Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are forever. Quarks, right?
Re:Its all about the Interum Measures
on
Microsoft Quickies
·
· Score: 1
As a worker bee whose company currently has an 'E' appended to the stock symbol, I can tell you that the reason for this is that we haven't released our first-quarter earnings yet (and here it is, almost the end of the second quarter). Until we have released our earnings for the first quarter, we'll have an 'E' on the end of our symbol.
Personally I don't see much difference between Linux now and Linux 1990 except for the obvious advancements that all OS have.
Considering Linux wasn't around until 1991 (where it "debuted" as v0.02), I'd say the difference between Linux 2000 and Linux 1990 is essentially infinite.
I droped Linux in 1992 because it could not keep up with my needs as a System Administrator (and I got money to spend on Solaris).
Considering that the 0.02 kernel was released in 1991 and the 1.0 kernel wasn't released until 1994, if you were trying to use Linux in 1992 in a System Admin capacity, you are either in desperate need of being taken out back and shot for being a moron, or you are lying.
Anyone in 1992 who traded a commercial UNIX for Linux deserved what they got.
Oh, I wouldn't say there's nothing inherently new about BeOS.
On the other hand, Mr. Pike seems to equate "innovate" with the notion of "world-altering," or at least, "unrecognizable when compared to things from a decade ago." What Mr. Pike seems to completely ignore is that combinations of existing systems design can be just as new and innovative as entirely new system designs.
BeOS may not use any inherently unique concepts, but it assembles a wide range of concepts that haven't yet been seen in any modern operating system. That, in and of itself, provides for new designs and opportunites that you can't find on existing platforms like Windows NT/2K.
For instance, a filesystem that can double as a simple database by storing metadata outside of the file? A "live" filesystem, so that you can save searches? Now, if I need to, I don't need to know the name of an MP3 file. I can simply query the file system for any MP3 file, downloaded in the last month, from the Album "Back to the 80s" and authored by somebody with the phrase "ana" in their name.
In any other operating system I know, you'd need to either have a separate database, or open and parse every single MP3 file with a special utility.
As far as I'm concerned, even if systems design doesn't have another breakthrough in ten years, there are more than enough current concepts to mix-and-match that will push innovation forward.
These Web Parts can be stored almost anywhere - from inside Windows 20000's file system, to inside a SQL Server table, to within the Web Store that will be part of Exchange 2000.
Windows 20,000? Microsoft has innovated another 18,000 years of operating system!:)
While I have both of his books at home (The Case For Mars, Entering Space: Creating A Space-Faring Civilization), I do have to admit that I haven't browsed through them in a while.
However, having said that, I do distinctly recall that Zubrin's atmospheric processor not only produced rocket fuel (methane/methanol, a component of rocket fuel), but also plain old ordinary water. That was one of the advantages of the device: it produced some of the fuel they would need to get back home, and some of the necessary elements they would need to live while on the surface.
When I go home tonight, I'll dig up my copy of The Case For Mars and see if I can find a page reference.
As far as terraforming, Zubrin's device would be useless anyways. For one thing, his devices as designed for a manned mission would be far too small for a terraforming project. Water for four or six human beings is one thing; water to cover a planet even half the size of Earth is entirely another. For another thing, even if you could scale up the machines, or drop hundreds of thousands of them around the planet, you'd still need to provide millions upon millions of tons of liquid hydrogen, which isn't all that cheap and economical.
So until somebody invents a cost-efficient method of mining Jupiter's atmosphere... terraforming Mars won't be done with Zubrin's device *or* this one.
Don't worry. NASA knows full-well that they can't jeapordize human lives.
The current plan for landing humans on Mars is to send up a rocket every two years (when the optimum launch window between Mars and Earth exists), starting two or three launch windows before the actual human space craft is sent. Since the transit time from here to Mars is about six months or so, that gives NASA a year and a half before the next launch window to evaluate whether a piece of equipment is working or not.
