It is not only a verbatum copy of what was said in court; there is significant effort involved in writing down and puzzling out what was said, figuring out (to the extent that the transcriber did figure out) who said what, and so forth. Remember that multiple people were speaking at the same time and interrupting each other (and on occasion, two justices started to ask questions at the same time).
On the other hand, they only get copyright on the transcript they took, not on other transcripts from other (or, possibly, the same) recording. The situation is similar to making maps, where the mapmaker gets copyright on the map but no rights to other maps of the same location made by other people who survey the location (rather than looking at the map).
Different transcripts of the same argument could be distinguished by the decisions made by the transcribers, which are unlikely to be exactly the same, with respect to punctuation, the overlapping of speach, exactly what was said (e.g., about a third of the way though, the transcript has someone say "you" when "your" must be what was intended; a different transcript would probably have "your" instead), and so forth.
Making a work in the public domain accessible to a larger audience due to a process involving effort and some creativity (or intelligence, which is essentially the same thing) is, in fact, a perfectly good way of getting copyright over your work (although not, of course, the original or similar works by other people), as it does "promote the useful arts and sciences", such as all of us who weren't there discussing the case.
I found it interesting that Kramnik won two games before Fritz won any. I would expect the reverse to be true if Kramnik were playing an unknown opponent. Perhaps Kramnik has blown his lead on probing Deep Fritz's play in the recent games, and is going to get a relatively dull win in the critical game. Game 6 would have been really great if he'd pulled it off; fork the rooks, then sacrifice the knight instead of taking either, and then win? You're not going to see moves like that from a computer any time soon. So maybe Kramnik was trying to totally out-style the computer, and will now go back to trying for a victory without one of his moves marked "!?"
HTML is supposed to represent the semantic aspects of the document. That includes things like sidebars (explanitory material related to the main document, but not in the flow of the main document), drop quotes (sentences from the document that form a summary), and so forth. How these things get displayed is a matter for CSS, but there's no way in HTML to specify that this section is a sidebar, or that a sentence should be used as a drop quote.
I'm not clear why you think that you can get a sidebar by "floating a div". First, that's specifying presentation, not semantics. Second, I couldn't find a site that does that: the New York Times uses a table, CNN uses a table. In fact, the W3C uses a table on their front page. If the W3C uses a table on their front page, even though they say:
Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media.
probably there is no way to do it using HTML correctly.
We'll never be able to predict that sort of thing from genetics, because environment matters a lot more than genetics. It's just that genetics matters some, and it's relatively easy to research accurately. At most, genetics is going to tell you what you're likely to die of if you do nothing to change it, and it could be useful in telling you which ways it would be wise to shift your risk factors. It's probably good to know whether you have to worry about malaria or having anemic children, for instance.
For that matter, there are enough diseases that are easy to treat if caught early but otherwise deadly that it's hard to check for all of them all the time. It's useful to be able to say that a certain person has to worry more about breast cancer than other things, and check for that more frequently.
Essentially, the thing holding the probe can't be sufficiently strong to hold it. When dealing with such conditions, you can't really consider objects as solid; you have to take into account the fact that they're make up of atoms connected due to the electromagnetic force. But EM works by the exchange of photons, which are (very slightly) subject to gravity. Across the event horizon, the photons coming from the probe to the bit outside the black hole don't make it, because they're pulled back in. So anything bigger than a nucleus is going to be ripped apart at the event horizon (and, actually, the only force not known to be mediated by particles is gravity itself, and generating enough gravity to pull an object out of a black hole would require using a bigger black hole, which doesn't cause the object to no longer be in a black hole).
Note that the strength of the electric field doesn't matter. If it's stronger, that's just more photons, each of which falls in, or higher energy (equivalent to mass) photons, which fall in at the same rate.
