I agree. Americans for some reason think they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. They want our government to setup ways out of responsibility for our actions. And they want the rest of society to accept it. The next statement will probably get me flamed, but I know several people who have taken an easy way out and were not pleased with the consequences. I view abortion as a way out of responsibility. It is the best example of the direction our country is heading. We want maximum freedom and zero responsibility, which if I am not mistaken, when taken to the fullest, produces chaos according to physic (a.k.a uncontrolled nuclear explosion). Just a thought.
I would like to know what the NSA has been doing. We don't fully know how many terrorist plots may have been foiled by them. Yes, the terrorist threat may be imaginary, but it also could be very real. A lot of countries don't like the U.S. much. Maybe by doing what they are doing, they are saving us a lot of grief. The only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't want to tell us what they are doing is due to a public outcry about privacy. The public should know what they are doing though.
Whoever is posting those F*** Natalie Portman messages and the like obviously is not capable of intelligent conversation. Whatever their reason for posting on Slashdot, they are certainly not doing a very good job of making their point. Are they (a) Microsoft Zealot (b) Scientologist (c) Person w/ too much free time (d) Orange (e) One of those lint sculptures of cowboy neal that has formed a rudimentary intelligence and is posting to slashdot.
After reading about 1/3 of the posts, the major complaint about Debian (it is free, who are we to complain?) seems to be that stable releases are abandoned. I have been using Debian throughout my Linux experience. I tried RedHat, but I was dissappointed with it. Debian does seem to be getting behind. I find myself downloading tar.gz files and upgrading a lot of components myself which is very time consuming, but probably good practice if nothing else. But it kind of defeats the point of having a distro. I am not presuming in anyway to be an expert or proclaim to have a better idea than the current one, but I had a suggestion on a new distro model that might make things a bit easier, especially with the fast moving world of open-source projects.
** A lot of open source projects make projections about when a new release will be made or one atleast knows the next version number obviously. Why not build a distribution in the following manner.
(1) Look at the open-source projects included in your distro or that you want to include. Look at your current distro set your new distro to include the next versions of open-source projects you currently include or plan to include. Make that your goal for the distro and when it is reached, up your version number and set a new set of goals.
(2) All the while, maintain your current stable and basically keep upgrading it with updates with the intent of meeting your goals for the new distro version. Once it is met, your current stable goes up one version number.
(3) Allow the users to set their version level. Maybe they don't want to touch packages above the goal of their current distro. They don't need the latest windowmaker, icewm, gnome, etc.
Basically, your current stable is a set of open-source project versions (kernel 2.0.36, GTK 1.2, etc.) that interoperate together. Then you have additional packages that fit into your new distro such as kernel 2.2.12, 2.3.18, etc.) A lot more testing would be required, but considering the larger developer base debian seems to be getting, it might make better use of the resource. This is in no way a totally developed thought. You may have already considered something like what I described, assuming what I described makes any sense at all.
I worked for a steel company several years ago and they were going to switch from DEC VAX VMS to Windows NT for some of their process control systems. First of all, they had to buy a special package so that NT would meet the real time requirements needed for their particular application. When put in use, the machine was extremely unstable. They payed to have the system "stabilized" and professionally installed because of stability issues. So the company that sold the software package for the process control app came in and set it up. Basically, they gave the steel company a "reboot" schedule and left after completely reinstalling the OS/extension and software. I asked one of the engineers why he was switching over to NT and why he chose NT since it seemed so unreliable. His answer was that the systems it was being used on mechanically failed a lot so having a reliable process control system really didn't matter. However, for the vital stuff at the steel company, they continued to use VAX. VAX was a more expensive solution, but most of the systems their had uptimes in years and not days like their NT counterparts. What scares me is that at COMDEX, they had all kinds of process control/embedded system stuff. Microsoft has got to be kidding.
(1) Impose Fines. A joke, won't even put a dent in billion dollar bill-anyway, fines hurt the investors and the company and don't help the consumer--remember, corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do--the same will be true of any fines. (2) Order changes in company practices. No system of rules has been made throughout history that cannot be circumvented to accomplish the desired goal. The government w/i a democracy should not be imposing "restrictions" on one particular company. Such restrictions may be a permanent handicap for the company and really inhibit growth in certain directions. This one could hurt the consumer because it may hurt the company. Most likely, billion dollar Bill will find a way to circumvent it. (3) No Action. Basically, the entire DOJ trial would be a total waste of tax money. Also, the consumer receives no benefit. They will keep paying higher and higher prices to the M$ monopoly. Also, product quality will be defined by M$, the consumer will have no choice. This is the worst possibility out of the 3 listed. (4) Split the company into multiple companies. Two approaches that I have heard about were to split M$ into 3 smaller companies or to separate the applications and operating system divisions. (a) Split into 3 smaller companies. Again, it may be possible for billion dollar Bill to regroup later on, circumventing the trial outcome. Or, one of the 3 companies may die and 1 will emerge to power. This one has the potential to hurt investors in seriously lowering their share values. The consumer is injured because I believe M$ will return to power and the monopoly will happen all over again. All this one does is weaken M$ for a while. (b) Split the Applications and Operating Systems divisions. This by far I believe is the best alternative. It gives the new companies that are formed unlimited ability to grow and helps eliminate the strangleholding M$ has w/ it's Network/OS/Office/IE/etc. line of products. That is how M$ has been monopolizing each market they enter. They integrate all of the above so that it is nearly impossible for a competitor to provide a competitive product for any single piece. Also, because the OS is designed around applications rather than around concepts central to OSes (reliability, scalability,quality of service, compatability). The best way it seems to have different system components interact is through some IEEE standard or industry standard. This is happening in Linux right now and with excellent results. M$ can also charge competitor companies big $$$ for the information to even make a competitive product. I believe breaking up the company into a (1) Server OS/Server App company (2) Internet Content tools (inet browser, windows media player, video encoders, streaming technology) company (3) Workstation OS company - for consumer and business computers. (4) Consumer/Office Applications company - products like Microsoft Office, MS Publisher, Visual Studio, etc. (5) Hardware Company. Microsoft makes really great peripherals. There mice are by far the best. Their joysticks, steering wheel accessories, etc. are excellent. They are also are releasing a game set-top-box and web-tv like box. (6) Palm OS/Palm Apps company - basically, the Windows CE, the development tools for Windows CE, etc. I am not sure if 6 distinct parts is too many. In any case, the OS and Applications software division definitely need to be separated. I believe 6 companies is best based on what I know about Microsoft. This benefits the consumer in that M$ won't be able to stranglehold competitors any more. M$ won't have tight control over the whole product line. They will have to compete like everyone else. This will improve the quality of their software and operating systems immensely. I believe that every single division will flourish. If you remember, when Standard Oil was broken up, Rockefeller doubled his fortune and owned shares in both companies. I believe breaking the company into 6 divisions will have excellent results for investors in M$. Well, that is my $.02.
