/frob'ni-kayt/ (Possibly from frobnitz, and usually abbreviated to frob, but "frobnicate" is recognised as the official full form). To manipulate or adjust, to tweak. One frequently frobs bits or other 2-state devices. Thus: "Please frob the light switch" (that is, flip it), but also "Stop frobbing that clasp; you'll break it". One also sees the construction "to frob a frob".
Usage: frob, twiddle, and tweak sometimes connote points along a continuum. "Frob" connotes aimless manipulation; "twiddle" connotes gross manipulation, often a coarse search for a proper setting; "tweak" connotes fine-tuning. If someone is turning a knob on an oscilloscope, then if he's carefully adjusting it, he is probably tweaking it; if he is just turning it but looking at the screen, he is probably twiddling it; but if he's just doing it because turning a knob is fun, he's frobbing it. The variant "frobnosticate" has also been reported.
Can't say I care about a "rich API", the idea in a command-line based system is that every subsystem exposes it's "API" through it's command-line arguments (c.f. function call in "real programming").
There's nothing you can't do in Windows that you can do in Linux There's nothing you can do on one turing machine that you can't do on another turing machine.
but the other way around, well, Linux has so many shortcomings it's not funny.
The market has said that they want a floppy named "A:\" and a hard drive named "C:\".
What market are you talking about? Where I am currently sitting (behind a Windows NT PC, one of about 12,000 at my place of work) the market has said we want a floppy named "A:\", a hard drive named "C:\", a CDROM named "D:\" and 6 network "drives" named "F, G, H, J, Y, Z:\".
Of course, this is plain stupid. The market doesn't want that, but there's nothing else on the market.. well there is, but it's not widely adopted yet.
And bother me not with these 'script' things. Give me icons or give me death.
Half the icons on my Windows desktop run scripts! Shock horror! Scripts are essential to all serious IT operations.
Oh, sorry, I realise now that you were not posting about serious IT. Of course.
Put another way, Unix and Open Source both assume a sophisticated user, and the market has repeatedly argued otherwise.
No, serious IT assumes a sophisticated user, and those users within the serious IT market have so far struggled to get by with shoddy tools that aren't built with the sophisticated user in mind.
This is why GNU/Linux is getting more popular. Our IT systems are getting more complex, and we need flexible tools to make them manageable. Windows is not up to the job, in fact the whole hinderance which is the domestic GUI is not up to the job.
Don't get me wrong, I love GUI, it has it's place, but it's not for big, complex jobs. For big and complex you need a sophisticated means of expression, and that's the thing that's got us where we are today - language - and when we are talking about IT operations that means scripts.
Stop thinking like a customer and start thinking like a citizen.
Wonderfully put. If people and organisations would think "What can I do to help myself" or "What can we do to help each other" rather than "What can someone else do to help me" then we'd be in a healthier state.
Yes, there are economies of scale in offloading work which isn't out core expertise. I get a landrette to wash and iron my work shirts. I pay half an hour's salary for a job that would take me a couple of hours - this makes sense! I will do minor DIY jobs but I won't repair the roof myself.
These things are emminently outsourceable. They require specialised equipment, some skill and some experience to do effectively and efficiently (even ironing). But they are also commodity services. One shirt varies little from another (OK, mine have double cuffs). My roof is supposed to keep the weather out, just like any other roof; Few people have particular roof requirements. I am happy to offload these tasks to an expert who will do the job, get it right first time every time, like cutting cookies from cookie dough. Software is not like cookies. It must meet complex requirements. It has to be customised, or built, for my needs.
Whatsmore, fixing my roof doesn't fix anyone elses! Shirts are ironed one at a time! But with software, if I solve the "automate invoice processing" problem, it's solved for everyone else too! Doesn't it make sense to share that benefit? To be a citizen rather than a consumer.
Tim, I voted for your party at the last General Election having had my illusions ripped apart at the hands of Blair and his cronies.
It's great that people like you are around in politics at whatever level who are simply aware that FOSS exists and as you say, may be the best answer.
But FOSS isn't about a drop in replacement for proprietary software. It can be that, but the real benefits are gained when users of software change their IT resourcing practices too. Basically, this means insourcing development and support, and spreading the burden by sharing the code and knowledge with other users of the software. The money you would be spending on licensing costs and support contracts needs to go towards purchase of a development resource or part of such resource, and whatever support resources are required. Follow the Open Source development model to cut out red tape and prevent the building of grandiose software sand castles.