I'm using fvwm, because I actually want multiple things on the screen at once (since I want to watch for changes in one window while doing things in another window, or type notes on the things I'm reading in a different window; having overlapping windows is nice for this). I don't actually use the virtual desktops much (unless I find I want to do something totally different for a while, with an entirely separate set of windows). Fvwm, at least, can be controlled with keys and key combinations not normally used by other programs (rather than "^O"). I use mostly left-windows, shift-left-windows, alt-left-alt, alt-right-alt, shift-left-shift, and shift-right-shift; this leaves free every non-modifier key with every combination of modifiers on the traditional PC keyboard. This makes "left-windows 1" the X equivalent of "^A ^A". Fvwm is also good for mapping random keys and key combinations to scripts; I have the Pause/Break key start, pause, or resume the CD player.
Screen is, in fact, the coolest piece of software ever. I've been logged into my home server continuously since the morning of April 30th, when I installed a new version which wasn't happy with sessions from the old version. I've had sessions going nearly all the time since 1998. My.profile actually contains "screen; exit", so I never do anything on that machine outside of screen. The cool thing he didn't mention is that you can attach the same session multiple times, so that, if you want to see two of the virtual consoles, or even see a virtual console that's being shown on a different computer, you can do that.
I use emacs server mode with a chunk of elisp to make each new buffer invoked from the command line appear in a separate frame. This puts the file name in the title (which appears in fvwm's window list), and I then have icons and window list entries for all of the file I'm currently working on.
Other than windows for programs I'm running (which are generally xterms, emacs, and a web browser), I have a digital clock. I sometimes have a modern art moving background (kind of hyponotic and relaxing, sort of a white-noise generator).
What I hate is that web sites seem to be designed to be full-screen. I mostly use 1280x1024, but I do other things (like watch logs and builds) while browsing.
On the other hand, it is the job of the web browser to deal with the dumb things that web sites do, since the browser actually knows how big the window is, and such. What would be really nice would be if the W3C actually got around to having tags for things that sites use tables inappropriately for, so that web designers could actually give good information to browsers. As it is, there's no way to specify things like sidebars, rather than specifying the details of layout for them. If you look at a newspaper or magazine article, you'll notice that all of the high-level layout features (drop quotes, sidebars, separated initial paragraphs, tool-bar-like things, etc) are missing from HTML, and can only be done by specifying not what they are, but where they go.
I seem to recall the previous SuSE shipping just before the previous KDE. It would prevent ever getting anything shipped if you waited for the new versions of all of the packages, but I think, if your release cycle is the same length as some major package, it would make sense to release later, rather than before.
This is actually a replacement of the internal code for figuring out how the kernel can be configured (what options there are and what effects they have on the code); the existing code is an incredible mess, with at least 3 separate implementations that generally give the same results, but aren't necessarily identical. The good thing about this tool is that it will make writing a configuration tool only require dealing with the interface aspects, and not with the kernel configuration scripts and file format.
This means that it will be a lot easier to add a version that will configure the kernel based on autodetecting your configuration, and to integrate a version with configuration tools for other packages. There's already plans to have gtk and qt versions of xconfig that don't need to be in the kernel tree.
Making games that aren't just a rehash of old games with newer graphics and such is very hard. Game companies do make novel games when they come up with them, but when they don't have any good ideas, they can at least stay in business by doing another mindless FPS.
Furthermore, the whole FPS thing drives new technology, which opens up new possibilities for interesting games. The new FPS doesn't have bigger guns or more realistic gore, it has more realistic lighting and reflection, and better NPC knowledge tracking. Research done for Grand Theft Auto is necessary for Ico and Final Fantasy X, and so forth.
The original poster was clearly using make, where ${Everybody} is a variable, which may have multiple variables, and which may be conveniently be updated:
Congress can pass anything, but the Supreme Court can throw it out if they do. There's no need for a law to encode the results of the Supreme Court descision. If Congress wants to, it can attempt to pass an intermediate law which it thinks the court won't overrule. Congress never makes laws to restrict the passage of laws by Congress, because Congress could repeal them or ignore them.
The text of the Supreme Court decision will serve to clarify the Constitution, which does constrain Congress, and will inform the decisions of future Supreme Courts (and lower courts). The requirements that this court sets for constitutionality of copyright laws form the standard, as far as they apply, for future laws. The decision is not just a yes or no, but a set of reasoning that leads to the conclusion. There is no real chance of a different decision being reached later unless the law is substantially different.
