I'd assumed he was a good guy who'd stolen a stormtrooper uniform to infiltrate and/or escape. Though of course they may have expanded their cloning program to include equally capable subjects from varied genetic backgrounds...
"Formally, there is a direct chain of command from the Queen of Canada to the governor general, through the Chief of the Defence Staff to all of the officers who hold the Queen's Commission, and through them, to all members of the Canadian Forces.[7] No other person, including the prime minister, cabinet ministers, nor public servants is part of the chain of command; nor does any other person have any command authority in the Canadian Forces,[8] an arrangement maintained to ensure that "the military is an agent for and not a master of the state."[9] As such, all new recruits into the Canadian Forces are required to recite the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch and his or her heirs and successors. According to the National Defence Act, the use of traitorous or disloyal words towards the reigning king or queen is a service offence and may be punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.[10]"
"Declarations of war, the mobilisation of troops,[11] and the organisation of the forces all fall within the Royal Prerogative; direct parliamentary approval is not necessary for such, though the Cabinet may seek it nonetheless and the Crown-in-Parliament is responsible for allocating moneys necessary to fund the military.[12] The monarch issues letters patent, known as the Queen's Commission, to commissioned officers in the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force.[13] Further, all regulations for the Canadian Forces are set out by the sovereign in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Neither the monarch nor the viceroy, however, involve themselves in direct military command; per constitutional convention, both must almost always exercise the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Cabinet, although the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained.[n 1][14][15][16][17][18][19]"
Note particularly "the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained." I can tell you, as someone who's served in the Canadian military, they make it clear to us that this is the case. If you think that's merely ceremonial in nature, well, it's never been tested (much like withholding Royal Assent has never been tested), but you should know there are definitely some military personnel who would follow orders from the Queen. If you don't think that's a form of actual legal authority, I don't know what is.
They did attack Parliament, and they attacked something symbolic (the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) on the way there. You know? Symbolism? Equally important to terrorists as it is to governments.
You're quite mistaken. She has the power to dissolve parliament, she gives formal assent to all legislation, etc. And, yes, in some circumstances the government can compel you to swear loyalty to her. (For instance, if a draft was instituted, you'd be required to do so to serve in the military. If you declined to do so, you could be jailed instead. And all new citizens are required to swear loyalty to her.) But don't let details get in the way of your rant.
It doesn't seem the researchers took into account another factor: physical fitness. If they had other test subjects run for twenty minutes before starting their day, that'd make a significant difference in their feelings of alertness in the office. Some people drink coffee ultimately because they're out of shape and don't eat properly. These researchers could've had another control group do light aerobics or the like instead of napping or drinking coffee or both, and compared. (I'm sure there are many studies out there that have done something like this; my point is, this study isn't very useful except for the habitually sedentary.)
10.7, the final version that supports that early 2008 MacBook. Apple tends to support a final OS version of a particular hardware generation for a while, at least with respect to security related patches. I noticed when a key exploit had been discovered they patched iOS 6 on some old devices I have that are not supported by iOS 7.
I misunderstood your original statement, because a 2008 MacBook did not come with 10.7 installed, it would've come with 10.5. "My 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X" meant to me "my 2008 MacBook is running what it was originally supplied with". Yes, 10.7 is still supported.
Apple claims hardware is supported for Mavericks where their QA is questionable. For instance, the "Mid/Late 2007" and "Early 2008" MacBook Pro laptops are on the supported hardware list for Mavericks, but had problems with freezing, kernel panics, and such. See for instance this discussion thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5474520.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes,...
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
I think you're confusing the continued availability of old patches for a particular version of OS X versus continued provision of current support. Sure, you can download updates you haven't already applied, but that doesn't mean they're still providing new patches for more recent issues. Given Apple doesn't have any kind of public information on support lifecycles, it kind of clouds the discussion (which may be part of their intent). It's also hard to comment further when you don't say what version of OS X you're running. Certainly 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer supported by Apple.
The problem being, those Macs won't receive security updates from Apple for the full term the users are planning to keep them for. That's one reason I'm no longer an Apple customer. The hardware's great, but the support lifecycle is not only too short, it's not even publicly documented.
I'm not sure why any of them wouldn't, though it's often very project specific as to how they want documentation bugs identified/categorized. For instance, I once reported a documentation error for GCC and asked why they didn't have a general category for such in their Bugzilla. Their answer was that they use a keyword "documentation" and want documentation bugs filed against the specific component (as if it was a software bug), as the developers of the component in question also "own" any documentation issues. Some other projects are similar, or have their own quirks.
