Slashdot is not the only publication with bad editors! To quote the article: "Though Infinera won't reveal the chip's cost, when built with manufacturing techniques used by chip makers like Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, it likely could be made very cheaply."
Well, not quite. You see, the article later mentions that Infinera used InP (Indium Phosphide) chips instead of silicon, probably because they needed it's superior electrical and optical properties. With InP, it's possible to make 100 GHz circuits, but not cheaply. Certainly not for the same cost as a modern, silicon CPU.
A lot of articles here are advocating paper, but I belong to the opposite camp. I hate paper. I can't read my own handwriting half the time, and I can almost never read the shorthand of other people. (Do you have any idea how many people die in hospitals because nurses can't always read the Doctor's hastily scribbled notes properly?)
A paperless office is not only possible, but easy. I worked at a desk for two years without a piece of paper in sight. Everyone else had piles of papers and books, most of which they never touched, but regularly spilled coffee onto. It's just a matter of learning new ways of doing old things. Need to take a note? Notepad. Need to collaborate with colleagues? Email. Need to work simultaneously on a file with others? CVS.
At the place I work now, everything is stored in Exchange public folders. I can search through everything anybody has ever emailed or documented at this company in seconds.
It seems that nuclear powered rockets are a great idea, but NASA seems to be balking at the idea because they're afraid that the general population is going to be afraid. There is no real danger of course, but that doesn't seem to factor into the equation. Has NASA even tried to actualize a fission rocket, just to test the waters? Just how bad can the protest be in face of hard scientific fact? After all, the Cassini launch had greenies protesting too, but when I saw it on the news, it was something like a few dozen people outside the gates. Is that all that's stopping NASA? A bunch of doped out hippies camping outside a barbed-wire fence manned by armed security guards? I hope not...
The ACCC is extremely consumer-friendly. I think their theory is that as long as there is demand, there will be a supply, but the reverse isn't true. The drug trade exemplifies this: Even though it's illegal to sell drugs, the demand is there, so people do it. The ACCC is simply applying the same philosophy to more ordinary situations: Keep the consumers happy by making their purchases safe for them, and they're likely to continue being consumers.
Over here, the government guarantees a "reasonable" minimum warranty on all purchased items, ignoring any "lets screw the customer" EULA-s or the like. I suspect that suing Microsoft for faulty software would succeed in Australia, but would fail in the US.
The idea is not to produce kilograms of antimatter and use it directly. That is far beyond our present production capacity (picograms a year!), impossible to store, and very difficult to use. The idea is to use very, very tiny amounts of antimatter as a trigger device for fission, fusion, or both.
A large particle accelerator would be used to generate a few nanograms for storage on the spacecraft. (Note that this quantity is quite safe) The spacecraft would spit out tiny pellets of fissionable materials, possibly with a deuterium core, and "ignite" it using a small fraction of the stored antimatter. The result is a small explosion, and hence, thrust. The system is easily controlled, safe, and very efficient. Most importantly, it can be done using present technology, and with a modest budget.
Actually, that is a very nasty problem, with or without a calculator. It has about 7 roots, not counting complex solutions. The roots are closely spaced, the accuracy of the input numbers is low, and the values encountered are large. The problem is not solveable analytically, and even the best numerical methods have trouble finding all the roots. Using Mathematica, I could find all the solutions (to arbitrary precision) in about an hour. I'd like to see anyone that can do it armed with nothing more than a calculator in under five minutes!
Why is it that every time some new "revolutionary" processor design is announced, it's always about "blowing away Intel and AMD" by some unbelievable factor, but without fail the actual product release always seems to target the "laptop and low-power" market. Funny that.
Why does every mission have to be to Mars? What about
Pluto,
Titan,
Europa, or
Mercury
, none of which we have explored properly yet, but should have! Why go to Mars when we know so much about it already? We have better maps of Mars than we do of the Earth!
No, it doesn't. My windows computers at home and at work practically never crash, nor does the software that I run. IE for example is rock solid. Meanwhile, someone just said: "... Mozilla has finally become usable to my level of tolerance, meaning it has fewer annoyances than Netscape does now. " I've used most versions of Netscape and Mozilla and they're collectively some of the worst written software I've yet seen. Buggy, slow, and irritating to use. If those are the flagship GUI apps under Linux, there is some time yet before it'll even begin to match Windows in the eyes of the average person.