I expect that there are relatively few people in Russia interested in space these days, like there are relatively few here. So I expect they don't have an overwhelming quantity of cosmonauts. I think it makes sense to have a TV show of cosmonaut training: you'll get more people, you'll promote the concept of space travel, you'll make money. It's not like they aren't going to train the contestants in much the same way they'd train a non-contestant normal cosmonaut. And afterwards, the winner will probably become a regular cosmonaut, since it will be some basically ordinary person, with no particularly interesting day job, who has cosmonaut training and spaceflight experience.
This isn't really much different from how the American space program recruitment used to work: you look for prmising kids, fly them to Florida for Space Camp, and then try to get the best of them to become astronauts, meanwhile keeping taxpayers interested in funding the space program.
I've relied much on my friends who have used linux to help me get my system running
But that has to be included in the support for OSS. In fact, that's the only kind of support that most people get with just about anything technology-related. Furthermore, it's the best support, because the person actually knows you, and both understands what you're saying and cares that you get it working. With commercial software, you often have to deal with people who don't care if your problem gets solved, so long as they get paid; furthermore, it's much harder to find someone who can actually fix something that's broken.
Customizability and ease of use are not actually in opposition at all; you just need to have the defaults set right. Each new option which gets set, by default, by looking at your usage, improves both ease of use and customizability. Local compilation doesn't make things more difficult, because it can be done without any interaction; there's no reason that, when you download a binary and install it, the system couldn't download the source and compile it in the background, and then replace the binary installation with the compiled one. In fact, compiling a program locally is much likely to work than using a precompiled binary, and compiling most programs doesn't take as long as reading their documentation on recent hardware.
BTW, the unacceptably-slow Linux installation took less time than Windows ever has.
As far as I can tell, none of the bloated Linux applications is worthwhile. (The possible exception being Mozilla, and that's just because Netscape 3.0 doesn't really work these days, leaving you without a web browser if you try to avoid all of the bloated software; Mozilla seems to have worked a bit on performance, according to people who have een following it, so they've probably gotten the message already.)
The real advantage to Linux is that, if you think RedHat is too bloated these days, you can still run 7.3, and you'll probably be able to run it without being unable to get security patches for years to come. There aren't forced upgrades to versios which are worse. We're still using RedHat 6.2 at my work, because we haven't seen a compelling reason to switch to anything newer. Stand up and recommend that you leave the damn computers alone and let people get work done with them.
The real issue with feature bloat is that the interface gets more crowded and harder to use. Even though processors are ultra fast and ram is cheap, that's no excuse for making each version more confusing than the previous one.
Your example is good (I thought of it, but only a while later). The trick, though, is that Latin doesn't do this, which means that "virus" can only be pluralized in English, not in Latin. English words don't pluralize with the Latin rules (which is why the plural of "suffix" is not "suffices"); they can only be borrowed from Latin with both the singular and plural forms. In this case, you can only borrow the singular, so you'd get "viruses".
Latin would probably use, for that situation, genera viri ("kinds of virus"), where viri is the singular genitive ("of virus"), not a plural; Latin tends to use extra words rather than the odd syntax we use in English, probably because it does so much with endings and it's hard to put on extra endings.
Of course, since computer jargon uses the archaic Germanic plural ending "-en" (e.g. "Linux boxen"), there's no reason it shouldn't use archaic Latin endings as well. So the standard English plural of "virus" is "viruses", which applies to the biological but not the computer kind, just like "boxen" applies to the computer kind but no others (you don't say, "Why does software come in such large cardboard boxen?").
(Note on "suffixes": "suffix" actually is from Latin, but the Latin word is actually suffixum, and its plural would be suffixa; having ditched the singular ending, English applies the English plural, not either the original Latin plural or the Latin plural which would go with the end of the English word.)
There are a number of bits of that page that make it clear that the author doesn't actually know Latin.
And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative.
Except that viri (from vir, mentioned just above) uses the same thing for the genitive singular and nominative plural, as do all regular 2nd declension masculine nouns that don't end in -ius. For that matter, spoken English doesn't normally distinguish the singular possessive from the nominative plural (written uses an apostrophe, which doesn't affect pronunciation).