BSD's deserve a look...
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 1
I am a linux user. I have used WINNT in depth, Win9x, and linux. I have become very interested in FreeBSD and OpenBSD for doing proxying/masquerading. I am not certain if masquerading is available on either of the BSDs, but I intend to investigate. It is good that the BSDs are around. BSD code can be used in closed-source commercial products. One of my friends has followed the history of unix extensively and told me that the tcp/ip stack in most commercial unixes comes from the BSDs. Even M$ uses the BSD tcp/ip stack. Who knows what other parts of the code they use. That might explain why commercial software hasn't flopped yet. At the heart, they are using open-sourced code for the parts of their oses that make the whole product work. Ironic, isn't it? I have heard that FreeBSD is the best choice for a BSD beginner. I don't believe that Linux is necessarily any easier. It may be easier to install (depending on distro) than BSD (I can't confirm that either until I try it), but sooner or later, you have to learn the unix model. My $.02.
hmmm... I have seen a lot of good points on slashdot about violence in our schools. For one thing, it has been blown out of proportion by the media. It is actually a small problem, not a growing trend. In the case of the media, I believe it is the almighty dollar. The new show "Freaks and Geeks" is a good example. As is continuing news coverage of the event. It gets ratings, that is why it is in the news, not because it is a big problem. Gang violence happens everyday in big city schools. Why is the shooting such a big deal all of a sudden? When you watch the news, always remember their objective and give what you are seeing proper consideration. As for the software program, if it actually gets used, it will be a waste or time and tax dollars. It won't help one bit. The kids in the Columbine incident were anti-social personalities. I don't have any other information beyond that of which I can guarantee accuracy. However, my roommate in college had a girlfriend whose adopted brothers were classified as anti-social personalities. They don't see what is wrong in hurting other people. They were both abused physically and sexually when they were young. One of the two was more violent than the other, I can't remember which. Whether it was the older one or the younger one. hmmm... In any case, it is a rare disorder according to my psychology text. Atleast in my highschool, people with certain names or who played sports or had a lot of money would put down those who did not belong in each of those groups. That made them outcasts and they were mistreated. Undoubtedly that was the case w/ the anti-social personalities at Columbine. But that is not necessarily what drove them to their final solution. I am not familiar enough w/ the disorder to know if being in an environment where their was mutual respect of one's peers rather than childish "I am better than that person" attitudes, that it might have changed things. So many of the people in the "elite" groups build their self-esteem on being "better" than others in some way. They keep climbing the ladder and making sure that they remain better people than others. Many of them pull out of it when they leave high school. Those that don't, eventually experience a situation when they can't be better than someone else anymore and they put a gun barrel in their mouth or drink themselves to death, or who knows what else. I think that is even a more terrible tragedy than Columbine or any other school shooting. I believe this recent focus on this type of violence in schools is more about money than a danger to children in public schools. I do not know the situation w/ the Columbine shooters, but I do know something from what my roommate told me. Those two adopted brothers of his girlfriend's developed anti-social personality disorder due to some combination of their treatment (abuse) when they were young, and perhaps some genetic factors. What combination, no one is certain. Our society created these personalities because of the existence of such abuse. Why not try and figure out how to stop child abuse first. A "software" program is a solution in a box. The company may state that it is too be used under special circumstances. Even the school may state that to parents. But it will most certainly be abused. Not everywhere, but their will be abuses of it. It will be stated by the software company that it is a tiny part of the total solution-that it is not a complete solution. But in many places, it will be used like one. Solutions-in-a-box always have an economic motivation-that is exactly what this product is. It is also free of human involvement. Much like a "ask student a question" - "go to page 4 if their response is similiar to this" - "go to page 5 if". It requires notthought and becomes a process-a flawed process. Yes someone makes the student sit down and take the test. maybe he talks to a psychiatrist. A child needs to be loved. A software package cannot love them, a school psychiatrist does not love them, parents love them, peers love them. You cannot employ a purely intellectual solution to a human problem and expect it to have any effect. The emotional component in the solution to a human problem is absolutely essential for success. This voids the effectiveness of a software application/a school psychiatrist/any other solution that is not created and applied by loving parents and peers. Let the psychiatrist advise the parents and peers, they should not be dealing w/ the child directly, leave that to the parents. Educate the parents. We are an overly specialized society. We even hire people to take care of our kids, raise them, solve their problems, etc. We are human beings, such structures are inadequate and will create more social problems rather than helping them. If anyone from congress is listening, the 40hours-5 day work week will help solve a lot of these social problems. A lot of greedy U.S. companies will never let it happen though. i guess we all really need to find out just how much power the people have yet and get something like that through congress. Well, their is my $.02.