".9 very nice"? What have you been using until now that was [gasp] worse than Mozilla 0.9? It's the worst browser I've ever used, and I've been using browsers since the Netscape 2.0 days. Mozilla crashes every minute or so, it's interface is difficult to use and often scrolls off the dialog box without presenting any scrollbar, it produces lots of visual glitches and is generally slow. You can say what you want about MS, but IE 5.5 spanks Mozilla's scaly ass.
I've notices that these days the two biggest trends in high-level language design is the ability to 'round-trip' and a "seperation of concerns".
What I mean by 'round-trip' is that it should be possible to parse the language, make some complex transformation, and spit code back out without loosing a lot of information. This in general is impossible in C and C++ because macros operate at a higher level than the core language, and because a single line of source code in a header file can mean different things depending on the context in which it's included.
The second big advancement is an extension of the OO model called Aspect Oriented programming. There have been a number of studies in the area, and many of them show impressive gains in performance, or reduction in code size. The goal of AO programming is seperating loosely connected tasks that normally have to be interleaved by the programmer, and automating the process, which is called weaving. This is normally done by allowing "after-the-fact" additions to code using glob style operators. For example, it's possible to add interfaces to a class without modifying it's source code, or by 'wrapping' functions or groups of functions in before-after style blocks. Take a look at AspectJ, which is a backwards compatible extension to Java.
I think that not enough people were being made moderators, and a lot of stories (like 6 in a row!) were getting zero posts moderated above 4, let alone 5. (I read at 4+)
Clearly, the problem was fixed by making more people moderators (even I got moderator status), butI guess they overdid it.
Erm... no. Cyan Magenta and Yellow (and Black) are used in printing processes. The color and intensity sensing of our eyes is much more complex than that, and cannot be trivially defined using three colors. The 'blue' receptor for example can sense red light to a small extent, and some women have two slightly different types of red receptor, so they can differentiate between colours that look the same to us.
Yes, mdev 7.0 is probably one of the most compliant C++ compilers out there.
It's not. AFAIK, most other popular C++ compilers are better. I've used Visual Studio.NET 7 for a while now, and it hasn't improved much over 6. The standard library is a little more compliant, but only in a few places. The compiler itself still doesn't support all the standardized features. The following list is taken from the VS.NET help file:
Standard Compliance Issues in Visual C++
2.11 Alternative Keyword Representations
The alternate forms of the following keywords are not available: and, and_eq, bitand, bitor, compl, not, not_eq, or, or_eq, xor, xor_eq
3.4.2 Argument-dependent Name Lookup
Argument-dependent name lookup, also known as Koenig lookup, is supported for operators but not for other member functions...
6.4 Scope of a Name Declaration in a Selection Statement
A name introduced in a selection statement should be in scope for the remainder of the selection scope...
10.3 Covariant Return Types
Covariant return types are not supported...
14 export Keyword on a Template
The export keyword is not supported on templates...
14.5.2 Out-of-Class Template Definitions
Class and template members must be declared and defined within the class or template...
14.5.4 Class Template Partial Specialization
Class template partial specialization is not supported by the Visual C++ compiler...
14.5.5.2 Partial Ordering of Function Templates
Partial ordering of function templates is not supported...
14.8.1 Explicit Template Argument Specification
Visual C++ does not deduce template arguments for function templates; that is, all template parameters must be used in function arguments or return type...
15 Function try Blocks
Function try blocks are not supported...
15.4 Function Exception Specifiers
Function exception specifiers other than throw() are parsed but not used.
18.6.4 uncaught_exception Returns true
As can be seen in the Visual C++ source file, uncaught.cpp, uncaught_exception returns false.
The title of the article "FireWire For Windows XP, But No USB 2.0" is openly deceptive, because it alludes that Microsoft was going to add support for both competing technologies, but decided to drop USB 2.0 for political reasons. This is not the case: First, FireWire is years old, and there is already support for it in Windows. Second, AFAIK they dropped USB 2.0 support because there aren't enough devices out there yet to write a decent driver model around. Have you seen any USB 2.0 motherboards?