As far as how such a noun should work in the plural, there's a perfectly good example: cetus (whale) has a perfectly normal plural ceti, following the masculine pattern despite being neuter, just like virus.
On the other hand, the plural of virus is not attested in any form. The logical conclusion of this fact is that virus is a word like "sheep" or "fish", which doesn't have a distinguished plural form. It makes more sense, anyway, because you're not generally dealing with individual copies; you're dealing with an infection as a whole.
Of course, if you really want a plural that's obviously a plural and refers to multiple different entities, use "worms".
I think that Linux does need to be user friendly, but not by losing configurability. The ideal would be for every file that you hadn't editted yet contain values that "just work". If those values aren't right, it must be because you want it to do something really complicated; then you can edit the files. Ideally, once you'd editted the files, a program would check whether your new version could possibly work and fall back on a backup of the previous working version if it can't.
And ideally, it would be the autoconfigurator that would use the endless configurability in most cases. Consider XFree86. It used to be that you set all of the monitor timings for your display modes; these days, it just knows how to do most useful resolutions nicely for your system. But, if you're really picky, you can tune the timings by hand. Having done the old way a couple of times, I know how to do it and I know how good I can make it. But I haven't felt the need to tune it for a while, because I've been happy with the defaults. I'm still glad to know, however, that I could change it if I wanted a slightly different refresh rate.
That's the difference between C and Fortran. The group working on C9X, in a sudden burst of work, completed the standard in the middle of December 1999. Of course, they're still working on the details, but they got an official release out in the right decade.
They're selling technology and services to commercial entities. While it may not be completely obvious, this is what RMS spent most of the past two decades (until he got a grant) doing. Linus hasn't sold any Linux-related goods or services, but that's probably just because he got a good job at a hardware startup; otherwise, he'd probably be living by doing Linux consulting.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not going to get away with waiting for one of the NPCs to fix the printer for you this time.
It is not only a verbatum copy of what was said in court; there is significant effort involved in writing down and puzzling out what was said, figuring out (to the extent that the transcriber did figure out) who said what, and so forth. Remember that multiple people were speaking at the same time and interrupting each other (and on occasion, two justices started to ask questions at the same time).
On the other hand, they only get copyright on the transcript they took, not on other transcripts from other (or, possibly, the same) recording. The situation is similar to making maps, where the mapmaker gets copyright on the map but no rights to other maps of the same location made by other people who survey the location (rather than looking at the map).
Different transcripts of the same argument could be distinguished by the decisions made by the transcribers, which are unlikely to be exactly the same, with respect to punctuation, the overlapping of speach, exactly what was said (e.g., about a third of the way though, the transcript has someone say "you" when "your" must be what was intended; a different transcript would probably have "your" instead), and so forth.
Making a work in the public domain accessible to a larger audience due to a process involving effort and some creativity (or intelligence, which is essentially the same thing) is, in fact, a perfectly good way of getting copyright over your work (although not, of course, the original or similar works by other people), as it does "promote the useful arts and sciences", such as all of us who weren't there discussing the case.
I don't think he'd sell them the patent. But he might license it to them... on a yearly basis... with the possibility of renegotiating it each time...
I found it interesting that Kramnik won two games before Fritz won any. I would expect the reverse to be true if Kramnik were playing an unknown opponent. Perhaps Kramnik has blown his lead on probing Deep Fritz's play in the recent games, and is going to get a relatively dull win in the critical game. Game 6 would have been really great if he'd pulled it off; fork the rooks, then sacrifice the knight instead of taking either, and then win? You're not going to see moves like that from a computer any time soon. So maybe Kramnik was trying to totally out-style the computer, and will now go back to trying for a victory without one of his moves marked "!?"
I'm not clear why you think that you can get a sidebar by "floating a div". First, that's specifying presentation, not semantics. Second, I couldn't find a site that does that: the New York Times uses a table, CNN uses a table. In fact, the W3C uses a table on their front page. If the W3C uses a table on their front page, even though they say:
probably there is no way to do it using HTML correctly.