The article didn't go into deep specifics, but this machine sounds like a cousin of a device Robert Zubrin worked on for the purpose of human colonization of Mars. Essentially, the device is sent over with a large stock of one particular type of chemical (I believe liquid hydrogen). When it gets to Mars, it starts drawing in the native atmosphere (mostly CO2). I don't remember the chemical equation, but the end result are two very useful products: water, for drinking and/or air, and methane, a component of rocket fuel. That is part of NASA's "live off the land" approach to Mars colonization - if you can make it on the surface of Mars, why bring it with you?
This device appears to fall in line with that philosophy. Why try and bring two years' worth of air with you if you can simply make in-situ?
Of course, the question then becomes, "What happens if I disassemble/mix-and-match computer parts?" If I buy, for instance, a Dell computer, and then later on I put the monitor on a separate machine, remove the hard disk, take the RAM out for a third system, put the video and ethernet adapters in a new screwdriver machine I'm building...
Where does my license for Windows go? With the processor? The monitor? The hard disk? The RAM? Can I install Windows on any of these machines, because there's at least a piece of the original that can be installed along with Windows?
Even so, from my understanding Jon Katz generally refers to school-aged persons who suffer the wrath of ignorant administrators. That's not what I mean by "prosecute." I mean legal prosecution, with attorneys and a judge or jury. No litigator worth his salt would prosecute a person based on an anonymous accusation without any evidence to back him up.
Anonymous crime reporting is fine. Anonymous crime accusing is an altogether different story; I don't think very few people have ever been, or ever will be, prosecuted on the basis of truly anonymous accusations without corroborating evidence.
The difference is that the former would be using a pay phone to tell the police a bank robbery is taking place; the latter would be to say that Joe Randolph and Mark Fubarii are bank robbers.
Actually, in the US, I'm pretty sure that you could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for building a bomb (or having a built, unexploded bomb).
Re:Cool... is this the modernized Amiga?
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
To correct the original point, BeOS was designed with the intention to make it a multiuser operating system (in the same vein as UNIX, not the 'multiprofile, one-user-at-a-time' method that NT follows).
To that end, BeOS mimics some of the traditional UNIX-isms. For instance, the file system supports the same RWX attributes and ownership details that are present in, for instance, ext2. The user's main starting directory, as well, is called 'home.' Currently, the operating system does not enforce file ownership nor read/write/execute, but those features are already present in the OS.
In the future, because of the fact that BeOS already includes a large number of multiuser-oriented designs, turning BeOS into a multiuser OS will be *relatively* easy (that is to say, the foundation is already there, and the OS won't require a massive overhaul to add those things).
Yes, it's all PR spin, but it's good PR spin. Not only is Penthouse defending their magazine, but the "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" crowd just had the air taken out of their sails. After all, most of the argument of that crowd is that pornography is bad because it damages the "fragile little minds" of kids. If the publisher is trying to keep it out of the hands of kids... their goes the main argument to abolish pornography.
Napster was not created to trade legal music, even though it may happen to also do that.
Can you please offer some evidence as to the intentions behind Napster's design?
As far as I can see, Napster is a tool designed for trading MP3 files, legal or not. I see the fact that the vast majority of MP3 files being unauthorized duplicates as less a result of Napster and more a result of the "I want this, but I don't want to have to pay for it" uber-consumerism of American culture.
In many ways, Napster is like Hertz Rent-A-Car. It provides the transportation; what you do with it is your own business, and Hertz should not be held responsible if you use it in the commission of a crime.
a) I've never heard of you, b) I've never heard of your company, c) I've never heard of any of your games, d) You offer no qualifying information on why you consider the chip to be "a piece of shit," e) You offer no information on what you were trying to do with the chip, aside from the cryptic "Assembly" as the subject for your post, and f) You offer no evidence that you are qualified to speak on the issue, aside from merely being "lead programmer" (whatever that means),
nothing you say will establish experience or credibility for you to speak on this issue. As a result, your opinions as expressed in your post are meaningless, and you appear to be using your title as "lead programmer" in a classic case of False Authority Syndrome.