And I'm particularly shocked by the "But FireWire is so much better, it's Intel's FUD that killed it." line a lot of people here seem to be spouting. You want to know what killed FireWire? It was the little detail that a FireWire chip is not too different from a gigabit ethernet controller with a dynamic router built in, and cost at least $80 each when first released. And just like high speed ethernet, the tolerances required were much tighter in all associated components, like the cables, connectors, printed circuit boards, etc... A USB chip in comparison now costs only a few dollars. The market isn't ready to pay hundreds of dollers for a mouse that doesn't need the bandwidth. USB won because it was fast enough at the right price.
I've been tring to work out what the most bizarre thing my creature is willing to eat. So far, I've seen my monkey eat people, whole pine trees, live cattle, it's own dung, and a fence.
The 5% detection seems low, but keep in mind that circa 50% of stars out there are in fact binary stars, and their gravitational interactions are too complex to maintain classical planetary systems. Hence, a 5% detection rate should be read as 10% of the potential.
I completely agree. How can Slashdot so vocally support SETI@home, a cool, but completely useless endevour, but badmouth a project that aims to save lives? Protein folding and protein chemistry simulations have applications that could and probably will save your life at some point in time. Even if the project did make money for someone, somewhere, so what? What is so wrong with making a profit? Is robbing someone of their right to make earn a living a cause worth sacrificing lives to?
Ok, let me get this straight: You start with IPv4, run TCPv4 over that, make a standard HTTP connection, and tunnel TCPv4 through that. Why stop there? Why not tunnel IPv6 over the tunnelled TCP connection? Then you can run TCPv6 over the IPv6 connection, and make a HTTP connection through it all!
These displays are still not the "ultimate" in 3D because they aren't true 3D displays. Yes, they give an excellent sense of depth, but they cannot emulate real world images of most objects. The technical reason is that the light generated or reflected by an object can only be properly represented by 4 dimensions of data (not counting wavelength, time and external light sources), but these displays can only really produce 3. To put it in laymans terms, these displays can only represent additively transparent (glowing) objects. You cannot visualize opaque objects properly. This is still useful for scientific visualization, medical imaging, etc... but not all that useful for common real-world applications.
Note that all those games use VERY old 3D technology, or no 3D at all! Diablo II's 3D is so primitive that it was targetted at the 3Dfx line of cards, Starcraft is entirely 2D, and HalfLife uses D3D 6.1 or a standard subset of modern OpenGL extensions.
DirectX 8 is a whole different ballgame. I'd be very impressed to see D3D8 implemented on Linux for a number of reasons: First, it has features so advanced that no current video card is D3D8 compliant. Second, it's a fairly safe bet that to achieve even reasonable performance, MS compiles vertex shaders into SSE, SSE2, 3DNow! or standard floating point code at runtime. Who do you think out there is willing and capable of spending the time required to write that kind of code?
32 bit color is NOT enough, as John Carmack pointed out. With a single pass, it's sufficient, but with 4-20 passes, the one bit errors accumulate and the result looks like shit. Why do so many passes? If you have the fillrate to burn, you can do realistic shadows, multiple-light source per-pixel lighting, blurred reflections, BRDF materials, and other impressive looking effects.
Most liquid gases are dangerous
because they're cold. On contact with skin, they can cause very nasty frost
bite. As you pointed out, liquid Oxygen is more dangerous than the others
because it has a tendency to start fire. On the other hand, it's very cold, so
it takes a lot of heat to do so. The primary danger is in the liquid Oxygen and
Hydrogen coming in contact.
CO2 sublimes, so there is no
liquid phase. When cooled, it turns into a solid (dry ice). Just like the other
gases, it can give you frost bite if you're not careful.
Generally speaking, most liquid
gases are about as dangerous as, say, a concentrated acid. Youhave to wear
goggles to protect your eyes, avoid touching containers without gloves, and be
careful not to spill any on your clothes. (The liquid will flow off your skin
before it will do damage, but it'll soak into your clothes.)
-- "If you would be a real seeker after truth,
it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as
possible, all things."
What impressed me was this quote from the
article:
"While hydrogen is the lightest element, it has
some tricky characteristics. It only becomes liquid at dramatically low
temperatures -- -423 degrees Fahrenheit (-253 degrees Celsius). To keep the
fuel that cold, fuel tanks in the BMW cars are made of 70 layers of fiberglass
and aluminum."
