that's hadn't happened, you uncouth philistine. Learn some grammar.
Your post also reminds me of woody allen's "match wits with inspector ford", a series of short scenarios set up to perplex the Inspector, followed by an explanation of ridiculous absurdity.
Actually, I heard that they offered Hawking a revamped speech synthesizer, since although his was state-of-the-art in the seventies, today we have much better. He declined, saying he and his friends had gotten used to the voice, and it was "his". In fact, whenever on hears that particular flavor of voice synthesis, it's difficult not to think of Hawking.
He does relate, however, in A Brief History of Time, that at first people had trouble understanding "his voice", so that when he would speak or answer questions at lectures, he would have an interpreter who was more familiar with his voice repeat what he just said.
Whoever implements this: PLEASE BRING BACK THE CADDY!
Breathe the wrong way on this baby and you've wiped out HOW MANY library of congresses worth of text?
Okay, no panic, we're not there yet. But we will be.
CADDY! CADDY!
I'm tired of renting blockbuster dvd's with cigarette burns on them.
Um, yeah. I just got a down-mod shiver, so here's something insightful.
a DVD-size disk able to hold about 87 gigabytes, equal to 87,000 paperback books EXCUSE ME?? Are you saying a paperback book is 87 megabytes? NOT EVEN IF YOU SCAN EACH PAGE IN BITMAP!!! (Because paperbacks are black and white.)
Usually one runs highly parallelizable things on clusters like this. Which means that the computation can be split into nodes easily, without having to constantly share much data between nodes. If you're not highly paralleled, then 12.5 megabytes a second (because that's what 100bt is) is going to slow you down less than having a slow front-side bus. (100 mhz? -- the point is, if/that/ is what limits your computation, versus your processor speeds, because you aren't parallelized, then maybe a cluster isn't your best bet.)
Consider: If your nodes need to share more than 12.5 megs of data second, then you might as well be running 100 megahertz processors.
Software can't be Free as long as there are patent restrictions on it, even if you can use the patents royalty-free. Why?
I'm not sure, exactly. I guess that there are some kind of restrictions that come with use of a patent, even if it's allowed for free.
Right now, if I have in my hand a GPL'd project, I can do whatever I want with it, can modify it in whatever way I want, as long as I do not add in a third kind of copyright. (e.g., I cannot add the stolen source to the next version of Windows into my GPL project and GPL it.) As long as it's between me and the software in front of me, legitimately GPL'd, I can do anything to it, as long as I license the result under the GPL.
For some reason, I'm not sure why, this is not true if there are patents in it, even if the patents are categorically royalty-free.
so, you compile your compiler from source, right and build everything from scratch?
wrong. you compile everything from source BY HAND. The first FORTRAN compiler was written in FORTRAN and compiled...by hand. Of course, without any optimizations. A very un-optimized and bulky and messy FORTRAN compiler now existed, and it was used to compile a clean version of itself from the source the reasearchers usd to create it. So you see, the first FORTRAN compiler was really a person. (This is taken from slashdot comments from awhile ago.)
More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code, so that the author could use a certain password and get in on any system running a unix compiled with that compiler. More deviously, the author also made the compiler detect when it was compiling a version of itself and to add in the same code with which it itself was modified. (ie. 1, to change unix when it noticed it was compiling it, 2. to change a compiler, when it noticed it was compiling it, such that the changes make for a compiled compiler that both changed unix and detected/changed a version of itself, whenever it was asked to compile one.) In this way, the backhole remained through many versions of the comiler, since it did not appear in the source and could not be detected. Imagine if gcc 3.0 changed Linux every time it was compiling it, because it was compiled using gcc 2.x, which was compiled using gcc 1.x, which was changed in such a way as to change the gcc compiler, whenever it was compiling it.
So changes can propagate through the executable compilers, from generation to generation, without appearing in the source. Unless you step through the compiler as it's compiling a version of unix (hairy stuff!) or of itself (even hairier!!), you'll never be any the wiser.
The researchers say it's comparable to lead shielding in terms of shielding radiation, but this does not quite address an important concern. Is it like lead shielding only with respect to nuclear radiation? Or x-rays and such as well?