I would have though that local government was a perfect agar medium for FOSS bacteria. Local authorities have similar IT needs. Futhermore it's hard to argue against the benefits of co-operation between authorities - they are not in marketplace competition, afterall (I'm sure there are areas of competition but I hope you take my point).
If government wants to reap the benefit of FOSS, it can't just wait for the salesman to show up. FOSS requires an ecosystem, where the users nourish the software symbiotically.
OK I'm in danger of ranting... or perhaps I've already ranted.
Actually I thought some of those quotes were quite balanced and reasonable given a fairly broad perspective. The ones about malaria, starving children and small pox were a bit dodgy, but I can easily empathise with the others, given a little objectivity.
It provides powerful evidence that, as I have long suspected, Microsoft Word is a dangerous gateway Microsoft application. Dabblers think that they can use it now and again harmlessly. In a way they are write. It's easy to run off the odd letter in Microsoft Word and think nothing of it. Even the occasional report or binge essay writing session leaevs users able to function normally in society.
But your brave public exposure shows the real danger that lies behind Microsoft Word use. It provides the user with an initial reassurance. To paraphrase your courageous admission, the unsuspecting victim thinks: "Hey, Microsoft Word is OK. I am just using it to get by. I know that Microsoft are evil and that they sell other, more dangerous pieces of software (which should probably be illegal) but look - I recognise that and you won't catch me touching that other stuff."
But after Word, you dabble in Windows NT. Sure, it blue screens, you think. But I can handle it. I'll just keep rebooting.
That's the nature of this software. Those who use it start off like any other sane person. They can see the dangers. They think they can avoid them. And the software makes them think that way. It's a trap. There is the illusion of interoperability. Microsoft software looks like any other innocent piece of software at first glance. But that is a veneer. Once you have spent as long as you did in the Microsoft haze, your mind starts to detriorate.
You become locked in by the proprietary protocols and data formats. At first you think you can cope. You'll save in text only! No problem! But the truth is that each line is terminated with a carriage return and if you try to give up Microsoft the withdrawal will be a plague of ^Ms. ^M ^M As your mind deteriorates, you are no longer able to see this. As you have shown, the unfortunate victim of this social plague looses the ability to construct logical thoughts. At this point, the victim is lost. Even a brave public admission such as your own is a sham. The hopeless sufferer of Microsoft addiction believes that they are vindicating Microsoft but all around can see the truth.^M ^M The sufferer's mind has been destroyed. There is no hope.^M ^M I have been there myself, I stood on the precipice, one more step and I too would have been like you. Fate and her angels prevented my tragic loss. I was rescued by the Church of Emacs and am forever grateful to Saint IGNUcius.^M ^M I weep for lost souls such as yourself. But there remains hope! Even in your tortured outpourings you have revealed a glint of light at the end of your dark tunnel. Embrace the church! Reject the ^Ms!
I would rather say that there is no such thing as a British sense of humour, or an American one.
I notice you spell humour the same way I do so I suppose you're in the UK too.
See how the yanks go on about how funny Monty Python is?
Now, I love Python too. But I have great difficulty finding anyone else who would like to watch the repeats with me.
The least funny comedian I can think of is Lee Evans, who won the Perrier award here (Edinburgh) a few years ago and remained very popular for a couple of years. However, I simply can't stand him. His humour, to me, is free of content. It's oldstyle slapstick and silly faces. Ha ha. Not. But loads of people thought he was great.
Your sig: LinuxSecurity - All the Linux vulnerabilities Slashbots don't want you to see
You are such a troll! Most of those vulnerabilities are for applications! Many of them are just freaking bug reports! If Microsoft was held responsible for all the non-Microsoft applications then you'd be comparing apples with apples.
GNU/Linux distros include all those applications. But you don't have to install them!
Take a minimal Windows install and a minimal Debian GNU/Linux install. Or take a Windows box and load up a selection of applications from various vendors and a selection of stuff from downloads.com, and compare it with a reasonably complete Debian install. Then I will be able to take your criticisms seriously. As it is, you are overly critical.
Not died out; in Scotland it is common (though admittedly decreasingly common) to purchase a "poke of chips" which is a "portion of fries".