AFAIK, most other hydrogen powered cars store the
gas either at room temperature but high pressure, or by
dissolvingthegasin something and extracting it using heat.
Hydrogen boils
at20.28K [-252.87 C or -423.17 F] which wouldmean
that storing it in liquid form would have it's own set of entertaining
side effects and dangers. The container might become brittle from the extreme
cold, unless it's very well insulated or actively heated it would acquire a skin
of frost, and your car would slowly loose it's fuel as it evaporated. That means
that you'd have to refuel regularly even if don't drive!
If this becomes popular, the common availability of
liquid Hydrogen would allow some really cool do-it-yourself experiments and
engineering projects. For example:
At low temperatures, many electronics have much
better performance. Thermal noise is reduced, transistors switch faster, and
laser diodes are brighter. The backyard
astronomer could make near-zero K amplifiers or CCD cameras for radio or
infra-red astronomy, and the computer hobbyist could overclock his computer to
unheard of levels.
A lot of materials superconduct at that
temperature.
Liquid Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for a lot of
purposes. It is powerful, and it can be used to cool the engine too. (Model
planes or rockets, gas turbines, etc... )
If you have liquid Hydrogen, you can use it to
make liquid air and then by simple distillation, liquid Nitrogen
(77.3K) and Oxygen(90.2K)!
-- "If you would be a real seeker after truth,
it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as
possible, all things."
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is not the only publication with bad editors! To quote the article: "Though Infinera won't reveal the chip's cost, when built with manufacturing techniques used by chip makers like Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, it likely could be made very cheaply."
Well, not quite. You see, the article later mentions that Infinera used InP (Indium Phosphide) chips instead of silicon, probably because they needed it's superior electrical and optical properties. With InP, it's possible to make 100 GHz circuits, but not cheaply. Certainly not for the same cost as a modern, silicon CPU.
A lot of articles here are advocating paper, but I belong to the opposite camp. I hate paper. I can't read my own handwriting half the time, and I can almost never read the shorthand of other people. (Do you have any idea how many people die in hospitals because nurses can't always read the Doctor's hastily scribbled notes properly?)
A paperless office is not only possible, but easy. I worked at a desk for two years without a piece of paper in sight. Everyone else had piles of papers and books, most of which they never touched, but regularly spilled coffee onto. It's just a matter of learning new ways of doing old things. Need to take a note? Notepad. Need to collaborate with colleagues? Email. Need to work simultaneously on a file with others? CVS.
At the place I work now, everything is stored in Exchange public folders. I can search through everything anybody has ever emailed or documented at this company in seconds.
It seems that nuclear powered rockets are a great idea, but NASA seems to be balking at the idea because they're afraid that the general population is going to be afraid. There is no real danger of course, but that doesn't seem to factor into the equation. Has NASA even tried to actualize a fission rocket, just to test the waters? Just how bad can the protest be in face of hard scientific fact? After all, the Cassini launch had greenies protesting too, but when I saw it on the news, it was something like a few dozen people outside the gates. Is that all that's stopping NASA? A bunch of doped out hippies camping outside a barbed-wire fence manned by armed security guards? I hope not...
Over here, the government guarantees a "reasonable" minimum warranty on all purchased items, ignoring any "lets screw the customer" EULA-s or the like. I suspect that suing Microsoft for faulty software would succeed in Australia, but would fail in the US.
The idea is not to produce kilograms of antimatter and use it directly. That is far beyond our present production capacity (picograms a year!), impossible to store, and very difficult to use. The idea is to use very, very tiny amounts of antimatter as a trigger device for fission, fusion, or both.
A large particle accelerator would be used to generate a few nanograms for storage on the spacecraft. (Note that this quantity is quite safe) The spacecraft would spit out tiny pellets of fissionable materials, possibly with a deuterium core, and "ignite" it using a small fraction of the stored antimatter. The result is a small explosion, and hence, thrust. The system is easily controlled, safe, and very efficient. Most importantly, it can be done using present technology, and with a modest budget.