I'm only asking because I'm trying to figure out whether Superman can see through it. Any help is appreciated.
She may be thrifty and hot, but your wife is less intelligent than you, has poorer taste in music, and doesn't share your ideals. But it's okay, because intelligence, taste, and ideology are traits to look for in men, says the common wisdom. In women, one is to look for a caring, loving person with the know-how to help run your household (e.g. thrift), and the charm and hotness to keep you happy. You, Sir, are a male chauvinist, with a token wife. I hope you're happy.
Robert. p.s. course, I could be confusing you with someone else...
The House and the Senate are each Republican, with a hefty margin. The President is Republican.
The only consolation I have is that there are some kinds of laws that they simply can't pass without having them over-turned, because of the Consitution.
I have never had such an appreciation for our nation's founders, or the term "tyranny of the majority", until now.
God Bless America. And hold on to your britches: it's gonna' be a helluva' two years.
I just searched for 15 minutes on Google, and I would be extremely surprised if any project anywhere displayed TomeRaider files under Linux.
Perhaps you can get an EPOC emulator to run it under linux, or (doubt it exists for Linux; seen it on Windows) a PalmOS emulator. Then there's always WINE. Or, you could run the palm-OS emulator under WINE. Either way, frankly I don't understand why you'd want to run on Linux what is a fairly low-interest application. tomeraider + viewer returns 1,100+ hits, versus 25,000+ of gpl pdf viewer -- d'you know, PDF is an open format now. View a linux browser e.g. here, which is GPL'd, but of course the most robust and mature free-to-use Linux solution is Adobe's. See first two entries here, to create and view PDF files respectively. (Free to use.)
As the bylines say, Tomeraider's just a "freeware application for the TomeRaider format available for PalmOS, EPOC [a PalmOS competitor -3-state], PocketPC and Windows platforms." And that's it. Why you would want to run under linux what seems mostly to be a format supported under handhelds is beyond me....
It doesn't seem serious to me. Forget about it.
Besides, learn PDF-making software and I'll be happy to receive your documents exactly as you intended them to look without your having to do anything outside of instant, no-tweaking WYSIWYG, and without a proprietary format.
Wanna' know why MS word is so popular in the office? Cuz' the document you get looks like the document I sent, and you can edit it as such, and return it, and the document I get returned looks just like it did when you finished working on it.
Can't say that of many widely used document formats...
Therefore, let's all adopt PDF.
It's democratic. It's Free. It's..... OPEN SOURCE!
1. How much do you need to change the current set-up? As one full-time temp, do you really have the personpower to re-write or re-implement everything, probably temporarily breaking things in the meanwhile? You'll be a wreck. Why not leave it? 2. Licensing. Tell us about how much you're paying for the different licensing of the MS server components you use. Maybe a libre solution might make more sense? Could you argue that in exchange for cutting out the licensing costs, you be given a few other temp team members to work with? I think we really need more information before we can tell you what's best for your particular circumstances.
2) Energy already travels from the sun to earth at the speed of light. You're not going to get it here any faster. My point wasn't to get it here faster. The point is to get it while it's less dissipated. If we had no sun near us, but only stars, you could use the same argument: Why would you want to travel to a star that's a hundred light-years away to collect energy? Energy from there already travels at the speed of light.... Yes, it travels at the speed of light, but it also radiates outward in a sphere, and by the time it hits us, it's very dissipated. If you can collect some of it while the "sphere of radiating-outward" is still fairly small (e.g. ten miles, one hundred miles, one thousand miles, or one million miles from the sun), then the same AREA of solar-collection is now worth much much more. If I could choose to power my house from a solar cell on my roof or from a solar cell that's half-way between the Earth and the sun, I would choose to have my house powered by the latter. The question is, how do you get the considerably larger amount of electricity that you can harness while closer to the sun to OVER here. If we could "transport" electricity free of charge, then we'd be stupid to build local power plants, instead of going to the sun, collecting a large-ass amount of electricity (hell, even while FALLING INTO IT, eventually disintegrating), and all the while transport that electricity instantly to Earth, it would save us a lot. Question is, how do we get it from there to here?