Of course our "chips" are not very similar to "Freedom Fries". They are much chunkier, less crisp, always made of chipped potatoes rather than potato puree and covered in salt and sauce (which is a thin mixture of brown sauce and vinegar).
You are right but your point is irrelevant to the argument. Whatever the actual number of people requiring jobs, it's very large and it's going to grow quickly over the years.
If you believe that intelligence is the factor which requires humans to be treated with "rights" then you are right.
Personally I don't think intelligence is that factor. For me it is sentience, the ability to experience qualia, like pain and indignity, pleasure and pride.
Robots can't do that and I contend that no artificial creation will ever do so, because it is in the realm of the permanently mysterious.
As a related aside, it is also the reason I treat animals with more respect than most meat-eaters I know. They may be stupid in human terms, but I am convinced they are sentient. Systematically inflicting suffering on entire species of sentient creatures (i.e. factory farming and the "meat packing" industries) is surely orders of magnitude more immoral than putting non-sentient robots to work, whether "intelligent" or not.
What about work on the robot assembly line? Of course robots can be used on a simple assembly line, but who is going to build those robots. I think it would just be a continuous process of robot building, repairing, upgrading etc.
Robots in general production deployment are currently highly specialised. The human labour involved in building and repairing new robots cannot be carried out by todays robots.
But the human body as a repair and build machine is emminently replacable, given advances in joint construction, tactile feedback, and limited AI. There is no technical reason that the humans who build todays robots cannot be replaced with more generally functional robots. This will happen.
All humans have a degree of intelligence far greater than any current or near future machine. So the workers who would have donated their brute strength will simply have to think for a living. They can do it. They will have to.
All humans may have the capacity for doing thinking jobs, but they don't (currently) have the motivation or psychological makeup for it. Society is not geared up for producing a race of thinkers.
And when/if it does, what are they all going to think? You can't have everyone making decisions beyond their own personal activity. Are we all to become artists? Certainly we can't all become leaders. Nor can we all become scientists. The information management problem alone would be gargantuan.
Competing with robots for the same jobs does seem kind of disheartening, but robot building and repairing/debugging will always be needed and it seems like a much more interesting job than mopping floors or nailing two by fours.
As I said, those build / repair / debug jobs are emminently automatable.
What no one saw was that freeing up the most important capital, human labor, from inefficient application to the task of growing food for other purposes. What those who looked at the farms failing and saw disaster were missing was that now the farmer was able to go to the city and be basically as well off working in a factory, and that the farmer's children would go on to become doctors or lawyers or engineers or skilled laborers. Indeed, the industrialization could not have happened without the farm failures.
True, but you miss the point of the article, which is that the upcoming wave of automation won't just make farmworkers or industrial labourers or any other arbitrary sector of the working population redundant, it'll make damn near everyone redundant. It'll be a long wave, but it's coming. Damn, I was in an internet cafe an hour ago. Last time I was in they had staff, who would take your payment and give you a ticket for your purchased time. Tonight they have vending machines. OK, it's a trivial example but I was surprised.
We are heading towards a world where the only use for people is thinking up what to do next, and as plain as your nose, that isn't a job for everyone, not when we have seven or eight billion people in the world.
Mass automation is a huge opportunity and also a huge risk for billions of people. It has to be managed, not left to the whims of the market, which will be increasingly controlled by fewer and fewer extremely wealthy people.
If we continue to do what we did yesterday to meet the problems of tomorrow, we are destined to fail at every step. Mankind cannot rely on the market of the last millenium to meet the dizzying challenges of the new one. And if think it's all pie in the sky, look at the pace of change right now. It's only going to accelerate.
Quite right; I simply meant that the motivation "to contribute" will lead nowhere unless it goes hand in hand with a tangible purpose - a pragmatic outlet for magnanimous energies, rather than an aimless outlet.
Well its a strange question to ask, normally one becomes a Kernel Developer, by having a need, usually unsupported hardware, and they write a driver for it... It sounds like you are at this stage already
To me it sounds like Young Grasshoopa wants to be a kernel developer because [s]he would like to be a kernel developer, not because they have a requirement for features no-one else is working on.
In which case I would think the first thing [s]he should do is get themselves a purpose. Or, as others have suggested, become a janitor or documentation writer.
Not that I know what I'm talking about as I'm not a kernel hacker, but I acknowledge that there would be a certain coolness about being one.
Of course, executing RANDOMISE USR 32768 jumps to machine language located at memory location 32768. On a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. It doesn't seed anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't really help me...