M$, and a new approach to security...
on
Microsoft Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Maybe Microsoft does have a security strategy. Don't make a system secure at all, and then people will leave your site alone because it is not a challenge to break into.;)
It seems to me that most of these issues surrounding euthanizing disabled newborns always goes something like this. They point out that it is showing compassion to euthanize disabled newborns since they wouldn't have much of a life. After that, this compassion is never mentioned again and economic issues, how it affects the rest of the family, how it affects the parents, etc. Those are all points to look at, but the so-called compassion stops their. I have a real problem with that. A newborn is a life, a person that trusts you to take care of them. These arguments all revolve around making the parents' life easier by euthanizing the newborn. It is really the newborn that is being affected. If one of your children becomes disabled at age 31 in a car accident or something and you and your spouse have to start taking care of him again, the thought of euthanizing your 31 year old never comes to mind, though there is little difference in the situation. There is one element that is different-you have grown attached to your son or daughter and want to always love and take care of them. Every parent wants a perfectly healthy baby, but it doesn't always happen. So you just kill it until you get what you want? When you and your spouse make a baby, you must take responsibility for the child you create. I don't believe any of this really is about being compassionate towards the disabled newborn, but is more about making the euthanization of disabled newborns socially justified. The people creating these arguments focus very little on the person in the group that is the most affected, the disabled newborn. To lose life is to lose the ability to change the lives of the ones you love for the good-to help them when they need you. When a disabled newborn is euthanized, it is the most affected of anyone because it loses that ability. You can never compare the value of life to economic, emotional, or physical hardships. If we ever allow those to come up equal or greater on the scales compared to life, we will be in serious trouble as a society. We must all grow up and be responsible for what we create, for our actions, and not look for an easy way out. I guess we are all a generation of children-the "me" generation. Well, that is my.02.
Look at the number of "it professionals" it takes to keep up a large corporate NT network. I don't see demand going down. The MCSE certification costs big $$$. So MCSE's are going to want demand big $$$. Also, it is a full-time job just keeping up a proxy server, a mail server, a file server, a print server, and a web server. So I don't see demand going down for MCSE's unless one of two things happen (1) M$ writes better code ??? (2) Businesses stop using M$ products. Well, that is my M$ bashing for today...he he... The demand for M$ peons will always be there because of the product. How much they get paid is another story.
Remember Coy and Vance. They were the replacement cousins on the Dukes of Hazard. When I was little, I watched the show constantly, now I can't stand it.
When you and your wife/husband go to have children some day, there will be hospital expenses, child care expenses, and patent royalties to pay out to corporations on the use of a particular gene in your new born. Children are expensive. This patenting genes is ridiculous.
Someone needs to secure some very "general" patents & attempt to patent everything-maybe even the universe. Just to see how far the patent office will let you go. Patent's are more about creating monopolies than protecting the researcher currently. I read a few years ago that someone was trying to patent a half-man half-animal like creature to see how far the patent office would go. Wonder if they succeeded? This whole thing is kind of a dumb comment-but I have never really heard of any good coming from patents. It is always researcher y sold patent x to corporation z who owns 99% of the market in A now. I know corporations often fund the research, so is their any solution to the madness patents create? If some rights are not protected, then you have the following scenario. Researcher S spends 20yrs of their life developing invention M. Corporation N hires Operate K to break into the apartment/research facility where Researcher S's research/invention is stored. Corporation N then puts invention M into production & makes $400 billion dollars while researcher S is dirt poor & jumps off his apartment balcony. Not a pretty illustration.
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools. One more thing: I do not believe that it is practical/possible to run a public school in a country as diversified in religion as the U.S. I believe home schooling, charter schools, & private schools are the wave of the future (I know...they have all been around a while...so don't look at me like I don't know what I am talking about). If you are a Catholic & want your child taught in the ways of Catholicism, send them to a private Catholic school. Let the government provide funding to the schools ($/child or something like that-since education is one of the things our taxes pay for). Back when we were trying to teach everyone the three Rs, public schools were great. Now, the inability for people to become educated in the U.S. has gone away (99%). I believe it is time for the public school system to get phased out--it is now obsolete & inadequate for our nation's educational needs. Well, my 2 cents.
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools.
Everyone above was too hard on the new programmer & to top it off, you posted anonymously. If you are going to give advice like that, have the guts to post who you are. I am not disagreeing about documentation & stuff, I have been a software developer for 5 years in the industry. Not much time I know. And I do planning & documentation as much as I can. However, the places I have been employed just want it done & done yesterday. Also, the development teams were small, too small to complete the project efficiently. The groups I worked in had to improvise, planning & documenting only to the point where it benefited us & those maintaining the code base. No overkill. All that is great if you have the time. But you usually never have the time to do the job the way it should be done. Business people just don't care. They just want something that meets the requirements. Documentation is only important when the changes are needed. Then they yell at you for not documenting the project that well;). Anyway, I am familiar w/ all the training one receives in college about good development methodologies & tools. Alot of it isn't practical, atleast in my experience. Writing code takes time--and that is the one thing you won't get when you develop. Well, all I can say is learn the development techniques your profs are emphasizing-you will find them useful in projects. Remember though, none of it is an exact science-anyone who says so is full of bs. You use the tools & document the project so that it meets your immediate needs. Then try to document the project keeping in mind that someday, someone might have to change it. Most of the jobs out their in programming are altering someone else's code--odds are, they did not follow many of the methodologies you learned in college (they didn't exist, the programmers didn't care/know, etc.). So all of the people that have posted earlier probably have jobs fixing the problems. Just like 10yrs+ down the road from now--programmers will be fixing their code & wondering why they didn't document it very well;). That is the way it goes. What is adequate now is inadequate later. Welcome to computer science.
PIII 450 (remember the 386dx/40 min. for win95;) 512mb of ram (min. req. to run of course) 15" Monitor 56k modem + ISP service cheap vga video card 40gb scsiIII hard drive (20gb for min install)
probably material stored on server:
(1) stupid home page (2) bmp scanned images of documentation of all previous operating systems from dos 1.0 to win 3.1x. (3) notepad document saying that you have successfully located a problem in win2000 if you are reading this message...