So you see, there are two real questions. 1. Can we send something to the sun that will collect an insane amount of electricity in a brief period of time. 2. Can we store an insanely large amount of electricity in a small package, and can we get it back to Earth and use the energy from it. If we can do 1 and 2, then it doesn't matter if the program costs $100,000,000,000, because we can stop producing power, stop buying oil, etc. With an arbitrary amount of energy at our disposal, we can use electrolysis of water (a fairly inefficient system), to get hydrogen. We'd have clean, cheap power for everyone. Is all the oil the world uses for the next fifty years worth one hundred billion dollars? If so, then it's not a question of "how much" will (1) and (2) cost, but merely "is it possible." I don't know if it's possible. I was looking for a physicist's answer of whether it is.
I've always wondered why we need any kind of power generator on Earth when we're just a few million miles[1] from a fusion power plant that's considerably larger than anything we could build on Earth.[2] And all it takes to go that few million miles is the correct initial thrust, because the vacuum of space will not slow down an object that has been started on the correct path. So why can't we send a traditional power plant out into orbit close to the sun, to collect power and somehow transfer it back to us. I don't know how that transfer would work. Superconductive energy storage may be promising, but I can't find a better link. If a superconductor has no resistance, then you lose no power over it, and you can store charge in a ring. (I know this as a fact -- early demonstrations of superconductivity included this very use). Can you store an arbitrarily large amount of charge in this way? It should be fairly easy for a "battery" of a few hundred pounds to lift off of the orbiting power plant (via rocket) and bring back to us a huge amount of energy. It can use some of its energy to maintain enough cooling for superconductivity. Are there other ways to "concentrate" energy at the point of the orbiting solar plant? Higher frequency electromagnetic waves have more power than lower frequencies, so can't we somehow 'step up' the frequencies to the point that we can direct a single ray of very powerful electromagnetic waves at a fairly concentrated area surrounding the Earth? Then the Earth basks in, say, gamma rays that are now much more powerful than the usual cosmic gamma rays, and perhaps can be re-harnessed... Either way it seems counterproductive to make local power plants, when we have a fusion power plant a million times the size of the Earth just spitting energy out, and it's only separated from us by empty space. What gives?
[1] Between 91,400,000 and 94,400,000 miles, depending on the time of year. [2] Having a volume that is in fact larger than Earth's by a factor of 1,295,000.
"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."
Hans and Gretel go mountain climbing with their mother. Hans falls off. So Gretel says: "Look Ma, no Hans!" {GROAN! Blame the article's department.}
Re:AltaVista vs. Google: speed and relevance shoot
on
Altavista Renewed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Google is fast, returning the first results page instantly, no matter what. Wrong. I made google perform a 27 second search (this time length was returned in the search result) by writing a script to find the longest string in the complete works of shakespeare made up entirely of stop words. Entering the stop-words in the format {"+1 +2 +3 +4"} -- the quotation marks are part of the search -- made Google all but croak. It's cuz' it had to merge the list-of-all-sites that 1 appears on with ditto 2 with ditto 3, etc. Fun stuff. (Also: the search became cached instantly, and NEVER again took very long.)
Yeah, that's what I thought too! And it's like WHOA! It's become an idiom "all your something are belong to us" the way "long time no see" has. I think "are belong" is here to stay.
Slashdot Mirror
that's hadn't happened, you uncouth philistine. Learn some grammar.
Your post also reminds me of woody allen's "match wits with inspector ford", a series of short scenarios set up to perplex the Inspector, followed by an explanation of ridiculous absurdity.
Funny stuff.
Actually, I heard that they offered Hawking a revamped speech synthesizer, since although his was state-of-the-art in the seventies, today we have much better. He declined, saying he and his friends had gotten used to the voice, and it was "his". In fact, whenever on hears that particular flavor of voice synthesis, it's difficult not to think of Hawking.
He does relate, however, in A Brief History of Time, that at first people had trouble understanding "his voice", so that when he would speak or answer questions at lectures, he would have an interpreter who was more familiar with his voice repeat what he just said.