I'm sure that makes them feel much better as they watch the Earth spin off into space.
"Ha! I'm still here! All those poor humans on the surface of that planet, if only they knew that I haven't moved at all!"
I suspect that the Shouldn't that be "typo"? comment itself was actually the punchline of the joke.
There are plenty of scripting options for Windows
I didn't argue otherwise.
and a much richer API to call from them too
Can't say I care about a "rich API", the idea in a command-line based system is that every subsystem exposes it's "API" through it's command-line arguments (c.f. function call in "real programming").
There's nothing you can't do in Windows that you can do in Linux
There's nothing you can do on one turing machine that you can't do on another turing machine.
but the other way around, well, Linux has so many shortcomings it's not funny.
Which are?
1. MCSE's are not degrees!
2. MCSE holder's are not necessarily sysadmins!
The market has said that they want a floppy named "A:\" and a hard drive named "C:\".
What market are you talking about? Where I am currently sitting (behind a Windows NT PC, one of about 12,000 at my place of work) the market has said we want a floppy named "A:\", a hard drive named "C:\", a CDROM named "D:\" and 6 network "drives" named "F, G, H, J, Y, Z:\".
Of course, this is plain stupid. The market doesn't want that, but there's nothing else on the market.. well there is, but it's not widely adopted yet.
And bother me not with these 'script' things. Give me icons or give me death.
Half the icons on my Windows desktop run scripts! Shock horror! Scripts are essential to all serious IT operations.
Oh, sorry, I realise now that you were not posting about serious IT. Of course.
Put another way, Unix and Open Source both assume a sophisticated user, and the market has repeatedly argued otherwise.
No, serious IT assumes a sophisticated user, and those users within the serious IT market have so far struggled to get by with shoddy tools that aren't built with the sophisticated user in mind.
This is why GNU/Linux is getting more popular. Our IT systems are getting more complex, and we need flexible tools to make them manageable. Windows is not up to the job, in fact the whole hinderance which is the domestic GUI is not up to the job.
Don't get me wrong, I love GUI, it has it's place, but it's not for big, complex jobs. For big and complex you need a sophisticated means of expression, and that's the thing that's got us where we are today - language - and when we are talking about IT operations that means scripts.
Stop thinking like a customer and start thinking like a citizen.
Wonderfully put. If people and organisations would think "What can I do to help myself" or "What can we do to help each other" rather than "What can someone else do to help me" then we'd be in a healthier state.
Yes, there are economies of scale in offloading work which isn't out core expertise. I get a landrette to wash and iron my work shirts. I pay half an hour's salary for a job that would take me a couple of hours - this makes sense! I will do minor DIY jobs but I won't repair the roof myself.
These things are emminently outsourceable. They require specialised equipment, some skill and some experience to do effectively and efficiently (even ironing). But they are also commodity services. One shirt varies little from another (OK, mine have double cuffs). My roof is supposed to keep the weather out, just like any other roof; Few people have particular roof requirements. I am happy to offload these tasks to an expert who will do the job, get it right first time every time, like cutting cookies from cookie dough. Software is not like cookies. It must meet complex requirements. It has to be customised, or built, for my needs.
Whatsmore, fixing my roof doesn't fix anyone elses! Shirts are ironed one at a time! But with software, if I solve the "automate invoice processing" problem, it's solved for everyone else too! Doesn't it make sense to share that benefit? To be a citizen rather than a consumer.
Tim, I voted for your party at the last General Election having had my illusions ripped apart at the hands of Blair and his cronies.
It's great that people like you are around in politics at whatever level who are simply aware that FOSS exists and as you say, may be the best answer.
But FOSS isn't about a drop in replacement for proprietary software. It can be that, but the real benefits are gained when users of software change their IT resourcing practices too. Basically, this means insourcing development and support, and spreading the burden by sharing the code and knowledge with other users of the software. The money you would be spending on licensing costs and support contracts needs to go towards purchase of a development resource or part of such resource, and whatever support resources are required. Follow the Open Source development model to cut out red tape and prevent the building of grandiose software sand castles.
I would have though that local government was a perfect agar medium for FOSS bacteria. Local authorities have similar IT needs. Futhermore it's hard to argue against the benefits of co-operation between authorities - they are not in marketplace competition, afterall (I'm sure there are areas of competition but I hope you take my point).