M$ = $$$ (for more staff & admins)
2 staff/admins per mainframe 3 staff/admins per NT server + good technical support contract;)
It is just like the netscape project in many respects. No developers want to work on Mozilla because the code is not open source. Now Microsoft wants "crackers" to attack their Windows200? & then tell them how to fix it. Maybe if they set it up on their productions servers or offered $$$ someone might try it. It doesn't even appeal to a cracker's ego. Whoopy-Ding I broke into an isolated server running Win200? & changed the wallpaper & snagged some word docs. What is Bill thinking? If he offers $$$, puts Win9x/200? source code on the site, or uses them as production servers at M$-then maybe they would get some attention. You know what-I have a 386sx/40 under my desk at work. I will setup Linux on it & secure it the best I can & then I will post to slashdot & ask everyone to try & break into it. How does that sound? It SUCKS! NO MONEY-NO GLORY-No reason to crack a box....
I have never bought anything but an AMD. I have been pleased w/ their products. However, AMD, Intel, IBM, etc. have made their processors so complex that trying to add in a major feature like SMP causes all sorts of problems & can make the setup slower than a single cpu by itself if the SMP technique is not well thought out. Problems like keeping caches in sync and so forth are being encountered but for the wrong reasons. Cache logic was instituted because memory was slower than the cpu & since most of what you do is access memory, it was the most cost effective way to speed up memory access. However, now they want to setup smp between the systems. Cache logic automates the cache so that the programmer is "unaware" of its presence. That may be great for a single processor, but when you hit SMP, it provides the potential for multiprocessor performance to go into the toilet. If you want to see a cool processor design, go to www.ultratechnology.com & read about Chuck Moore & his forth chips. 27 instructions & they run as 500mhz. Guess what, no cache... His design does not require any. Only one downside to his chips, he only makes 20bit processors (please Chuck, make a 32 bit/64 bit). His transistor count is way down too. Around 20000! So you take an intel wafer & put a 32/64 bit version of Chucks chip on it plus about 256mb of 500mhz ram! Maybe some day chip vendors will learn. I don't have a problem w/ making something complex. As long as it is "necessary" complexity. If Chuck does make a 32/64 bit version, I will have my Masters in electrical engineering in a few years & guess who will be building his own PC... Well, that is my 2 cents.
A company setups up a web mail site (like Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.). The company then integrates a central download area (like download.com) into their mail interface so the mail user can browse through it. The company also allows the user to setup an account (credit card number, or billing method) w/ the company. Let the user download what they want to and send them a follow-up e-mail. If the user liked the download & wants to send the artist (musician, programmer, etc.) a donation, they may do so w/i the message. Setup a donation rating system. Have three categories: poor e.g. => liked it, really liked it, great & each one will have an amount attached to it ($.25, $.50, $1). Have a special donation category at the top that will allow the user to enter an amount greater than the minimum ($.25). The user may also decline to donate & perhaps post a few reasons: to cheap or didn't like it. The website can make money through advertising & through taking a TINY share of artist profits ($.05 or less). Make the user aware of what share the website is taking. Also, don't allow the followups to be deleted from the mailbox. Make it so the user has to go in and either donate or not and then have the message removed. Or allow it to be deleted but unless it was answered, it will return again. That delete stuff sounds pretty annoying probably but atleast get people to take 2 seconds to delete the thing-they need to atleast think about donating. Another less annoying way to do follow ups would be to send the user a list of what they downloaded (per 5 or ten downloads) & let them rate it. I don't believe it would be as effective. Let me know what you think. I agree that people will donate small amounts & this account for popularity as well. I don't see it wiping out cds though. Do you really want to use your computer to do everything? I guess I might consider it as long as we get something better than Win95/WinNT. Statements like "my tv just crashed, we will have to watch the game at Bill's house" or picture a romantic evening & all of sudden, the soft music stops & your guest decides to leave early...These are not good things. CDs are in our culture and they will be around for several more generations atleast. Well that is my $.02. Later...
On QNX, you can replace the scheduler & process management subsystems entirely (while it is running if you wish). So even if QNX lacks virtual memory, it won't for long if the AMIGA thing goes anywhere...
A couple of years ago, my friend & I looked into QNX very heavily in terms of developing a complete desktop solution on it. QNX was very interested in expanding their market & even offered to adjust their pricing for distribution to be competative w/ windows. A $ shortage prevented my friend & I from doing so-well, that & we found out about linux. Check out qnx, they have a free downloadable single disk demo. I have also examined their api & os model. From the look of it, it should be simple to program. What is even more interesting is QNX permits you to debug device drivers, cpu schedulers, and more w/o rebooting. You can start & stop the code-trace it real time while it is running. It is also some of the tightest code I have ever seen. The OS is fast & responsive & I would say it would even beat linux out in a lot of categories. I would like to see linux go the microkernel direction (or atleast have the choice-micro or mono when you compile the thing). Or even better, make linux an exokernel, that beats them all out. I encourage investigation into QNX-download the free demo & try it out. They have a micrgui (photon), a web browser/web server (voyager), a explorer/file manager app, & of course dhcp & network functionality. Plus it comes in two flavors, nic & modem version. Before you say anything against it, check it out. It is one of the few commercial software products that is well written & thought out. I am surprise Bill M$ hasn't bought it yet-it would save them a decade or two of work. Over and Out...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Americans for some reason think they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. They want our government to setup ways out of responsibility for our actions. And they want the rest of society to accept it. The next statement will probably get me flamed, but I know several people who have taken an easy way out and were not pleased with the consequences. I view abortion as a way out of responsibility. It is the best example of the direction our country is heading. We want maximum freedom and zero responsibility, which if I am not mistaken, when taken to the fullest, produces chaos according to physic (a.k.a uncontrolled nuclear explosion). Just a thought.
I would like to know what the NSA has been doing. We don't fully know how many terrorist plots may have been foiled by them. Yes, the terrorist threat may be imaginary, but it also could be very real. A lot of countries don't like the U.S. much. Maybe by doing what they are doing, they are saving us a lot of grief. The only reason I can think of as to why they wouldn't want to tell us what they are doing is due to a public outcry about privacy. The public should know what they are doing though.