Actually, that is a very nasty problem, with or without a calculator. It has about 7 roots, not counting complex solutions. The roots are closely spaced, the accuracy of the input numbers is low, and the values encountered are large. The problem is not solveable analytically, and even the best numerical methods have trouble finding all the roots. Using Mathematica, I could find all the solutions (to arbitrary precision) in about an hour. I'd like to see anyone that can do it armed with nothing more than a calculator in under five minutes!
Why is it that every time some new "revolutionary" processor design is announced, it's always about "blowing away Intel and AMD" by some unbelievable factor, but without fail the actual product release always seems to target the "laptop and low-power" market. Funny that.
Why does every mission have to be to Mars? What about Pluto, Titan, Europa, or Mercury , none of which we have explored properly yet, but should have! Why go to Mars when we know so much about it already? We have better maps of Mars than we do of the Earth!
Okay, it may crash quite frequently.
No, it doesn't. My windows computers at home and at work practically never crash, nor does the software that I run. IE for example is rock solid. Meanwhile, someone just said: "... Mozilla has finally become usable to my level of tolerance, meaning it has fewer annoyances than Netscape does now. " I've used most versions of Netscape and Mozilla and they're collectively some of the worst written software I've yet seen. Buggy, slow, and irritating to use. If those are the flagship GUI apps under Linux, there is some time yet before it'll even begin to match Windows in the eyes of the average person.
".9 very nice"? What have you been using until now that was [gasp] worse than Mozilla 0.9? It's the worst browser I've ever used, and I've been using browsers since the Netscape 2.0 days. Mozilla crashes every minute or so, it's interface is difficult to use and often scrolls off the dialog box without presenting any scrollbar, it produces lots of visual glitches and is generally slow. You can say what you want about MS, but IE 5.5 spanks Mozilla's scaly ass.
What I mean by 'round-trip' is that it should be possible to parse the language, make some complex transformation, and spit code back out without loosing a lot of information. This in general is impossible in C and C++ because macros operate at a higher level than the core language, and because a single line of source code in a header file can mean different things depending on the context in which it's included.
The second big advancement is an extension of the OO model called Aspect Oriented programming. There have been a number of studies in the area, and many of them show impressive gains in performance, or reduction in code size. The goal of AO programming is seperating loosely connected tasks that normally have to be interleaved by the programmer, and automating the process, which is called weaving. This is normally done by allowing "after-the-fact" additions to code using glob style operators. For example, it's possible to add interfaces to a class without modifying it's source code, or by 'wrapping' functions or groups of functions in before-after style blocks. Take a look at AspectJ, which is a backwards compatible extension to Java.
Clearly, the problem was fixed by making more people moderators (even I got moderator status), butI guess they overdid it.
Erm... no. Cyan Magenta and Yellow (and Black) are used in printing processes. The color and intensity sensing of our eyes is much more complex than that, and cannot be trivially defined using three colors. The 'blue' receptor for example can sense red light to a small extent, and some women have two slightly different types of red receptor, so they can differentiate between colours that look the same to us.
Yes, mdev 7.0 is probably one of the most compliant C++ compilers out there.
It's not. AFAIK, most other popular C++ compilers are better. I've used Visual Studio .NET 7 for a while now, and it hasn't improved much over 6. The standard library is a little more compliant, but only in a few places. The compiler itself still doesn't support all the standardized features. The following list is taken from the VS.NET help file:
Standard Compliance Issues in Visual C++
The alternate forms of the following keywords are not available: and, and_eq, bitand, bitor, compl, not, not_eq, or, or_eq, xor, xor_eq
Argument-dependent name lookup, also known as Koenig lookup, is supported for operators but not for other member functions...
A name introduced in a selection statement should be in scope for the remainder of the selection scope...
Covariant return types are not supported...
The export keyword is not supported on templates...
Class and template members must be declared and defined within the class or template...
Class template partial specialization is not supported by the Visual C++ compiler...
Partial ordering of function templates is not supported...
Visual C++ does not deduce template arguments for function templates; that is, all template parameters must be used in function arguments or return type...
Function try blocks are not supported...
Function exception specifiers other than throw() are parsed but not used.
As can be seen in the Visual C++ source file, uncaught.cpp, uncaught_exception returns false.