We'll never be able to predict that sort of thing from genetics, because environment matters a lot more than genetics. It's just that genetics matters some, and it's relatively easy to research accurately. At most, genetics is going to tell you what you're likely to die of if you do nothing to change it, and it could be useful in telling you which ways it would be wise to shift your risk factors. It's probably good to know whether you have to worry about malaria or having anemic children, for instance.
For that matter, there are enough diseases that are easy to treat if caught early but otherwise deadly that it's hard to check for all of them all the time. It's useful to be able to say that a certain person has to worry more about breast cancer than other things, and check for that more frequently.
Essentially, the thing holding the probe can't be sufficiently strong to hold it. When dealing with such conditions, you can't really consider objects as solid; you have to take into account the fact that they're make up of atoms connected due to the electromagnetic force. But EM works by the exchange of photons, which are (very slightly) subject to gravity. Across the event horizon, the photons coming from the probe to the bit outside the black hole don't make it, because they're pulled back in. So anything bigger than a nucleus is going to be ripped apart at the event horizon (and, actually, the only force not known to be mediated by particles is gravity itself, and generating enough gravity to pull an object out of a black hole would require using a bigger black hole, which doesn't cause the object to no longer be in a black hole).
Note that the strength of the electric field doesn't matter. If it's stronger, that's just more photons, each of which falls in, or higher energy (equivalent to mass) photons, which fall in at the same rate.
I'm using fvwm, because I actually want multiple things on the screen at once (since I want to watch for changes in one window while doing things in another window, or type notes on the things I'm reading in a different window; having overlapping windows is nice for this). I don't actually use the virtual desktops much (unless I find I want to do something totally different for a while, with an entirely separate set of windows). Fvwm, at least, can be controlled with keys and key combinations not normally used by other programs (rather than "^O"). I use mostly left-windows, shift-left-windows, alt-left-alt, alt-right-alt, shift-left-shift, and shift-right-shift; this leaves free every non-modifier key with every combination of modifiers on the traditional PC keyboard. This makes "left-windows 1" the X equivalent of "^A ^A". Fvwm is also good for mapping random keys and key combinations to scripts; I have the Pause/Break key start, pause, or resume the CD player.
.profile actually contains "screen; exit", so I never do anything on that machine outside of screen. The cool thing he didn't mention is that you can attach the same session multiple times, so that, if you want to see two of the virtual consoles, or even see a virtual console that's being shown on a different computer, you can do that.
Screen is, in fact, the coolest piece of software ever. I've been logged into my home server continuously since the morning of April 30th, when I installed a new version which wasn't happy with sessions from the old version. I've had sessions going nearly all the time since 1998. My
I use emacs server mode with a chunk of elisp to make each new buffer invoked from the command line appear in a separate frame. This puts the file name in the title (which appears in fvwm's window list), and I then have icons and window list entries for all of the file I'm currently working on.
Other than windows for programs I'm running (which are generally xterms, emacs, and a web browser), I have a digital clock. I sometimes have a modern art moving background (kind of hyponotic and relaxing, sort of a white-noise generator).
What I hate is that web sites seem to be designed to be full-screen. I mostly use 1280x1024, but I do other things (like watch logs and builds) while browsing.
On the other hand, it is the job of the web browser to deal with the dumb things that web sites do, since the browser actually knows how big the window is, and such. What would be really nice would be if the W3C actually got around to having tags for things that sites use tables inappropriately for, so that web designers could actually give good information to browsers. As it is, there's no way to specify things like sidebars, rather than specifying the details of layout for them. If you look at a newspaper or magazine article, you'll notice that all of the high-level layout features (drop quotes, sidebars, separated initial paragraphs, tool-bar-like things, etc) are missing from HTML, and can only be done by specifying not what they are, but where they go.
I seem to recall the previous SuSE shipping just before the previous KDE. It would prevent ever getting anything shipped if you waited for the new versions of all of the packages, but I think, if your release cycle is the same length as some major package, it would make sense to release later, rather than before.