The woman narrating the video isn't even consistent with her pronunciation. The last two times she says it, she first goes with the normal "nome" pronunciation, and then she seems to catch herself wanting to do it again, and gets out a half-G sound. I take this as a sign that "guh-nome" isn't the natural or comfortable choice for most native English speakers. (Given the negative response of so many people to the software, this seems somehow apt...)
I'm not sure this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but there are machines that Apple claims are supported by Mavericks which in fact exhibit serious issues. I'm referring specifically to the "Mid/Late 2007" and "Early 2008" MacBook Pro laptops, which are on the supported hardware list for Mavericks, but have problems with freezing, kernel panics, and such. See for instance this discussion thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5474520?start=0&tstart=0
.223 "is considered pitiful, not much more than a varmint round." No, not really. The wounding characteristics of small calibre high velocity ammunition when paired with a weapon that can generate sufficient velocity at the point of impact is hardly "pitiful". 5.56x45mm (or similar ammunition, like the Russian 5.45mm) is capable of creating more damaging wounds than larger rounds in some contexts. The US military (and others) did research on this, and found the traditional rifle rounds used by "gramps" would often pass through bodies cleanly, leaving a relatively small wound. 5.56x45mm was found to often become unstable when it penetrated the body, tumbling and fragmenting, causing wound effects greatly disproportionate to its size. (Have a look under "Performance" here: 5.56x45mm NATO article on Wikipedia.) Paired with the fact it was lighter, and produced much less recoil, you have a potentially more accurate weapon for which more ammunition can be carried, comparatively. (As for why it's not optimal for deer hunting, first of all, the size and physiology of the animal is different, and second, a hunter is supposed to go for a clean kill. A soldier is dealing with people firing back, and the goal is to drop them, not get the perfect shot, as nice is that would be. Use your imagination: in the context of a shooting rampage, which of those scenarios is a closer fit?)
"Compared to what gramps used in WWII or worse, WWI, it's laughable..." First of all, what "gramps" used in WWI and WWII was equivalent, e.g..30-'06 if US military,.303 Enfield if British/Commonwealth, 7.92mm Mauser if German, etc. Not sure where the "or worse" is coming from, that implies a difference. And as for "it's laugable", I've already addressed that above.
I'm surprised that some military trades don't make the top five list, just lumping them together as one. (Though I suppose rest periods might average it out.)
(Please note this is a response to multiple children of this parent posting, not the parent post itself.)
Normally I don't bother to respond to the uninformed commentary that often gets posted on Slashdot, but I couldn't help myself. Here we have multiple people passing off elementary amounts of music theory they've absorbed from somewhere as evidence they have an informed opinion supporting their notion that "populist" classical music is not as "complex" as some rock or rap music (which they haven't offered any examples of).
First of all, we have more than one person claiming that "complex" chords used in rock (infrequently at that) are more "sophisticated" than what was used in classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries. One poster states "Hendrix habitually threw 7ths, 9ths, augmented 4ths into his chords; intervals which (apart from possibly the occasional 7th) Mozart's audiences would never have tolerated." Sevenths are more than "possibly occasional" in Mozart's work: they're pretty fundamental to some progressions. (And dominant seventh chords -- among the most commonly used and "traditional" -- contain augmented fourths.) If someone can't hear that, they're not arguing intelligently, and I would infer they don't really understand what they're listening to. (If they were to say "Hendrix was more baldly obvious about throwing these intervals into his chords", then yes, I would agree.)
Furthermore, to stick with Mozart, consider his String Quartet in Eb, K428. The opening measures feature, yes, a prominent augmented fourth, and further chromatic harmony. (There are more examples where that came from. Some of Mozart's "Haydn quartets" were sent back by the engraver, who thought they were "riddled with errors" because of the dissonances, whole-tone progressions, and such Mozart employed at times.) Of course, Mozart's aim wasn't to create something stark-sounding that didn't resolve, as that would fundamentally not have fit with the overall form he was trying to create.
Ah, yes, musical form, something completely missing from this discussion of "complexity", where people are claiming Mozart, Beethoven, et al. are not "complex" as some random favourites of theirs. Classical music from roughly the time of Haydn on carries a significant component of its dramatic message in its form, that is, how the music is developed over time. A decision made by a composer at one point will potentially have dramatic ramifications minutes later as the piece unfolds. This is rather different from pop music, where typically very simple elements are repeated over and over again, or in the case of some "progressive rock", somewhat simple elements are baldly juxtaposed "with the subtlety of a blowtorch" (to borrow a phrase of a critic mocking Emerson, Lake, and Palmer which I particularly liked -- the phrase, that is). An understanding of form and musical development is much more significant in appreciating the music than the simple recognition of "a few conventional harmonic structures" (misleading as that statement is). (I would also hazard a guess that these posters are not very familiar with 20th/21st century composition that grew out of the classical tradition, but that's another topic.)