And I'm particularly shocked by the "But FireWire is so much better, it's Intel's FUD that killed it." line a lot of people here seem to be spouting. You want to know what killed FireWire? It was the little detail that a FireWire chip is not too different from a gigabit ethernet controller with a dynamic router built in, and cost at least $80 each when first released. And just like high speed ethernet, the tolerances required were much tighter in all associated components, like the cables, connectors, printed circuit boards, etc... A USB chip in comparison now costs only a few dollars. The market isn't ready to pay hundreds of dollers for a mouse that doesn't need the bandwidth. USB won because it was fast enough at the right price.
I've been tring to work out what the most bizarre thing my creature is willing to eat. So far, I've seen my monkey eat people, whole pine trees, live cattle, it's own dung, and a fence.
The 5% detection seems low, but keep in mind that circa 50% of stars out there are in fact binary stars, and their gravitational interactions are too complex to maintain classical planetary systems. Hence, a 5% detection rate should be read as 10% of the potential.
I completely agree. How can Slashdot so vocally support SETI@home, a cool, but completely useless endevour, but badmouth a project that aims to save lives? Protein folding and protein chemistry simulations have applications that could and probably will save your life at some point in time. Even if the project did make money for someone, somewhere, so what? What is so wrong with making a profit? Is robbing someone of their right to make earn a living a cause worth sacrificing lives to?
Ok, let me get this straight: You start with IPv4, run TCPv4 over that, make a standard HTTP connection, and tunnel TCPv4 through that. Why stop there? Why not tunnel IPv6 over the tunnelled TCP connection? Then you can run TCPv6 over the IPv6 connection, and make a HTTP connection through it all!
I suspect they'd be treated much like ambassadors from another country, which would give them significantly more rights than your average citizen!
These displays are still not the "ultimate" in 3D because they aren't true 3D displays. Yes, they give an excellent sense of depth, but they cannot emulate real world images of most objects. The technical reason is that the light generated or reflected by an object can only be properly represented by 4 dimensions of data (not counting wavelength, time and external light sources), but these displays can only really produce 3. To put it in laymans terms, these displays can only represent additively transparent (glowing) objects. You cannot visualize opaque objects properly. This is still useful for scientific visualization, medical imaging, etc... but not all that useful for common real-world applications.
DirectX 8 is a whole different ballgame. I'd be very impressed to see D3D8 implemented on Linux for a number of reasons: First, it has features so advanced that no current video card is D3D8 compliant. Second, it's a fairly safe bet that to achieve even reasonable performance, MS compiles vertex shaders into SSE, SSE2, 3DNow! or standard floating point code at runtime. Who do you think out there is willing and capable of spending the time required to write that kind of code?
32 bit color is NOT enough, as John Carmack pointed out. With a single pass, it's sufficient, but with 4-20 passes, the one bit errors accumulate and the result looks like shit. Why do so many passes? If you have the fillrate to burn, you can do realistic shadows, multiple-light source per-pixel lighting, blurred reflections, BRDF materials, and other impressive looking effects.
Most liquid gases are dangerous because they're cold. On contact with skin, they can cause very nasty frost bite. As you pointed out, liquid Oxygen is more dangerous than the others because it has a tendency to start fire. On the other hand, it's very cold, so it takes a lot of heat to do so. The primary danger is in the liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen coming in contact. CO2 sublimes, so there is no liquid phase. When cooled, it turns into a solid (dry ice). Just like the other gases, it can give you frost bite if you're not careful. Generally speaking, most liquid gases are about as dangerous as, say, a concentrated acid. Youhave to wear goggles to protect your eyes, avoid touching containers without gloves, and be careful not to spill any on your clothes. (The liquid will flow off your skin before it will do damage, but it'll soak into your clothes.) --
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least
once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
- At low temperatures, many electronics have much
better performance. Thermal noise is reduced, transistors switch faster, and
laser diodes are brighter. The backyard
astronomer could make near-zero K amplifiers or CCD cameras for radio or
infra-red astronomy, and the computer hobbyist could overclock his computer to
unheard of levels.
- A lot of materials superconduct at that
temperature.
- Liquid Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for a lot of
purposes. It is powerful, and it can be used to cool the engine too. (Model
planes or rockets, gas turbines, etc... )
- If you have liquid Hydrogen, you can use it to
make liquid air and then by simple distillation, liquid Nitrogen
(77.3K) and Oxygen(90.2K)!
--"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least
once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."