Iraq.
Correct, mostly painting a much bleaker picture than the steady progress and overwhelming success thus far.
That said, I'm still glad Saddam is out of power, but let's not forget the wool the American media and president pulled over their people's eyes to get what they want.
Much of the American media didn't support the war. In fact, the largest and most influential papers--like the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times--explicitly opposed war in Iraq in their editorial pages.
And let's not hold it against countries who've stood up for what *they* think is right, even amidst global pressure.
The country most fitting of this description would be the US.
The US broke the rules, and they should not _expect_ anybody to back them because of that.
What rules did we break? And of course we didn't expect backing from certain countries. That's why Bush didn't go back to the UN Security Council for another resolution. First, because it wasn't required, as we had the necessary authorization from 1441. Second, because no matter how much evidence or justification, France had already declared their intention to veto any resolution.
Yes many Parisians do come across of arogant but then so do many Americans.
But, just like any stereotype, it's not absolute, and usually a gross exaggeration.
All I know is that I would rather walk hand in hand with my girl friend down the Champs Elise wearing a pentacle than doing the same on a major street in Washington.
But in Washington DC, you getting mugged would have nothing to do with any religious symbol you're wearing. It's just that there's much, much more crime in DC.
Can you honestly say that I could stick a pin in a map of the US and then go there and know I would be safe being myself?
Probably, the US has people of every conceivable belief, color, ethnicity, orientation, class, and appearance that you could imagine (and many you couldn't). It truly is a melting pot, with every color of the rainbow, and people from both ends of the spectrum and every point in between.
I think a larger distinction than the country you're in would be whether it's an urban or rural environment. In any major city in the world, there are usually people of many different groups, going about their own lives. For the most part they don't get upset at what other people are doing, as long as it doesn't adversely effect them. However, in rural areas like small towns or farming communities, people who dress or act differently are more liable to stand out, and be shunned or rejected.
No, but so far I'm batting 1.000
What does that mean in English? I don't get the reference.
He's referring to the batting average in baseball, a ratio of hits over number of times at bat. A 1.000 batting average is perfect. Most Major League Baseball (MLB) players bat under 0.300, the highest for the 2003 season was 0.359, and the highest for any season ever was 0.426 in 1901.
Why do people always swallow the "at considerable taxpayer expense" line that is thrown about whenever an adventurer is rescued at sea?
Did you read this part of the article the parent poster linked to?
It was Mr Shekhdar's second rescue in four weeks and will cost around $100,000.
I'm glad governments have search and rescue capabilities, but this guy doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. His second rescue was within a month of being rescued for the same reason!
Naval vessels cost a lot to run whether they are at sea or not. Salaries are paid, maintenance is carried out. More often than not these rescues provide real life training for the crews that is not possible in simulations. Actual cost is nil, it means things are done (eg training) out of schedule - but they would be done anyway.
Again, did you read this part?
National Rescue Co-ordination Centre spokesman Paul Harrison said the 10-hour Orion flight would cost about $100,000, which was not recoverable.
The ship may have been at sea regardless, but a 10 hr flight in any aircraft is expensive and would've been unnecessary. I wouldn't be surprised if rescuers ignore his calls for help in the future.
Re:Aerospace analysts are always too optimistic
on
The Future of Flight
·
· Score: 1
I just checked, it just says over mach 3.0... clearly it's the fastest over long distances.
Go back to the FAS article I linked to before, and scroll down to the section titled Specifications. It clearly says Speed: over Mach 3.2 / 2,000 mph (3,200 kph).
Not so much any more. The operating manual limits it to mach 3.2; you should download it and check it out. So far as I know, the highest measured speed of the SR-71 is below that of the Mig-25 foxbat; but the two are very close.
You mean this? First, it lists the status of pages 4-150 through 4-160: Still classified. Second, according to the cover, it's for the SR-71A. In addition, the forward says it applies to the SR-71B as well (which is merely a 2-seat version of the A model). This doesn't cover the latest C model, let alone the A-12 or YF-12. Finally, the page for Airspeed in the Operating Limitations section lists Mach 3.2 as the design Mach number, while recommending Mach 3.17 not be exceeded in normal operations. However, it specifically allows flight at Mach 3.3 when authorized by the commander, as long as a Compressor Inlet Temperature of 427 degrees F is not exceeded.
Of course, the SR-71 can cruise at mach 3, so over long distance it easily trounces the Mig, but over short distances it seems that the Mig just edges it; by a precious few miles per hour. I think that Guinness didn't know which one was faster, but I'm not aware of any evidence that the SR-71 was actually faster. There are plenty of rumours of course...
You must not have read my links to the FAI. They gave the record breaking airspeeds by both aircraft, although not the Mach numbers. I'll repeat them here:
E-266 (i.e. Mig-25 with bigger engines): 2605.10 km/h (1618.73 mph)
SR-71: 3367.22 km/h (2092.29 mph)
The Mach number is dependent on altitude (indirectly though, it's truly dependent on air density, which decreases with altitude). But regardless, the SR-71 is clearly faster than the Mig-25.