This is actually a replacement of the internal code for figuring out how the kernel can be configured (what options there are and what effects they have on the code); the existing code is an incredible mess, with at least 3 separate implementations that generally give the same results, but aren't necessarily identical. The good thing about this tool is that it will make writing a configuration tool only require dealing with the interface aspects, and not with the kernel configuration scripts and file format.
This means that it will be a lot easier to add a version that will configure the kernel based on autodetecting your configuration, and to integrate a version with configuration tools for other packages. There's already plans to have gtk and qt versions of xconfig that don't need to be in the kernel tree.
Making games that aren't just a rehash of old games with newer graphics and such is very hard. Game companies do make novel games when they come up with them, but when they don't have any good ideas, they can at least stay in business by doing another mindless FPS.
Furthermore, the whole FPS thing drives new technology, which opens up new possibilities for interesting games. The new FPS doesn't have bigger guns or more realistic gore, it has more realistic lighting and reflection, and better NPC knowledge tracking. Research done for Grand Theft Auto is necessary for Ico and Final Fantasy X, and so forth.
The original poster was clearly using make, where ${Everybody} is a variable, which may have multiple variables, and which may be conveniently be updated:
Everybody += EFF
when somebody else wants a law overturned.
Congress can pass anything, but the Supreme Court can throw it out if they do. There's no need for a law to encode the results of the Supreme Court descision. If Congress wants to, it can attempt to pass an intermediate law which it thinks the court won't overrule. Congress never makes laws to restrict the passage of laws by Congress, because Congress could repeal them or ignore them.
The text of the Supreme Court decision will serve to clarify the Constitution, which does constrain Congress, and will inform the decisions of future Supreme Courts (and lower courts). The requirements that this court sets for constitutionality of copyright laws form the standard, as far as they apply, for future laws. The decision is not just a yes or no, but a set of reasoning that leads to the conclusion. There is no real chance of a different decision being reached later unless the law is substantially different.
I expect that there are relatively few people in Russia interested in space these days, like there are relatively few here. So I expect they don't have an overwhelming quantity of cosmonauts. I think it makes sense to have a TV show of cosmonaut training: you'll get more people, you'll promote the concept of space travel, you'll make money. It's not like they aren't going to train the contestants in much the same way they'd train a non-contestant normal cosmonaut. And afterwards, the winner will probably become a regular cosmonaut, since it will be some basically ordinary person, with no particularly interesting day job, who has cosmonaut training and spaceflight experience.
This isn't really much different from how the American space program recruitment used to work: you look for prmising kids, fly them to Florida for Space Camp, and then try to get the best of them to become astronauts, meanwhile keeping taxpayers interested in funding the space program.
Nonsense! There's no way that a 100,000-mile-tall tower would have any effect on language.
Er, that is to say, there's no way that a 100,000-kilometer-tall tower would have any effect on language.
I've relied much on my friends who have used linux to help me get my system running
But that has to be included in the support for OSS. In fact, that's the only kind of support that most people get with just about anything technology-related. Furthermore, it's the best support, because the person actually knows you, and both understands what you're saying and cares that you get it working. With commercial software, you often have to deal with people who don't care if your problem gets solved, so long as they get paid; furthermore, it's much harder to find someone who can actually fix something that's broken.
Customizability and ease of use are not actually in opposition at all; you just need to have the defaults set right. Each new option which gets set, by default, by looking at your usage, improves both ease of use and customizability. Local compilation doesn't make things more difficult, because it can be done without any interaction; there's no reason that, when you download a binary and install it, the system couldn't download the source and compile it in the background, and then replace the binary installation with the compiled one. In fact, compiling a program locally is much likely to work than using a precompiled binary, and compiling most programs doesn't take as long as reading their documentation on recent hardware.
BTW, the unacceptably-slow Linux installation took less time than Windows ever has.
As far as I can tell, none of the bloated Linux applications is worthwhile. (The possible exception being Mozilla, and that's just because Netscape 3.0 doesn't really work these days, leaving you without a web browser if you try to avoid all of the bloated software; Mozilla seems to have worked a bit on performance, according to people who have een following it, so they've probably gotten the message already.)