Interesting stuff...
Fuck that. Obviously I meant metric meBIbyte, which is one eighty-seventh of a megabyte.
In other word, shush.
The complete works of william shakespeare weigh in at just over 2 megs. That paginates to n pages, and n/2 pages is SOME FUCKING PAPERBACK.
For an average paperback, try 80-120 k compressed.
So the article is still off by a factor of 10, metric giBIbyte notwithstanding.
HOLY SHIT!!! I GOT A REPLY FROM BRUCE PERENS.
go ahead, mod me down people. i don't need the karma, but
HOT DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Whoever implements this:
PLEASE BRING BACK THE CADDY!
Breathe the wrong way on this baby and you've wiped out HOW MANY library of congresses worth of text?
Okay, no panic, we're not there yet. But we will be.
CADDY! CADDY!
I'm tired of renting blockbuster dvd's with cigarette burns on them.
Um, yeah. I just got a down-mod shiver, so here's something insightful.
a DVD-size disk able to hold about 87 gigabytes, equal to 87,000 paperback books
EXCUSE ME?? Are you saying a paperback book is 87 megabytes? NOT EVEN IF YOU SCAN EACH PAGE IN BITMAP!!! (Because paperbacks are black and white.)
What's the writer smoking?
Usually one runs highly parallelizable things on clusters like this. Which means that the computation can be split into nodes easily, without having to constantly share much data between nodes. If you're not highly paralleled, then 12.5 megabytes a second (because that's what 100bt is) is going to slow you down less than having a slow front-side bus. (100 mhz? -- the point is, if /that/ is what limits your computation, versus your processor speeds, because you aren't parallelized, then maybe a cluster isn't your best bet.)
Consider:
If your nodes need to share more than 12.5 megs of data second, then you might as well be running 100 megahertz processors.
Of course, I could just be talking out my ass.
Software can't be Free as long as there are patent restrictions on it, even if you can use the patents royalty-free. Why?
I'm not sure, exactly. I guess that there are some kind of restrictions that come with use of a patent, even if it's allowed for free.
Right now, if I have in my hand a GPL'd project, I can do whatever I want with it, can modify it in whatever way I want, as long as I do not add in a third kind of copyright. (e.g., I cannot add the stolen source to the next version of Windows into my GPL project and GPL it.)
As long as it's between me and the software in front of me, legitimately GPL'd, I can do anything to it, as long as I license the result under the GPL.
For some reason, I'm not sure why, this is not true if there are patents in it, even if the patents are categorically royalty-free.
Anyone want to explain RMS's position?
I'm afraid I can't find a link right now...
That we should skip this first-name, last-name monkey business and cut straight to the social security numbers.
Oh wait, we have.
so, you compile your compiler from source, right and build everything from scratch?
wrong. you compile everything from source BY HAND.
The first FORTRAN compiler was written in FORTRAN and compiled...by hand. Of course, without any optimizations. A very un-optimized and bulky and messy FORTRAN compiler now existed, and it was used to compile a clean version of itself from the source the reasearchers usd to create it. So you see, the first FORTRAN compiler was really a person. (This is taken from slashdot comments from awhile ago.)
More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code, so that the author could use a certain password and get in on any system running a unix compiled with that compiler. More deviously, the author also made the compiler detect when it was compiling a version of itself and to add in the same code with which it itself was modified. (ie. 1, to change unix when it noticed it was compiling it, 2. to change a compiler, when it noticed it was compiling it, such that the changes make for a compiled compiler that both changed unix and detected/changed a version of itself, whenever it was asked to compile one.) In this way, the backhole remained through many versions of the comiler, since it did not appear in the source and could not be detected. Imagine if gcc 3.0 changed Linux every time it was compiling it, because it was compiled using gcc 2.x, which was compiled using gcc 1.x, which was changed in such a way as to change the gcc compiler, whenever it was compiling it.
So changes can propagate through the executable compilers, from generation to generation, without appearing in the source. Unless you step through the compiler as it's compiling a version of unix (hairy stuff!) or of itself (even hairier!!), you'll never be any the wiser.