Whoever is posting those F*** Natalie Portman messages and the like obviously is not capable of intelligent conversation. Whatever their reason for posting on Slashdot, they are certainly not doing a very good job of making their point. Are they (a) Microsoft Zealot (b) Scientologist (c) Person w/ too much free time (d) Orange (e) One of those lint sculptures of cowboy neal that has formed a rudimentary intelligence and is posting to slashdot.
I go for (E).
Shawn
Hey, why not make that the next poll?
After reading about 1/3 of the posts, the major complaint about Debian (it is free, who are we to complain?) seems to be that stable releases are abandoned. I have been using Debian throughout my Linux experience. I tried RedHat, but I was dissappointed with it. Debian does seem to be getting behind. I find myself downloading tar.gz files and upgrading a lot of components myself which is very time consuming, but probably good practice if nothing else. But it kind of defeats the point of having a distro. I am not presuming in anyway to be an expert or proclaim to have a better idea than the current one, but I had a suggestion on a new distro model that might make things a bit easier, especially with the fast moving world of open-source projects.
** A lot of open source projects make projections about when a new release will be made or one atleast knows the next version number obviously. Why not build a distribution in the following manner.
(1) Look at the open-source projects included in your distro or that you want to include. Look at your current distro set your new distro to include the next versions of open-source projects you currently include or plan to include. Make that your goal for the distro and when it is reached, up your version number and set a new set of goals.
(2) All the while, maintain your current stable and basically keep upgrading it with updates with the intent of meeting your goals for the new distro version. Once it is met, your current stable goes up one version number.
(3) Allow the users to set their version level. Maybe they don't want to touch packages above the goal of their current distro. They don't need the latest windowmaker, icewm, gnome, etc.
Basically, your current stable is a set of open-source project versions (kernel 2.0.36, GTK 1.2, etc.) that interoperate together. Then you have additional packages that fit into your new distro such as kernel 2.2.12, 2.3.18, etc.) A lot more testing would be required, but considering the larger developer base debian seems to be getting, it might make better use of the resource. This is in no way a totally developed thought. You may have already considered something like what I described, assuming what I described makes any sense at all.
I worked for a steel company several years ago and they were going to switch from DEC VAX VMS to Windows NT for some of their process control systems. First of all, they had to buy a special package so that NT would meet the real time requirements needed for their particular application. When put in use, the machine was extremely unstable. They payed to have the system "stabilized" and professionally installed because of stability issues. So the company that sold the software package for the process control app came in and set it up. Basically, they gave the steel company a "reboot" schedule and left after completely reinstalling the OS/extension and software. I asked one of the engineers why he was switching over to NT and why he chose NT since it seemed so unreliable. His answer was that the systems it was being used on mechanically failed a lot so having a reliable process control system really didn't matter. However, for the vital stuff at the steel company, they continued to use VAX. VAX was a more expensive solution, but most of the systems their had uptimes in years and not days like their NT counterparts. What scares me is that at COMDEX, they had all kinds of process control/embedded system stuff. Microsoft has got to be kidding.
(1) Impose Fines. A joke, won't even put a dent in billion dollar bill-anyway, fines hurt the investors and the company and don't help the consumer--remember, corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do--the same will be true of any fines. (2) Order changes in company practices. No system of rules has been made throughout history that cannot be circumvented to accomplish the desired goal. The government w/i a democracy should not be imposing "restrictions" on one particular company. Such restrictions may be a permanent handicap for the company and really inhibit growth in certain directions. This one could hurt the consumer because it may hurt the company. Most likely, billion dollar Bill will find a way to circumvent it. (3) No Action. Basically, the entire DOJ trial would be a total waste of tax money. Also, the consumer receives no benefit. They will keep paying higher and higher prices to the M$ monopoly. Also, product quality will be defined by M$, the consumer will have no choice. This is the worst possibility out of the 3 listed. (4) Split the company into multiple companies. Two approaches that I have heard about were to split M$ into 3 smaller companies or to separate the applications and operating system divisions. (a) Split into 3 smaller companies. Again, it may be possible for billion dollar Bill to regroup later on, circumventing the trial outcome. Or, one of the 3 companies may die and 1 will emerge to power. This one has the potential to hurt investors in seriously lowering their share values. The consumer is injured because I believe M$ will return to power and the monopoly will happen all over again. All this one does is weaken M$ for a while. (b) Split the Applications and Operating Systems divisions. This by far I believe is the best alternative. It gives the new companies that are formed unlimited ability to grow and helps eliminate the strangleholding M$ has w/ it's Network/OS/Office/IE/etc. line of products. That is how M$ has been monopolizing each market they enter. They integrate all of the above so that it is nearly impossible for a competitor to provide a competitive product for any single piece. Also, because the OS is designed around applications rather than around concepts central to OSes (reliability, scalability,quality of service, compatability). The best way it seems to have different system components interact is through some IEEE standard or industry standard. This is happening in Linux right now and with excellent results. M$ can also charge competitor companies big $$$ for the information to even make a competitive product. I believe breaking up the company into a (1) Server OS/Server App company (2) Internet Content tools (inet browser, windows media player, video encoders, streaming technology) company (3) Workstation OS company - for consumer and business computers. (4) Consumer/Office Applications company - products like Microsoft Office, MS Publisher, Visual Studio, etc. (5) Hardware Company. Microsoft makes really great peripherals. There mice are by far the best. Their joysticks, steering wheel accessories, etc. are excellent. They are also are releasing a game set-top-box and web-tv like box. (6) Palm OS/Palm Apps company - basically, the Windows CE, the development tools for Windows CE, etc. I am not sure if 6 distinct parts is too many. In any case, the OS and Applications software division definitely need to be separated. I believe 6 companies is best based on what I know about Microsoft. This benefits the consumer in that M$ won't be able to stranglehold competitors any more. M$ won't have tight control over the whole product line. They will have to compete like everyone else. This will improve the quality of their software and operating systems immensely. I believe that every single division will flourish. If you remember, when Standard Oil was broken up, Rockefeller doubled his fortune and owned shares in both companies. I believe breaking the company into 6 divisions will have excellent results for investors in M$. Well, that is my $.02.