Similarly, there are many dissonant progressions in a lot of Baroque music, as the understanding and application of harmony was different in that time, because those composers' idea of musical form was in turn different. Bach was less concerned about resultant harmonic effects than he was with counterpoint.
Ah, yes, counterpoint, something else missing from this discussion. Counterpoint is the art of creating multiple melodies that sound simultaneously. If anyone on here seriously can find a rock song that can compete with Bach's "Art of the Fugue" in terms of complexity (and perhaps more importantly, skill of execution at that level of complexity), and has the ability to convincingly detail their argument, I will eat my socks. Part of the marvel of Bach is what he did with counterpoint while
Also, the Governor General is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, which is an effectively ceremonial role. However, the Commander-in-Chief is obligated to prevent unconstitutional use of Canada's military forces. (Okay, technically the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief, but this role is delegated to the Governor General, who also uses the title.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd assumed he was a good guy who'd stolen a stormtrooper uniform to infiltrate and/or escape. Though of course they may have expanded their cloning program to include equally capable subjects from varied genetic backgrounds...
Since you like Wikipedia, let's go with this:The_Canadian_Crown_and_the_Canadian_Forces.
"Formally, there is a direct chain of command from the Queen of Canada to the governor general, through the Chief of the Defence Staff to all of the officers who hold the Queen's Commission, and through them, to all members of the Canadian Forces.[7] No other person, including the prime minister, cabinet ministers, nor public servants is part of the chain of command; nor does any other person have any command authority in the Canadian Forces,[8] an arrangement maintained to ensure that "the military is an agent for and not a master of the state."[9] As such, all new recruits into the Canadian Forces are required to recite the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch and his or her heirs and successors. According to the National Defence Act, the use of traitorous or disloyal words towards the reigning king or queen is a service offence and may be punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.[10]"
"Declarations of war, the mobilisation of troops,[11] and the organisation of the forces all fall within the Royal Prerogative; direct parliamentary approval is not necessary for such, though the Cabinet may seek it nonetheless and the Crown-in-Parliament is responsible for allocating moneys necessary to fund the military.[12] The monarch issues letters patent, known as the Queen's Commission, to commissioned officers in the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force.[13] Further, all regulations for the Canadian Forces are set out by the sovereign in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Neither the monarch nor the viceroy, however, involve themselves in direct military command; per constitutional convention, both must almost always exercise the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Cabinet, although the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained.[n 1][14][15][16][17][18][19]"
Note particularly "the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained." I can tell you, as someone who's served in the Canadian military, they make it clear to us that this is the case. If you think that's merely ceremonial in nature, well, it's never been tested (much like withholding Royal Assent has never been tested), but you should know there are definitely some military personnel who would follow orders from the Queen. If you don't think that's a form of actual legal authority, I don't know what is.
They did attack Parliament, and they attacked something symbolic (the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) on the way there. You know? Symbolism? Equally important to terrorists as it is to governments.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. She most definitely does have legal authority. Check your facts.
Yes, let's make light of the fact that people just died. Classy. Also: fuck you.
You're quite mistaken. She has the power to dissolve parliament, she gives formal assent to all legislation, etc. And, yes, in some circumstances the government can compel you to swear loyalty to her. (For instance, if a draft was instituted, you'd be required to do so to serve in the military. If you declined to do so, you could be jailed instead. And all new citizens are required to swear loyalty to her.) But don't let details get in the way of your rant.
It doesn't seem the researchers took into account another factor: physical fitness. If they had other test subjects run for twenty minutes before starting their day, that'd make a significant difference in their feelings of alertness in the office. Some people drink coffee ultimately because they're out of shape and don't eat properly. These researchers could've had another control group do light aerobics or the like instead of napping or drinking coffee or both, and compared. (I'm sure there are many studies out there that have done something like this; my point is, this study isn't very useful except for the habitually sedentary.)
10.7, the final version that supports that early 2008 MacBook. Apple tends to support a final OS version of a particular hardware generation for a while, at least with respect to security related patches. I noticed when a key exploit had been discovered they patched iOS 6 on some old devices I have that are not supported by iOS 7.