If government wants to reap the benefit of FOSS, it can't just wait for the salesman to show up. FOSS requires an ecosystem, where the users nourish the software symbiotically.
OK I'm in danger of ranting... or perhaps I've already ranted.
Actually I thought some of those quotes were quite balanced and reasonable given a fairly broad perspective. The ones about malaria, starving children and small pox were a bit dodgy, but I can easily empathise with the others, given a little objectivity.
Thanks for your link.
It provides powerful evidence that, as I have long suspected, Microsoft Word is a dangerous gateway Microsoft application. Dabblers think that they can use it now and again harmlessly. In a way they are write. It's easy to run off the odd letter in Microsoft Word and think nothing of it. Even the occasional report or binge essay writing session leaevs users able to function normally in society.
But your brave public exposure shows the real danger that lies behind Microsoft Word use. It provides the user with an initial reassurance. To paraphrase your courageous admission, the unsuspecting victim thinks: "Hey, Microsoft Word is OK. I am just using it to get by. I know that Microsoft are evil and that they sell other, more dangerous pieces of software (which should probably be illegal) but look - I recognise that and you won't catch me touching that other stuff."
But after Word, you dabble in Windows NT. Sure, it blue screens, you think. But I can handle it. I'll just keep rebooting.
That's the nature of this software. Those who use it start off like any other sane person. They can see the dangers. They think they can avoid them. And the software makes them think that way. It's a trap. There is the illusion of interoperability. Microsoft software looks like any other innocent piece of software at first glance. But that is a veneer. Once you have spent as long as you did in the Microsoft haze, your mind starts to detriorate.
You become locked in by the proprietary protocols and data formats. At first you think you can cope. You'll save in text only! No problem! But the truth is that each line is terminated with a carriage return and if you try to give up Microsoft the withdrawal will be a plague of ^Ms. ^M
^M
As your mind deteriorates, you are no longer able to see this. As you have shown, the unfortunate victim of this social plague looses the ability to construct logical thoughts. At this point, the victim is lost. Even a brave public admission such as your own is a sham. The hopeless sufferer of Microsoft addiction believes that they are vindicating Microsoft but all around can see the truth.^M
^M
The sufferer's mind has been destroyed. There is no hope.^M
^M
I have been there myself, I stood on the precipice, one more step and I too would have been like you. Fate and her angels prevented my tragic loss. I was rescued by the Church of Emacs and am forever grateful to Saint IGNUcius.^M
^M
I weep for lost souls such as yourself. But there remains hope! Even in your tortured outpourings you have revealed a glint of light at the end of your dark tunnel. Embrace the church! Reject the ^Ms!
I pray for you.
I would rather say that there is no such thing as a British sense of humour, or an American one.
I notice you spell humour the same way I do so I suppose you're in the UK too.
See how the yanks go on about how funny Monty Python is?
Now, I love Python too. But I have great difficulty finding anyone else who would like to watch the repeats with me.
The least funny comedian I can think of is Lee Evans, who won the Perrier award here (Edinburgh) a few years ago and remained very popular for a couple of years. However, I simply can't stand him. His humour, to me, is free of content. It's oldstyle slapstick and silly faces. Ha ha. Not. But loads of people thought he was great.
There is no national sense of humour.
DNS records do indeed propogate, from masters to slaves, via zone transfers.
My karmah powers my flying car.
You're overly critical, I'm overly uptight.
Your sig:
LinuxSecurity - All the Linux vulnerabilities Slashbots don't want you to see
You are such a troll! Most of those vulnerabilities are for applications! Many of them are just freaking bug reports! If Microsoft was held responsible for all the non-Microsoft applications then you'd be comparing apples with apples.
GNU/Linux distros include all those applications. But you don't have to install them!
Take a minimal Windows install and a minimal Debian GNU/Linux install. Or take a Windows box and load up a selection of applications from various vendors and a selection of stuff from downloads.com, and compare it with a reasonably complete Debian install. Then I will be able to take your criticisms seriously. As it is, you are overly critical.
Not died out; in Scotland it is common (though admittedly decreasingly common) to purchase a "poke of chips" which is a "portion of fries".
Of course our "chips" are not very similar to "Freedom Fries". They are much chunkier, less crisp, always made of chipped potatoes rather than potato puree and covered in salt and sauce (which is a thin mixture of brown sauce and vinegar).