If you would like anybody for you to take you seriously, please provide pertinent information, observations, and data about your experiences with the chip.
On the other hand, I'm personally not stupid enough to open an attachment like this (especially with the obvious tagline of "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs" - gee, you think that's a Visual Basic script?).
I should really be compiling a list of the coworkers I'm receiving this from. It always pays to know where stupidity is in the org chart.
So we're to praise them because they implemented an unfinished spec?
Out here in the real world, implementing an unfinished design is considered a *bad* thing, precisely because it is unfinished and could change at any given moment - leaving said feature working incorrectly.
Frankly, I find it ironic that you are calling me an idiot and can't spell 'coming' correctly.
At any rate, what are these facts that you speak of? I find it very rude that you call me an idiot and then tell me to learn "the facts" without providing me a channel with which to further my knowledge.
If you have something substantial that can provide rebuttal to my statement that Be is giving away all that they can, feel free to offer it. Otherwise, until that time, it is you "sir" that are the idiot.
It is the full version. Or, rather, it's as full of a version as Be can give away.
The only things that are in the Pro version that aren't in the Personal Edition are things that Be had to pay licensing fees for. RealPlayer was one such beast. MP3 codecs are another. Be didn't just magically stumble across these things; they had to pay money for the rights to use them.
In my humble opinion, I think they have every right to exclude those things from the free version. Or, more appropriately, I think they have every right to *charge* for those things in order to recoup their investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are forever. Quarks, right?
As a worker bee whose company currently has an 'E' appended to the stock symbol, I can tell you that the reason for this is that we haven't released our first-quarter earnings yet (and here it is, almost the end of the second quarter). Until we have released our earnings for the first quarter, we'll have an 'E' on the end of our symbol.
Personally I don't see much difference between Linux now and Linux 1990 except for the obvious advancements that all OS have.
Considering Linux wasn't around until 1991 (where it "debuted" as v0.02), I'd say the difference between Linux 2000 and Linux 1990 is essentially infinite.
I droped Linux in 1992 because it could not keep up with my needs as a System Administrator (and I got money to spend on Solaris).
Considering that the 0.02 kernel was released in 1991 and the 1.0 kernel wasn't released until 1994, if you were trying to use Linux in 1992 in a System Admin capacity, you are either in desperate need of being taken out back and shot for being a moron, or you are lying.
Anyone in 1992 who traded a commercial UNIX for Linux deserved what they got.
Oh, I wouldn't say there's nothing inherently new about BeOS.
On the other hand, Mr. Pike seems to equate "innovate" with the notion of "world-altering," or at least, "unrecognizable when compared to things from a decade ago." What Mr. Pike seems to completely ignore is that combinations of existing systems design can be just as new and innovative as entirely new system designs.
BeOS may not use any inherently unique concepts, but it assembles a wide range of concepts that haven't yet been seen in any modern operating system. That, in and of itself, provides for new designs and opportunites that you can't find on existing platforms like Windows NT/2K.
For instance, a filesystem that can double as a simple database by storing metadata outside of the file? A "live" filesystem, so that you can save searches? Now, if I need to, I don't need to know the name of an MP3 file. I can simply query the file system for any MP3 file, downloaded in the last month, from the Album "Back to the 80s" and authored by somebody with the phrase "ana" in their name.
In any other operating system I know, you'd need to either have a separate database, or open and parse every single MP3 file with a special utility.
As far as I'm concerned, even if systems design doesn't have another breakthrough in ten years, there are more than enough current concepts to mix-and-match that will push innovation forward.
I was more impressed by this quote:
:)
These Web Parts can be stored almost anywhere - from inside Windows 20000's file system, to inside a SQL Server table, to within the Web Store that will be part of Exchange 2000.