Devious stuff!
The researchers say it's comparable to lead shielding in terms of shielding radiation, but this does not quite address an important concern. Is it like lead shielding only with respect to nuclear radiation? Or x-rays and such as well?
I'm only asking because I'm trying to figure out whether Superman can see through it. Any help is appreciated.
-Lex.
She may be thrifty and hot, but your wife is less intelligent than you, has poorer taste in music, and doesn't share your ideals. But it's okay, because intelligence, taste, and ideology are traits to look for in men, says the common wisdom. In women, one is to look for a caring, loving person with the know-how to help run your household (e.g. thrift), and the charm and hotness to keep you happy.
You, Sir, are a male chauvinist, with a token wife. I hope you're happy.
Robert.
p.s. course, I could be confusing you with someone else...
The House and the Senate are each Republican, with a hefty margin. The President is Republican.
The only consolation I have is that there are some kinds of laws that they simply can't pass without having them over-turned, because of the Consitution.
I have never had such an appreciation for our nation's founders, or the term "tyranny of the majority", until now.
God Bless America. And hold on to your britches: it's gonna' be a helluva' two years.
I just searched for 15 minutes on Google, and I would be extremely surprised if any project anywhere displayed TomeRaider files under Linux.
Perhaps you can get an EPOC emulator to run it under linux, or (doubt it exists for Linux; seen it on Windows) a PalmOS emulator. Then there's always WINE. Or, you could run the palm-OS emulator under WINE. Either way, frankly I don't understand why you'd want to run on Linux what is a fairly low-interest application. tomeraider + viewer returns 1,100+ hits, versus 25,000+ of gpl pdf viewer -- d'you know, PDF is an open format now. View a linux browser e.g. here, which is GPL'd, but of course the most robust and mature free-to-use Linux solution is Adobe's. See first two entries here, to create and view PDF files respectively. (Free to use.)
As the bylines say, Tomeraider's just a "freeware application for the TomeRaider format available for PalmOS, EPOC [a PalmOS competitor -3-state], PocketPC and Windows platforms."
And that's it.
Why you would want to run under linux what seems mostly to be a format supported under handhelds is beyond me....
It doesn't seem serious to me. Forget about it.
Besides, learn PDF-making software and I'll be happy to receive your documents exactly as you intended them to look without your having to do anything outside of instant, no-tweaking WYSIWYG, and without a proprietary format.
Wanna' know why MS word is so popular in the office?
Cuz' the document you get looks like the document I sent, and you can edit it as such, and return it, and the document I get returned looks just like it did when you finished working on it.
Can't say that of many widely used document formats...
Therefore, let's all adopt PDF.
It's democratic. It's Free. It's..... OPEN SOURCE!
I recently started blocking IP addresses in China
That's okay. They're used to it.
1. How much do you need to change the current set-up?
As one full-time temp, do you really have the personpower to re-write or re-implement everything, probably temporarily breaking things in the meanwhile? You'll be a wreck.
Why not leave it?
2. Licensing.
Tell us about how much you're paying for the different licensing of the MS server components you use. Maybe a libre solution might make more sense? Could you argue that in exchange for cutting out the licensing costs, you be given a few other temp team members to work with?
I think we really need more information before we can tell you what's best for your particular circumstances.
One more thing: Cold Fusion is soooo 90's.
2) Energy already travels from the sun to earth at the speed of light. You're not going to get it here any faster.
My point wasn't to get it here faster. The point is to get it while it's less dissipated. If we had no sun near us, but only stars, you could use the same argument: Why would you want to travel to a star that's a hundred light-years away to collect energy? Energy from there already travels at the speed of light....
Yes, it travels at the speed of light, but it also radiates outward in a sphere, and by the time it hits us, it's very dissipated. If you can collect some of it while the "sphere of radiating-outward" is still fairly small (e.g. ten miles, one hundred miles, one thousand miles, or one million miles from the sun), then the same AREA of solar-collection is now worth much much more.