I am a linux user. I have used WINNT in depth, Win9x, and linux. I have become very interested in FreeBSD and OpenBSD for doing proxying/masquerading. I am not certain if masquerading is available on either of the BSDs, but I intend to investigate. It is good that the BSDs are around. BSD code can be used in closed-source commercial products. One of my friends has followed the history of unix extensively and told me that the tcp/ip stack in most commercial unixes comes from the BSDs. Even M$ uses the BSD tcp/ip stack. Who knows what other parts of the code they use. That might explain why commercial software hasn't flopped yet. At the heart, they are using open-sourced code for the parts of their oses that make the whole product work. Ironic, isn't it? I have heard that FreeBSD is the best choice for a BSD beginner. I don't believe that Linux is necessarily any easier. It may be easier to install (depending on distro) than BSD (I can't confirm that either until I try it), but sooner or later, you have to learn the unix model. My $.02.
hmmm... I have seen a lot of good points on slashdot about violence in our schools. For one thing, it has been blown out of proportion by the media. It is actually a small problem, not a growing trend. In the case of the media, I believe it is the almighty dollar. The new show "Freaks and Geeks" is a good example. As is continuing news coverage of the event. It gets ratings, that is why it is in the news, not because it is a big problem. Gang violence happens everyday in big city schools. Why is the shooting such a big deal all of a sudden? When you watch the news, always remember their objective and give what you are seeing proper consideration. As for the software program, if it actually gets used, it will be a waste or time and tax dollars. It won't help one bit. The kids in the Columbine incident were anti-social personalities. I don't have any other information beyond that of which I can guarantee accuracy. However, my roommate in college had a girlfriend whose adopted brothers were classified as anti-social personalities. They don't see what is wrong in hurting other people. They were both abused physically and sexually when they were young. One of the two was more violent than the other, I can't remember which. Whether it was the older one or the younger one. hmmm... In any case, it is a rare disorder according to my psychology text. Atleast in my highschool, people with certain names or who played sports or had a lot of money would put down those who did not belong in each of those groups. That made them outcasts and they were mistreated. Undoubtedly that was the case w/ the anti-social personalities at Columbine. But that is not necessarily what drove them to their final solution. I am not familiar enough w/ the disorder to know if being in an environment where their was mutual respect of one's peers rather than childish "I am better than that person" attitudes, that it might have changed things. So many of the people in the "elite" groups build their self-esteem on being "better" than others in some way. They keep climbing the ladder and making sure that they remain better people than others. Many of them pull out of it when they leave high school. Those that don't, eventually experience a situation when they can't be better than someone else anymore and they put a gun barrel in their mouth or drink themselves to death, or who knows what else. I think that is even a more terrible tragedy than Columbine or any other school shooting. I believe this recent focus on this type of violence in schools is more about money than a danger to children in public schools. I do not know the situation w/ the Columbine shooters, but I do know something from what my roommate told me. Those two adopted brothers of his girlfriend's developed anti-social personality disorder due to some combination of their treatment (abuse) when they were young, and perhaps some genetic factors. What combination, no one is certain. Our society created these personalities because of the existence of such abuse. Why not try and figure out how to stop child abuse first. A "software" program is a solution in a box. The company may state that it is too be used under special circumstances. Even the school may state that to parents. But it will most certainly be abused. Not everywhere, but their will be abuses of it. It will be stated by the software company that it is a tiny part of the total solution-that it is not a complete solution. But in many places, it will be used like one. Solutions-in-a-box always have an economic motivation-that is exactly what this product is. It is also free of human involvement. Much like a "ask student a question" - "go to page 4 if their response is similiar to this" - "go to page 5 if". It requires notthought and becomes a process-a flawed process. Yes someone makes the student sit down and take the test. maybe he talks to a psychiatrist. A child needs to be loved. A software package cannot love them, a school psychiatrist does not love them, parents love them, peers love them. You cannot employ a purely intellectual solution to a human problem and expect it to have any effect. The emotional component in the solution to a human problem is absolutely essential for success. This voids the effectiveness of a software application/a school psychiatrist/any other solution that is not created and applied by loving parents and peers. Let the psychiatrist advise the parents and peers, they should not be dealing w/ the child directly, leave that to the parents. Educate the parents. We are an overly specialized society. We even hire people to take care of our kids, raise them, solve their problems, etc. We are human beings, such structures are inadequate and will create more social problems rather than helping them. If anyone from congress is listening, the 40hours-5 day work week will help solve a lot of these social problems. A lot of greedy U.S. companies will never let it happen though. i guess we all really need to find out just how much power the people have yet and get something like that through congress. Well, their is my $.02.
Maybe Microsoft does have a security strategy. Don't make a system secure at all, and then people will leave your site alone because it is not a challenge to break into. ;)
It seems to me that most of these issues surrounding euthanizing disabled newborns always goes something like this. They point out that it is showing compassion to euthanize disabled newborns since they wouldn't have much of a life. After that, this compassion is never mentioned again and economic issues, how it affects the rest of the family, how it affects the parents, etc. Those are all points to look at, but the so-called compassion stops their. I have a real problem with that. A newborn is a life, a person that trusts you to take care of them. These arguments all revolve around making the parents' life easier by euthanizing the newborn. It is really the newborn that is being affected. If one of your children becomes disabled at age 31 in a car accident or something and you and your spouse have to start taking care of him again, the thought of euthanizing your 31 year old never comes to mind, though there is little difference in the situation. There is one element that is different-you have grown attached to your son or daughter and want to always love and take care of them. Every parent wants a perfectly healthy baby, but it doesn't always happen. So you just kill it until you get what you want? When you and your spouse make a baby, you must take responsibility for the child you create. I don't believe any of this really is about being compassionate towards the disabled newborn, but is more about making the euthanization of disabled newborns socially justified. The people creating these arguments focus very little on the person in the group that is the most affected, the disabled newborn. To lose life is to lose the ability to change the lives of the ones you love for the good-to help them when they need you. When a disabled newborn is euthanized, it is the most affected of anyone because it loses that ability. You can never compare the value of life to economic, emotional, or physical hardships. If we ever allow those to come up equal or greater on the scales compared to life, we will be in serious trouble as a society. We must all grow up and be responsible for what we create, for our actions, and not look for an easy way out. I guess we are all a generation of children-the "me" generation. Well, that is my .02.