Re:Aerospace analysts are always too optimistic
on
The Future of Flight
·
· Score: 1
Ah hem. The MIG-25 used jet engines...
Standard production Mig-25s had jet engines. Many of the Mig-25s used for breaking records were often either rocket-powered or rocket-assisted, like the E-266.
Ok, so it trashed its engines each time it did mach 3.2:-), but nevertherless as I understand it, it just barely holds the record over the SR-71. The difference is that the SR-71 can keep up it's speed for hours; whereas the MIG-25 needs an engine rebuild after a few minutes at those speeds.
The Guinness Book of World Records, which is meticulous in verifying records, lists the SR-71 as the Fastest Jet. They have a separate category for the Mig-25, Fastest Combat Jet. According to this, the SR-71's top speed is over Mach 3.2. Its actual top speed is still classified.
The Groklaw article has this gem of a quote by an Australian security professional, Steve McInerney:
Speaking as a Sysadmin/Firewall guy, my first priority in any attack is to solve the problem - not issue a press release.
He also discovered that their ftp site--which is on the same subnet as their website, and very likely the same physical network--is still highly responsive. If this DDOS attack was real, their bandwidth would be very limited to the ftp site as well as just the website.
Right, I've got an Agenda also, but that's not what the parent poster is talking about.
What he's saying is that the source code distribution for XFree86 is way too big. Rather than separate the libraries, X server, applications, and everything else into separate tarballs, they release the entire source tree at once.
Freedesktop is working on splitting the X server out as its own separate release.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is supposed to be funny and all, but Windows 98 still runs on top of DOS. So does Windows ME. Therefore, technically, a Windows 98 user is an MS-DOS user.
The first consumer grade OS from Microsoft that's finally free of the DOS legacy is Windows XP Home Edition.
This article makes a good argument that Tony Blair is the "good cop" to George W Bush's "bad cop."
Some common sense is in order here. First, the US military had detailed war plans for Iraq in 1990, and they've been in the region ever since. The Pentagon has detailed war plans for a wide variety of possible contingencies, and updates them regularly, as situations change.
Second, after 9/11, world opinion was on our side. More countries supported our effort in Afghanistan than Iraq, even without UN approval. Due to the diplomatic quagmire, Bush spent an entire year trying to gain support for the Iraq war.
Third, time was much more crucial in Afghanistan. If we had made large scale preparations and a force build-up before Afghanistan, most of al-Qaeda would have left, and we'd have captured even less of them.
And finally, the Taliban didn't have any decent military capability to speak of. Our own troops weren't even really engaged in ground combat, they served mostly as advisors and spotters for airstrikes. Iraq, however, used to have a fairly capable military, and if they'd stayed to fight we probably would've needed even more forces in-country.
The Shah was pretty oppressive, living in luxury, and using the SAVAK (his secret police) to stay in power. The people of Iran just wanted change. The revolution was an odd pairing between Islamic fundamentalists and liberal reformers. But the honeymoon didn't last long, and the Islamists turned out to be just as oppressive as the Shah.
The people of Iran elected a pro-reform president in 1997, Muhammad Khatami, and overwhelmingly re-elected him in 2001. Unfortunately, his administration's decisions can, and routinely are, vetoed by the ruling religious leaders. In the last year or so there have been lots of protests and demonstrations in Iran. But, they're usually broken up by armed Islamist thugs.
The situation is hopeful though. There's lots of international attention on Iran. A female Iranian human rights lawyer won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. And Iran seems to be cooperating with UN inspectors regarding their nuclear program. Also, there are lots of Iranian blogs, both Farsi and English, so information seems to be getting out, without being censored.
Also, your reason for the prohibition on eating pork may be right, but not for Islam. It was already a law for Jews for millenia, and one of the Jewish practices incorporated into Islam. (FYI: Another one was prescribed prayer. At first, Muslims prayed 3 times a day towards Jerusalem, like the Jews. But after a conflict with some Jewish tribes in Medina, it was changed to 5 times a day towards Mecca.)
Remember the pictures from Taliban-era Afghanistan? Most Afghans are Muslim, but they're not Arab. They were even stricter than the Gulf Arabs, who allow womens' eyes to be visible. Also, there are plenty of Arab countries that don't require women to be veiled at all.
Persians didn't adopt the Arabic script for their language until after their conversion to Islam. I have no idea what they used before that.
On a related note, the Turks also adopted the Arabic script after converting to Islam, but Turkey changed to the Latin alphabet in 1922, and the Turkic countries in Central Asia adopted the Cyrillic alphabet after Russia conquered them. I think some of the Central Asian countries switched back to Arabic script after independence from the USSR.
Fun trivia fact, the runway at Vandenburg is the same length as at Edwards, but actually a few feet wider. Therefore it's the largest paved runway in the world. (Edwards has a much longer unoaved runway though, about 9 miles long.) Ironically, the only aircraft at Vandenburg are a few UH-1 helicopters and private aircraft from the Aero Club.
I don't think France would allow Santa overflight anyway. Since they're seriously considering a ban on head scarves, yarmulkes, and large crucifixes, I doubt they would take kindly to the celebration of religious holidays.