If I could choose to power my house from a solar cell on my roof or from a solar cell that's half-way between the Earth and the sun, I would choose to have my house powered by the latter. The question is, how do you get the considerably larger amount of electricity that you can harness while closer to the sun to OVER here.
If we could "transport" electricity free of charge, then we'd be stupid to build local power plants, instead of going to the sun, collecting a large-ass amount of electricity (hell, even while FALLING INTO IT, eventually disintegrating), and all the while transport that electricity instantly to Earth, it would save us a lot.
Question is, how do we get it from there to here?
So you see, there are two real questions.
1. Can we send something to the sun that will collect an insane amount of electricity in a brief period of time.
2. Can we store an insanely large amount of electricity in a small package, and can we get it back to Earth and use the energy from it.
If we can do 1 and 2, then it doesn't matter if the program costs $100,000,000,000, because we can stop producing power, stop buying oil, etc.
With an arbitrary amount of energy at our disposal, we can use electrolysis of water (a fairly inefficient system), to get hydrogen. We'd have clean, cheap power for everyone. Is all the oil the world uses for the next fifty years worth one hundred billion dollars?
If so, then it's not a question of "how much" will (1) and (2) cost, but merely "is it possible."
I don't know if it's possible.
I was looking for a physicist's answer of whether it is.
I've always wondered why we need any kind of power generator on Earth when we're just a few million miles[1] from a fusion power plant that's considerably larger than anything we could build on Earth.[2]
And all it takes to go that few million miles is the correct initial thrust, because the vacuum of space will not slow down an object that has been started on the correct path.
So why can't we send a traditional power plant out into orbit close to the sun, to collect power and somehow transfer it back to us. I don't know how that transfer would work.
Superconductive energy storage may be promising, but I can't find a better link. If a superconductor has no resistance, then you lose no power over it, and you can store charge in a ring. (I know this as a fact -- early demonstrations of superconductivity included this very use). Can you store an arbitrarily large amount of charge in this way?
It should be fairly easy for a "battery" of a few hundred pounds to lift off of the orbiting power plant (via rocket) and bring back to us a huge amount of energy. It can use some of its energy to maintain enough cooling for superconductivity.
Are there other ways to "concentrate" energy at the point of the orbiting solar plant? Higher frequency electromagnetic waves have more power than lower frequencies, so can't we somehow 'step up' the frequencies to the point that we can direct a single ray of very powerful electromagnetic waves at a fairly concentrated area surrounding the Earth? Then the Earth basks in, say, gamma rays that are now much more powerful than the usual cosmic gamma rays, and perhaps can be re-harnessed...
Either way it seems counterproductive to make local power plants, when we have a fusion power plant a million times the size of the Earth just spitting energy out, and it's only separated from us by empty space.
What gives?
[1] Between 91,400,000 and 94,400,000 miles, depending on the time of year.
[2] Having a volume that is in fact larger than Earth's by a factor of 1,295,000.
For those of us wondering, here's an important link left out of the write-up.
It's quite revolutionary.
isn't looking at the wave form produced enough? (In terms of matching the same sound in "new form factors", etc.)
You know what, if they're willing to brute-force 56-bit DES encryption to read my data, they can have it. I'll be flattered.
"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."
You're hindered by the fact that you use mostly vi.
If you (and your end-users) want a wysiwyg editor, go with emacs.
There's the ball rolling...
Hans and Gretel go mountain climbing with their mother. Hans falls off. So Gretel says: "Look Ma, no Hans!"
{GROAN! Blame the article's department.}
Google is fast, returning the first results page instantly, no matter what.
Wrong. I made google perform a 27 second search (this time length was returned in the search result) by writing a script to find the longest string in the complete works of shakespeare made up entirely of stop words. Entering the stop-words in the format {"+1 +2 +3 +4"} -- the quotation marks are part of the search -- made Google all but croak. It's cuz' it had to merge the list-of-all-sites that 1 appears on with ditto 2 with ditto 3, etc.
Fun stuff.
(Also: the search became cached instantly, and NEVER again took very long.)
Yeah, that's what I thought too! And it's like WHOA!
It's become an idiom "all your something are belong to us" the way "long time no see" has. I think "are belong" is here to stay.