Look at the number of "it professionals" it takes to keep up a large corporate NT network. I don't see demand going down. The MCSE certification costs big $$$. So MCSE's are going to want demand big $$$. Also, it is a full-time job just keeping up a proxy server, a mail server, a file server, a print server, and a web server. So I don't see demand going down for MCSE's unless one of two things happen (1) M$ writes better code ??? (2) Businesses stop using M$ products. Well, that is my M$ bashing for today...he he... The demand for M$ peons will always be there because of the product. How much they get paid is another story.
Remember Coy and Vance. They were the replacement cousins on the Dukes of Hazard. When I was little, I watched the show constantly, now I can't stand it.
--Dixie Horn, Red-Orange streak, and off they go
When you and your wife/husband go to have children some day, there will be hospital expenses, child care expenses, and patent royalties to pay out to corporations on the use of a particular gene in your new born. Children are expensive. This patenting genes is ridiculous.
Someone needs to secure some very "general" patents & attempt to patent everything-maybe even the universe. Just to see how far the patent office will let you go. Patent's are more about creating monopolies than protecting the researcher currently. I read a few years ago that someone was trying to patent a half-man half-animal like creature to see how far the patent office would go. Wonder if they succeeded? This whole thing is kind of a dumb comment-but I have never really heard of any good coming from patents. It is always researcher y sold patent x to corporation z who owns 99% of the market in A now. I know corporations often fund the research, so is their any solution to the madness patents create? If some rights are not protected, then you have the following scenario. Researcher S spends 20yrs of their life developing invention M. Corporation N hires Operate K to break into the apartment/research facility where Researcher S's research/invention is stored. Corporation N then puts invention M into production & makes $400 billion dollars while researcher S is dirt poor & jumps off his apartment balcony. Not a pretty illustration.
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools. One more thing: I do not believe that it is practical/possible to run a public school in a country as diversified in religion as the U.S. I believe home schooling, charter schools, & private schools are the wave of the future (I know...they have all been around a while...so don't look at me like I don't know what I am talking about). If you are a Catholic & want your child taught in the ways of Catholicism, send them to a private Catholic school. Let the government provide funding to the schools ($/child or something like that-since education is one of the things our taxes pay for). Back when we were trying to teach everyone the three Rs, public schools were great. Now, the inability for people to become educated in the U.S. has gone away (99%). I believe it is time for the public school system to get phased out--it is now obsolete & inadequate for our nation's educational needs. Well, my 2 cents.
Science is a religion. Science is based on reason. Socrates embraced reason and the scientific method was developed as a result of Socrates laying down the philosophical ground for it. Socrates however had one assumption. He accepted on faith that simple logical reasoning was a valid way to interpret one's environment, existence, etc. "Faith" is a word left out of science. Although all scientists have faith in science and therefore in reason. Religion (science, christianity, budhism, atheism, etc.) should be taught at home, NOT at school. I say teach only the facts in school. Evolution is a THEORY. Creation is a THEORY. Both base their evidence on faith in something. In geology, fossil layering, rock formations, all that we know about-evolution & creation we do not know about. They are all theories/beliefs. The only fair way to educate children is to teach them only the facts-not the theories. Although I realize that what I have just mentioned requires what might be referred to as reason, it is not necessarily logical reason & therefore does not employ the use of science. So I am not creating a looping or contradictory argument. And it is possible to teach only the facts. A good example is mathematics. It is readily observable all around us & we conclude that we have five fingers & toes. With evolution, we look & say, well, this, this, and this, must mean this-that is what makes it a theory. Anyway, enough blabbering-keep what should be taught at home out of schools.
Everyone above was too hard on the new programmer & to top it off, you posted anonymously. If you are going to give advice like that, have the guts to post who you are. I am not disagreeing about documentation & stuff, I have been a software developer for 5 years in the industry. Not much time I know. And I do planning & documentation as much as I can. However, the places I have been employed just want it done & done yesterday. Also, the development teams were small, too small to complete the project efficiently. The groups I worked in had to improvise, planning & documenting only to the point where it benefited us & those maintaining the code base. No overkill. All that is great if you have the time. But you usually never have the time to do the job the way it should be done. Business people just don't care. They just want something that meets the requirements. Documentation is only important when the changes are needed. Then they yell at you for not documenting the project that well ;). Anyway, I am familiar w/ all the training one receives in college about good development methodologies & tools. Alot of it isn't practical, atleast in my experience. Writing code takes time--and that is the one thing you won't get when you develop. Well, all I can say is learn the development techniques your profs are emphasizing-you will find them useful in projects. Remember though, none of it is an exact science-anyone who says so is full of bs. You use the tools & document the project so that it meets your immediate needs. Then try to document the project keeping in mind that someday, someone might have to change it. Most of the jobs out their in programming are altering someone else's code--odds are, they did not follow many of the methodologies you learned in college (they didn't exist, the programmers didn't care/know, etc.). So all of the people that have posted earlier probably have jobs fixing the problems. Just like 10yrs+ down the road from now--programmers will be fixing their code & wondering why they didn't document it very well ;). That is the way it goes. What is adequate now is inadequate later. Welcome to computer science.