Since it sounds like you're in London, do yourself a favor and go check it out at the British Library. It's a good museum in general.
See the graph on this page.
I think it's safe to assume Saddam doesn't have any WMDs today, since he's in US custody. However, it would be very bold to assert he didn't have any before the war.
When the UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998, it was virtually undisputed that Iraq still had chemical and/or biological weapons. What happened to them since then is still a mystery. But Saddam offered no evidence that he destroyed them, and blocked efforts of inspectors at every turn.
Despite what the headlines would have you believe, the main point of the David Kay report a few weeks back was not that we haven't found any WMDs yet. In fact, it told that Iraq had been purposefully deceptive in its dealings with inspectors, and actively engaged in efforts to acquire technology for banned missiles and precursors to chemical weapons. Besides, Kay's team had only searched 10 of the 130 suspected WMD sites at that point.
Only by people on the extreme left.
Only by people on the extreme right.
Correct, mostly painting a much bleaker picture than the steady progress and overwhelming success thus far.
Much of the American media didn't support the war. In fact, the largest and most influential papers--like the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times--explicitly opposed war in Iraq in their editorial pages.
The country most fitting of this description would be the US.
What rules did we break? And of course we didn't expect backing from certain countries. That's why Bush didn't go back to the UN Security Council for another resolution. First, because it wasn't required, as we had the necessary authorization from 1441. Second, because no matter how much evidence or justification, France had already declared their intention to veto any resolution.
"hajib" should be hijab.
But in Washington DC, you getting mugged would have nothing to do with any religious symbol you're wearing. It's just that there's much, much more crime in DC.
Probably, the US has people of every conceivable belief, color, ethnicity, orientation, class, and appearance that you could imagine (and many you couldn't). It truly is a melting pot, with every color of the rainbow, and people from both ends of the spectrum and every point in between.
I think a larger distinction than the country you're in would be whether it's an urban or rural environment. In any major city in the world, there are usually people of many different groups, going about their own lives. For the most part they don't get upset at what other people are doing, as long as it doesn't adversely effect them. However, in rural areas like small towns or farming communities, people who dress or act differently are more liable to stand out, and be shunned or rejected.
He's referring to the batting average in baseball, a ratio of hits over number of times at bat. A 1.000 batting average is perfect. Most Major League Baseball (MLB) players bat under 0.300, the highest for the 2003 season was 0.359, and the highest for any season ever was 0.426 in 1901.
You mean this? First, it lists the status of pages 4-150 through 4-160: Still classified. Second, according to the cover, it's for the SR-71A. In addition, the forward says it applies to the SR-71B as well (which is merely a 2-seat version of the A model). This doesn't cover the latest C model, let alone the A-12 or YF-12. Finally, the page for Airspeed in the Operating Limitations section lists Mach 3.2 as the design Mach number, while recommending Mach 3.17 not be exceeded in normal operations. However, it specifically allows flight at Mach 3.3 when authorized by the commander, as long as a Compressor Inlet Temperature of 427 degrees F is not exceeded.
You must not have read my links to the FAI. They gave the record breaking airspeeds by both aircraft, although not the Mach numbers. I'll repeat them here:
- E-266 (i.e. Mig-25 with bigger engines): 2605.10 km/h (1618.73 mph)
- SR-71: 3367.22 km/h (2092.29 mph)
The Mach number is dependent on altitude (indirectly though, it's truly dependent on air density, which decreases with altitude). But regardless, the SR-71 is clearly faster than the Mig-25.The US clocked a Mig-25 over Israel flying Mach 3.2 in 1973, but like you said, its engines were completely destroyed (beyond a simple rebuild I think).
The Guinness Book of World Records, which is meticulous in verifying records, lists the SR-71 as the Fastest Jet. They have a separate category for the Mig-25, Fastest Combat Jet. According to this, the SR-71's top speed is over Mach 3.2. Its actual top speed is still classified.
According to the organization that certifies aviation world records, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale, the SR-71 still holds the Absolute record for Speed over a closed circuit. The Mig-25 has no records listed, but its variants the E-266 and E-266M still hold some current records.
One record the E-266 still holds is Speed over a closed circuit of 100 km without payload, at 2605.10 km/h. I'd assume the SR-71 wasn't even submitted in this category, since its record in the category Speed over a closed circuit of 1000 km without payload of 3367.22 km/h greatly surpasses the other record, and over a longer distance.
Snopes has examined that photo, and a similar one with former President Clinton. Read their analysis here.
He also discovered that their ftp site--which is on the same subnet as their website, and very likely the same physical network--is still highly responsive. If this DDOS attack was real, their bandwidth would be very limited to the ftp site as well as just the website.
But the researchers in Anarctica have backup plans. This guy obviously didn't think this through very well, and had no backup plan at all.
Right, I've got an Agenda also, but that's not what the parent poster is talking about.
What he's saying is that the source code distribution for XFree86 is way too big. Rather than separate the libraries, X server, applications, and everything else into separate tarballs, they release the entire source tree at once.
Freedesktop is working on splitting the X server out as its own separate release.