I misunderstood your original statement, because a 2008 MacBook did not come with 10.7 installed, it would've come with 10.5. "My 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X" meant to me "my 2008 MacBook is running what it was originally supplied with". Yes, 10.7 is still supported.
Apple claims hardware is supported for Mavericks where their QA is questionable. For instance, the "Mid/Late 2007" and "Early 2008" MacBook Pro laptops are on the supported hardware list for Mavericks, but had problems with freezing, kernel panics, and such. See for instance this discussion thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5474520.
Apple does not support their own 2 year old OSes, ...
Two days ago I booted up my 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X. It offered me various patches. Old versions of Mac OS X are supported.
I think you're confusing the continued availability of old patches for a particular version of OS X versus continued provision of current support. Sure, you can download updates you haven't already applied, but that doesn't mean they're still providing new patches for more recent issues. Given Apple doesn't have any kind of public information on support lifecycles, it kind of clouds the discussion (which may be part of their intent). It's also hard to comment further when you don't say what version of OS X you're running. Certainly 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer supported by Apple.
The problem being, those Macs won't receive security updates from Apple for the full term the users are planning to keep them for. That's one reason I'm no longer an Apple customer. The hardware's great, but the support lifecycle is not only too short, it's not even publicly documented.
I'm not sure why any of them wouldn't, though it's often very project specific as to how they want documentation bugs identified/categorized. For instance, I once reported a documentation error for GCC and asked why they didn't have a general category for such in their Bugzilla. Their answer was that they use a keyword "documentation" and want documentation bugs filed against the specific component (as if it was a software bug), as the developers of the component in question also "own" any documentation issues. Some other projects are similar, or have their own quirks.
Actually, most of the major BSDs use the newer rc.d system. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFly BSD all use rc.d. OpenBSD is the hold-out.
The woman narrating the video isn't even consistent with her pronunciation. The last two times she says it, she first goes with the normal "nome" pronunciation, and then she seems to catch herself wanting to do it again, and gets out a half-G sound. I take this as a sign that "guh-nome" isn't the natural or comfortable choice for most native English speakers. (Given the negative response of so many people to the software, this seems somehow apt...)
I'm not sure this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but there are machines that Apple claims are supported by Mavericks which in fact exhibit serious issues. I'm referring specifically to the "Mid/Late 2007" and "Early 2008" MacBook Pro laptops, which are on the supported hardware list for Mavericks, but have problems with freezing, kernel panics, and such. See for instance this discussion thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5474520?start=0&tstart=0
ipfw was replaced by pf in 10.7 Lion. Their man pages sometimes lag, I think. For 10.9, see: ipfw.8 pf.conf.5
.223 "is considered pitiful, not much more than a varmint round." No, not really. The wounding characteristics of small calibre high velocity ammunition when paired with a weapon that can generate sufficient velocity at the point of impact is hardly "pitiful". 5.56x45mm (or similar ammunition, like the Russian 5.45mm) is capable of creating more damaging wounds than larger rounds in some contexts. The US military (and others) did research on this, and found the traditional rifle rounds used by "gramps" would often pass through bodies cleanly, leaving a relatively small wound. 5.56x45mm was found to often become unstable when it penetrated the body, tumbling and fragmenting, causing wound effects greatly disproportionate to its size. (Have a look under "Performance" here: 5.56x45mm NATO article on Wikipedia .) Paired with the fact it was lighter, and produced much less recoil, you have a potentially more accurate weapon for which more ammunition can be carried, comparatively. (As for why it's not optimal for deer hunting, first of all, the size and physiology of the animal is different, and second, a hunter is supposed to go for a clean kill. A soldier is dealing with people firing back, and the goal is to drop them, not get the perfect shot, as nice is that would be. Use your imagination: in the context of a shooting rampage, which of those scenarios is a closer fit?)
"Compared to what gramps used in WWII or worse, WWI, it's laughable..." First of all, what "gramps" used in WWI and WWII was equivalent, e.g. .30-'06 if US military, .303 Enfield if British/Commonwealth, 7.92mm Mauser if German, etc. Not sure where the "or worse" is coming from, that implies a difference. And as for "it's laugable", I've already addressed that above.
I'm surprised that some military trades don't make the top five list, just lumping them together as one. (Though I suppose rest periods might average it out.)
(Please note this is a response to multiple children of this parent posting, not the parent post itself.)