I agree with your methodology in the case of 9 programs and 10 programmers.
www.windows2000test.com system configuration:
;)
;)
PIII 450 (remember the 386dx/40 min. for win95
512mb of ram (min. req. to run of course)
15" Monitor
56k modem + ISP service
cheap vga video card
40gb scsiIII hard drive (20gb for min install)
probably material stored on server:
(1) stupid home page
(2) bmp scanned images of documentation of all previous operating systems from dos 1.0 to win 3.1x.
(3) notepad document saying that you have successfully located a problem in win2000 if you are reading this message...
M$ = $$$ (for more staff & admins)
2 staff/admins per mainframe
3 staff/admins per NT server + good technical support contract
Well, enought Bill bashing...later.
It is just like the netscape project in many respects. No developers want to work on Mozilla because the code is not open source. Now Microsoft wants "crackers" to attack their Windows200? & then tell them how to fix it. Maybe if they set it up on their productions servers or offered $$$ someone might try it. It doesn't even appeal to a cracker's ego. Whoopy-Ding I broke into an isolated server running Win200? & changed the wallpaper & snagged some word docs. What is Bill thinking? If he offers $$$, puts Win9x/200? source code on the site, or uses them as production servers at M$-then maybe they would get some attention. You know what-I have a 386sx/40 under my desk at work. I will setup Linux on it & secure it the best I can & then I will post to slashdot & ask everyone to try & break into it. How does that sound? It SUCKS! NO MONEY-NO GLORY-No reason to crack a box....
so in highschool the nerds will pack hunt & beat up the jocks? that would be a change...
I have never bought anything but an AMD. I have been pleased w/ their products. However, AMD, Intel, IBM, etc. have made their processors so complex that trying to add in a major feature like SMP causes all sorts of problems & can make the setup slower than a single cpu by itself if the SMP technique is not well thought out. Problems like keeping caches in sync and so forth are being encountered but for the wrong reasons. Cache logic was instituted because memory was slower than the cpu & since most of what you do is access memory, it was the most cost effective way to speed up memory access. However, now they want to setup smp between the systems. Cache logic automates the cache so that the programmer is "unaware" of its presence. That may be great for a single processor, but when you hit SMP, it provides the potential for multiprocessor performance to go into the toilet. If you want to see a cool processor design, go to www.ultratechnology.com & read about Chuck Moore & his forth chips. 27 instructions & they run as 500mhz. Guess what, no cache... His design does not require any. Only one downside to his chips, he only makes 20bit processors (please Chuck, make a 32 bit/64 bit). His transistor count is way down too. Around 20000! So you take an intel wafer & put a 32/64 bit version of Chucks chip on it plus about 256mb of 500mhz ram! Maybe some day chip vendors will learn. I don't have a problem w/ making something complex. As long as it is "necessary" complexity. If Chuck does make a 32/64 bit version, I will have my Masters in electrical engineering in a few years & guess who will be building his own PC... Well, that is my 2 cents.
A company setups up a web mail site (like Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.). The company then integrates a central download area (like download.com) into their mail interface so the mail user can browse through it. The company also allows the user to setup an account (credit card number, or billing method) w/ the company. Let the user download what they want to and send them a follow-up e-mail. If the user liked the download & wants to send the artist (musician, programmer, etc.) a donation, they may do so w/i the message. Setup a donation rating system. Have three categories: poor e.g. => liked it, really liked it, great & each one will have an amount attached to it ($.25, $.50, $1). Have a special donation category at the top that will allow the user to enter an amount greater than the minimum ($.25). The user may also decline to donate & perhaps post a few reasons: to cheap or didn't like it. The website can make money through advertising & through taking a TINY share of artist profits ($.05 or less). Make the user aware of what share the website is taking. Also, don't allow the followups to be deleted from the mailbox. Make it so the user has to go in and either donate or not and then have the message removed. Or allow it to be deleted but unless it was answered, it will return again. That delete stuff sounds pretty annoying probably but atleast get people to take 2 seconds to delete the thing-they need to atleast think about donating. Another less annoying way to do follow ups would be to send the user a list of what they downloaded (per 5 or ten downloads) & let them rate it. I don't believe it would be as effective. Let me know what you think. I agree that people will donate small amounts & this account for popularity as well. I don't see it wiping out cds though. Do you really want to use your computer to do everything? I guess I might consider it as long as we get something better than Win95/WinNT. Statements like "my tv just crashed, we will have to watch the game at Bill's house" or picture a romantic evening & all of sudden, the soft music stops & your guest decides to leave early...These are not good things. CDs are in our culture and they will be around for several more generations atleast. Well that is my $.02. Later...
On QNX, you can replace the scheduler & process management subsystems entirely (while it is running if you wish). So even if QNX lacks virtual memory, it won't for long if the AMIGA thing goes anywhere...
A couple of years ago, my friend & I looked into QNX very heavily in terms of developing a complete desktop solution on it. QNX was very interested in expanding their market & even offered to adjust their pricing for distribution to be competative w/ windows. A $ shortage prevented my friend & I from doing so-well, that & we found out about linux. Check out qnx, they have a free downloadable single disk demo. I have also examined their api & os model. From the look of it, it should be simple to program. What is even more interesting is QNX permits you to debug device drivers, cpu schedulers, and more w/o rebooting. You can start & stop the code-trace it real time while it is running. It is also some of the tightest code I have ever seen. The OS is fast & responsive & I would say it would even beat linux out in a lot of categories. I would like to see linux go the microkernel direction (or atleast have the choice-micro or mono when you compile the thing). Or even better, make linux an exokernel, that beats them all out. I encourage investigation into QNX-download the free demo & try it out. They have a micrgui (photon), a web browser/web server (voyager), a explorer/file manager app, & of course dhcp & network functionality. Plus it comes in two flavors, nic & modem version. Before you say anything against it, check it out. It is one of the few commercial software products that is well written & thought out. I am surprise Bill M$ hasn't bought it yet-it would save them a decade or two of work. Over and Out...