You are right but your point is irrelevant to the argument. Whatever the actual number of people requiring jobs, it's very large and it's going to grow quickly over the years.
If you believe that intelligence is the factor which requires humans to be treated with "rights" then you are right.
Personally I don't think intelligence is that factor. For me it is sentience, the ability to experience qualia, like pain and indignity, pleasure and pride.
Robots can't do that and I contend that no artificial creation will ever do so, because it is in the realm of the permanently mysterious.
As a related aside, it is also the reason I treat animals with more respect than most meat-eaters I know. They may be stupid in human terms, but I am convinced they are sentient. Systematically inflicting suffering on entire species of sentient creatures (i.e. factory farming and the "meat packing" industries) is surely orders of magnitude more immoral than putting non-sentient robots to work, whether "intelligent" or not.
Or a much smaller population.
Marx will yet have his day.
What about work on the robot assembly line? Of course robots can be used on a simple assembly line, but who is going to build those robots. I think it would just be a continuous process of robot building, repairing, upgrading etc.
Robots in general production deployment are currently highly specialised. The human labour involved in building and repairing new robots cannot be carried out by todays robots.
But the human body as a repair and build machine is emminently replacable, given advances in joint construction, tactile feedback, and limited AI. There is no technical reason that the humans who build todays robots cannot be replaced with more generally functional robots. This will happen.
All humans have a degree of intelligence far greater than any current or near future machine. So the workers who would have donated their brute strength will simply have to think for a living. They can do it. They will have to.
All humans may have the capacity for doing thinking jobs, but they don't (currently) have the motivation or psychological makeup for it. Society is not geared up for producing a race of thinkers.
And when/if it does, what are they all going to think? You can't have everyone making decisions beyond their own personal activity. Are we all to become artists? Certainly we can't all become leaders. Nor can we all become scientists. The information management problem alone would be gargantuan.
Competing with robots for the same jobs does seem kind of disheartening, but robot building and repairing/debugging will always be needed and it seems like a much more interesting job than mopping floors or nailing two by fours.
As I said, those build / repair / debug jobs are emminently automatable.
What no one saw was that freeing up the most important capital, human labor, from inefficient application to the task of growing food for other purposes. What those who looked at the farms failing and saw disaster were missing was that now the farmer was able to go to the city and be basically as well off working in a factory, and that the farmer's children would go on to become doctors or lawyers or engineers or skilled laborers. Indeed, the industrialization could not have happened without the farm failures.
True, but you miss the point of the article, which is that the upcoming wave of automation won't just make farmworkers or industrial labourers or any other arbitrary sector of the working population redundant, it'll make damn near everyone redundant. It'll be a long wave, but it's coming. Damn, I was in an internet cafe an hour ago. Last time I was in they had staff, who would take your payment and give you a ticket for your purchased time. Tonight they have vending machines. OK, it's a trivial example but I was surprised.
We are heading towards a world where the only use for people is thinking up what to do next, and as plain as your nose, that isn't a job for everyone, not when we have seven or eight billion people in the world.
Mass automation is a huge opportunity and also a huge risk for billions of people. It has to be managed, not left to the whims of the market, which will be increasingly controlled by fewer and fewer extremely wealthy people.
If we continue to do what we did yesterday to meet the problems of tomorrow, we are destined to fail at every step. Mankind cannot rely on the market of the last millenium to meet the dizzying challenges of the new one. And if think it's all pie in the sky, look at the pace of change right now. It's only going to accelerate.
Quite right; I simply meant that the motivation "to contribute" will lead nowhere unless it goes hand in hand with a tangible purpose - a pragmatic outlet for magnanimous energies, rather than an aimless outlet.
Well its a strange question to ask, normally one becomes a Kernel Developer, by having a need, usually unsupported hardware, and they write a driver for it... It sounds like you are at this stage already
To me it sounds like Young Grasshoopa wants to be a kernel developer because [s]he would like to be a kernel developer, not because they have a requirement for features no-one else is working on.
In which case I would think the first thing [s]he should do is get themselves a purpose. Or, as others have suggested, become a janitor or documentation writer.
Not that I know what I'm talking about as I'm not a kernel hacker, but I acknowledge that there would be a certain coolness about being one.
Of course, executing RANDOMISE USR 32768 jumps to machine language located at memory location 32768. On a Sinclair ZX Spectrum. It doesn't seed anything.