Normally I don't bother to respond to the uninformed commentary that often gets posted on Slashdot, but I couldn't help myself. Here we have multiple people passing off elementary amounts of music theory they've absorbed from somewhere as evidence they have an informed opinion supporting their notion that "populist" classical music is not as "complex" as some rock or rap music (which they haven't offered any examples of).
First of all, we have more than one person claiming that "complex" chords used in rock (infrequently at that) are more "sophisticated" than what was used in classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries. One poster states "Hendrix habitually threw 7ths, 9ths, augmented 4ths into his chords; intervals which (apart from possibly the occasional 7th) Mozart's audiences would never have tolerated." Sevenths are more than "possibly occasional" in Mozart's work: they're pretty fundamental to some progressions. (And dominant seventh chords -- among the most commonly used and "traditional" -- contain augmented fourths.) If someone can't hear that, they're not arguing intelligently, and I would infer they don't really understand what they're listening to. (If they were to say "Hendrix was more baldly obvious about throwing these intervals into his chords", then yes, I would agree.)
Furthermore, to stick with Mozart, consider his String Quartet in Eb, K428. The opening measures feature, yes, a prominent augmented fourth, and further chromatic harmony. (There are more examples where that came from. Some of Mozart's "Haydn quartets" were sent back by the engraver, who thought they were "riddled with errors" because of the dissonances, whole-tone progressions, and such Mozart employed at times.) Of course, Mozart's aim wasn't to create something stark-sounding that didn't resolve, as that would fundamentally not have fit with the overall form he was trying to create.
Ah, yes, musical form, something completely missing from this discussion of "complexity", where people are claiming Mozart, Beethoven, et al. are not "complex" as some random favourites of theirs. Classical music from roughly the time of Haydn on carries a significant component of its dramatic message in its form, that is, how the music is developed over time. A decision made by a composer at one point will potentially have dramatic ramifications minutes later as the piece unfolds. This is rather different from pop music, where typically very simple elements are repeated over and over again, or in the case of some "progressive rock", somewhat simple elements are baldly juxtaposed "with the subtlety of a blowtorch" (to borrow a phrase of a critic mocking Emerson, Lake, and Palmer which I particularly liked -- the phrase, that is). An understanding of form and musical development is much more significant in appreciating the music than the simple recognition of "a few conventional harmonic structures" (misleading as that statement is). (I would also hazard a guess that these posters are not very familiar with 20th/21st century composition that grew out of the classical tradition, but that's another topic.)
Similarly, there are many dissonant progressions in a lot of Baroque music, as the understanding and application of harmony was different in that time, because those composers' idea of musical form was in turn different. Bach was less concerned about resultant harmonic effects than he was with counterpoint.
Ah, yes, counterpoint, something else missing from this discussion. Counterpoint is the art of creating multiple melodies that sound simultaneously. If anyone on here seriously can find a rock song that can compete with Bach's "Art of the Fugue" in terms of complexity (and perhaps more importantly, skill of execution at that level of complexity), and has the ability to convincingly detail their argument, I will eat my socks. Part of the marvel of Bach is what he did with counterpoint while
Every open source project in the world should have a Dennis Ritchie memorial hackathon.
Don't forget that Spread Eagle, NL is just a short distance away from Dildo. http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Dildo,+Newfoundland+and+Labrador&daddr=Spread+Eagle,+Newfoundland+and+Labrador&hl=en&geocode=FeHa1QIdO8nO_Cm9Qul3PzdzSzEswa0Jrcg1BA%3BFbRh1QIdD-3N_Cn5uQNImjBzSzGvV9k2goSAmA&mra=ls&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=25.440881,56.513672&ie=UTF8&z=12 (It seems there's also a Spread Eagle, WI and a Dildo Key, FL.)
Also, the Governor General is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, which is an effectively ceremonial role. However, the Commander-in-Chief is obligated to prevent unconstitutional use of Canada's military forces. (Okay, technically the Queen is the Commander-in-Chief, but this role is delegated to the Governor General, who also uses the title.)
The porting of ZFS to NetBSD is in progress.
http://wiki.netbsd.org/users/haad/porting_zfs/
NetBSD is also seeing work done on integrating DTrace, incidentally.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2010/02/15/msg007333.html
I'm not very familiar with DragonFlyBSD, but they have a different approach called HAMMER.
http://kerneltrap.org/DragonFlyBSD/HAMMER_Filesystem_Design
Or in geek terms: 1 + i - 1
If you're going to the length of building from source yourself, you might also want to try pkgsrc.org, depending on your needs.