The real advantage to Linux is that, if you think RedHat is too bloated these days, you can still run 7.3, and you'll probably be able to run it without being unable to get security patches for years to come. There aren't forced upgrades to versios which are worse. We're still using RedHat 6.2 at my work, because we haven't seen a compelling reason to switch to anything newer. Stand up and recommend that you leave the damn computers alone and let people get work done with them.
The real issue with feature bloat is that the interface gets more crowded and harder to use. Even though processors are ultra fast and ram is cheap, that's no excuse for making each version more confusing than the previous one.
Back in first grade, they teased him when he would play with worms during recess. He swore he'd show them, and now...
Millions of seven-year-olds were inspired today to poke at slugs and other slimy invertebrates.
Your example is good (I thought of it, but only a while later). The trick, though, is that Latin doesn't do this, which means that "virus" can only be pluralized in English, not in Latin. English words don't pluralize with the Latin rules (which is why the plural of "suffix" is not "suffices"); they can only be borrowed from Latin with both the singular and plural forms. In this case, you can only borrow the singular, so you'd get "viruses".
Latin would probably use, for that situation, genera viri ("kinds of virus"), where viri is the singular genitive ("of virus"), not a plural; Latin tends to use extra words rather than the odd syntax we use in English, probably because it does so much with endings and it's hard to put on extra endings.
Of course, since computer jargon uses the archaic Germanic plural ending "-en" (e.g. "Linux boxen"), there's no reason it shouldn't use archaic Latin endings as well. So the standard English plural of "virus" is "viruses", which applies to the biological but not the computer kind, just like "boxen" applies to the computer kind but no others (you don't say, "Why does software come in such large cardboard boxen?").
(Note on "suffixes": "suffix" actually is from Latin, but the Latin word is actually suffixum, and its plural would be suffixa; having ditched the singular ending, English applies the English plural, not either the original Latin plural or the Latin plural which would go with the end of the English word.)
No, they asked, "where do you want us to go today?"
There are a number of bits of that page that make it clear that the author doesn't actually know Latin.
And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative.
Except that viri (from vir, mentioned just above) uses the same thing for the genitive singular and nominative plural, as do all regular 2nd declension masculine nouns that don't end in -ius. For that matter, spoken English doesn't normally distinguish the singular possessive from the nominative plural (written uses an apostrophe, which doesn't affect pronunciation).
As far as how such a noun should work in the plural, there's a perfectly good example: cetus (whale) has a perfectly normal plural ceti, following the masculine pattern despite being neuter, just like virus.
On the other hand, the plural of virus is not attested in any form. The logical conclusion of this fact is that virus is a word like "sheep" or "fish", which doesn't have a distinguished plural form. It makes more sense, anyway, because you're not generally dealing with individual copies; you're dealing with an infection as a whole.
Of course, if you really want a plural that's obviously a plural and refers to multiple different entities, use "worms".
I think that Linux does need to be user friendly, but not by losing configurability. The ideal would be for every file that you hadn't editted yet contain values that "just work". If those values aren't right, it must be because you want it to do something really complicated; then you can edit the files. Ideally, once you'd editted the files, a program would check whether your new version could possibly work and fall back on a backup of the previous working version if it can't.
And ideally, it would be the autoconfigurator that would use the endless configurability in most cases. Consider XFree86. It used to be that you set all of the monitor timings for your display modes; these days, it just knows how to do most useful resolutions nicely for your system. But, if you're really picky, you can tune the timings by hand. Having done the old way a couple of times, I know how to do it and I know how good I can make it. But I haven't felt the need to tune it for a while, because I've been happy with the defaults. I'm still glad to know, however, that I could change it if I wanted a slightly different refresh rate.
That's the difference between C and Fortran. The group working on C9X, in a sudden burst of work, completed the standard in the middle of December 1999. Of course, they're still working on the details, but they got an official release out in the right decade.
They're selling technology and services to commercial entities. While it may not be completely obvious, this is what RMS spent most of the past two decades (until he got a grant) doing. Linus hasn't sold any Linux-related goods or services, but that's probably just because he got a good job at a hardware startup; otherwise, he'd probably be living by doing Linux consulting.