Windows 20,000? Microsoft has innovated another 18,000 years of operating system!
What happened to you after you were arrested?
While I have both of his books at home (The Case For Mars, Entering Space: Creating A Space-Faring Civilization), I do have to admit that I haven't browsed through them in a while.
However, having said that, I do distinctly recall that Zubrin's atmospheric processor not only produced rocket fuel (methane/methanol, a component of rocket fuel), but also plain old ordinary water. That was one of the advantages of the device: it produced some of the fuel they would need to get back home, and some of the necessary elements they would need to live while on the surface.
When I go home tonight, I'll dig up my copy of The Case For Mars and see if I can find a page reference.
As far as terraforming, Zubrin's device would be useless anyways. For one thing, his devices as designed for a manned mission would be far too small for a terraforming project. Water for four or six human beings is one thing; water to cover a planet even half the size of Earth is entirely another. For another thing, even if you could scale up the machines, or drop hundreds of thousands of them around the planet, you'd still need to provide millions upon millions of tons of liquid hydrogen, which isn't all that cheap and economical.
So until somebody invents a cost-efficient method of mining Jupiter's atmosphere... terraforming Mars won't be done with Zubrin's device *or* this one.
Don't worry. NASA knows full-well that they can't jeapordize human lives.
The current plan for landing humans on Mars is to send up a rocket every two years (when the optimum launch window between Mars and Earth exists), starting two or three launch windows before the actual human space craft is sent. Since the transit time from here to Mars is about six months or so, that gives NASA a year and a half before the next launch window to evaluate whether a piece of equipment is working or not.
The article didn't go into deep specifics, but this machine sounds like a cousin of a device Robert Zubrin worked on for the purpose of human colonization of Mars. Essentially, the device is sent over with a large stock of one particular type of chemical (I believe liquid hydrogen). When it gets to Mars, it starts drawing in the native atmosphere (mostly CO2). I don't remember the chemical equation, but the end result are two very useful products: water, for drinking and/or air, and methane, a component of rocket fuel. That is part of NASA's "live off the land" approach to Mars colonization - if you can make it on the surface of Mars, why bring it with you?
This device appears to fall in line with that philosophy. Why try and bring two years' worth of air with you if you can simply make in-situ?
Of course, the question then becomes, "What happens if I disassemble/mix-and-match computer parts?" If I buy, for instance, a Dell computer, and then later on I put the monitor on a separate machine, remove the hard disk, take the RAM out for a third system, put the video and ethernet adapters in a new screwdriver machine I'm building...
Where does my license for Windows go? With the processor? The monitor? The hard disk? The RAM? Can I install Windows on any of these machines, because there's at least a piece of the original that can be installed along with Windows?
I have his articles filtered.
Even so, from my understanding Jon Katz generally refers to school-aged persons who suffer the wrath of ignorant administrators. That's not what I mean by "prosecute." I mean legal prosecution, with attorneys and a judge or jury. No litigator worth his salt would prosecute a person based on an anonymous accusation without any evidence to back him up.
No, no.
Anonymous crime reporting is fine. Anonymous crime accusing is an altogether different story; I don't think very few people have ever been, or ever will be, prosecuted on the basis of truly anonymous accusations without corroborating evidence.
The difference is that the former would be using a pay phone to tell the police a bank robbery is taking place; the latter would be to say that Joe Randolph and Mark Fubarii are bank robbers.
Actually, in the US, I'm pretty sure that you could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for building a bomb (or having a built, unexploded bomb).
To correct the original point, BeOS was designed with the intention to make it a multiuser operating system (in the same vein as UNIX, not the 'multiprofile, one-user-at-a-time' method that NT follows).
To that end, BeOS mimics some of the traditional UNIX-isms. For instance, the file system supports the same RWX attributes and ownership details that are present in, for instance, ext2. The user's main starting directory, as well, is called 'home.' Currently, the operating system does not enforce file ownership nor read/write/execute, but those features are already present in the OS.
In the future, because of the fact that BeOS already includes a large number of multiuser-oriented designs, turning BeOS into a multiuser OS will be *relatively* easy (that is to say, the foundation is already there, and the OS won't require a massive overhaul to add those things).
Yes, it's all PR spin, but it's good PR spin. Not only is Penthouse defending their magazine, but the "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" crowd just had the air taken out of their sails. After all, most of the argument of that crowd is that pornography is bad because it damages the "fragile little minds" of kids. If the publisher is trying to keep it out of the hands of kids... their goes the main argument to abolish pornography.
Napster was not created to trade legal music, even though it may happen to also do that.
Can you please offer some evidence as to the intentions behind Napster's design?
As far as I can see, Napster is a tool designed for trading MP3 files, legal or not. I see the fact that the vast majority of MP3 files being unauthorized duplicates as less a result of Napster and more a result of the "I want this, but I don't want to have to pay for it" uber-consumerism of American culture.
In many ways, Napster is like Hertz Rent-A-Car. It provides the transportation; what you do with it is your own business, and Hertz should not be held responsible if you use it in the commission of a crime.
Considering that:
a) I've never heard of you,
b) I've never heard of your company,
c) I've never heard of any of your games,
d) You offer no qualifying information on why you consider the chip to be "a piece of shit,"
e) You offer no information on what you were trying to do with the chip, aside from the cryptic "Assembly" as the subject for your post, and
f) You offer no evidence that you are qualified to speak on the issue, aside from merely being "lead programmer" (whatever that means),
nothing you say will establish experience or credibility for you to speak on this issue. As a result, your opinions as expressed in your post are meaningless, and you appear to be using your title as "lead programmer" in a classic case of False Authority Syndrome.
If you would like anybody for you to take you seriously, please provide pertinent information, observations, and data about your experiences with the chip.
fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
/., and it seems quite appropriate for the occasion:
There's a signature I've seen on
Fuck the system? Nah, I don't want to catch something.
On the other hand, I'm personally not stupid enough to open an attachment like this (especially with the obvious tagline of "LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs" - gee, you think that's a Visual Basic script?).
I should really be compiling a list of the coworkers I'm receiving this from. It always pays to know where stupidity is in the org chart.
I have Outlook 2000 open as we speak.
So far, I've received (estimated) about fifty copies of the damn thing. It's funny, in a "well, hey, look - a train wreck" sort of way.
So we're to praise them because they implemented an unfinished spec?
Out here in the real world, implementing an unfinished design is considered a *bad* thing, precisely because it is unfinished and could change at any given moment - leaving said feature working incorrectly.
In a sense, you're both right.
But in a more real sense, your friend is correct (and, besides, I believe it says so in the book).
Frankly, I find it ironic that you are calling me an idiot and can't spell 'coming' correctly.
At any rate, what are these facts that you speak of? I find it very rude that you call me an idiot and then tell me to learn "the facts" without providing me a channel with which to further my knowledge.
If you have something substantial that can provide rebuttal to my statement that Be is giving away all that they can, feel free to offer it. Otherwise, until that time, it is you "sir" that are the idiot.
Personally, I'm waiting for a monkey with five asses.
No, no, no. :)
"We are the borg.
Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated."
Then, when talking to individual borgs, they'll throw in such phrases as:
"We will add your technological and biological distinctiveness to our own."
It is the full version. Or, rather, it's as full of a version as Be can give away.
The only things that are in the Pro version that aren't in the Personal Edition are things that Be had to pay licensing fees for. RealPlayer was one such beast. MP3 codecs are another. Be didn't just magically stumble across these things; they had to pay money for the rights to use them.
In my humble opinion, I think they have every right to exclude those things from the free version. Or, more appropriately, I think they have every right to *charge* for those things in order to recoup their investment.