I've had to explain this to many Linux users before, but usually after they've suffered the consequences.
Here's what usually happens:
LiLo gets placed on the MBR
When back in Windows, defrag is eventually run
Defrag says there's an error on the drive, run scandisk.
Linux newbie runs scandisk and gets the message:
An error has been detected on the drives Master Boot Record. This can result in lost data...<snip>...repair this error?
Newbie "repairs" this error
Newbie either cannot reboot the system or cannot get to Linux without a boot disk.
Either newbie gives up on Linux or asks experienced person for help.
Some people re-install various times thinking it was their fault that something went wrong, when it's only partially so. Usually, I recommend using NT's bootloader to point to Linux, which allows you to be able to boot to Linux and defrag safely.
When I read the article, I couldn't believe the coincidence of the name. I guess part of all this was to see if it would go up. I guess the XP icons pushed it through. I've known Chris for a long time, but every once in awhile, you can chance like this and you just have to take it. I should point out, even though I did put the link in, the article is/quite/ like I wrote it. Just look at the link to me, http a mailto; I actually fixed that;)
Among the states' proposals is a requirement that Microsoft refrain from interfering with the way rival software works on its operating system without "good cause."
This does include preventing allowing pre-installed software. The article is not written in the way I originally posted it, so some of the bias is with the editor, and some is from within your need to see bias (this is just as common as actually being biased, as it is a form of bias in and of itself).
Your argument, and several that I've read, will show the good thing about XP; with seperated libraries, when the system crashes or freezes, it IS Microsoft's fault. If you have a problem filtering memory leaks, switch to OpenBSD, but don't whine to me that photoshop is responsible for locking up your system...that is in the power of Microsoft to prevent.  Now, if you honestly believe all hardware errors that occur in the BSOD's are really the problem of the hardware vendors, I'd be interested to know what hardware you're currently using...
It's not just Netscape; unfortunatly, the focus on the that lone, viable application has nearly totally stripped the appearance of the potency of the claims. Ironically, since NS was unable to compete as well as IE for the known reasons, it prevented NS from getting better development.  The fact is, when Mosaic was bought and abused and became IE, IE was nowhere near as good as NS at the time, but new computer users (anyone using 95 with their first pre-built computers, most commonly) didn't understand the idea of alternative software. Netscape is just the archetype. This is an issue that goes beyond computer literacy....
Lost me, I was talking about the author choosing which license he releases under. If you get a programme or code under the BSD License, there are conditions before you can release code or a programme based on that code under the GPL (BSD allows the author to do multiple licenses, ie, BSD to the masses and GPL to someone doing some extended something or another, in which, said code is in use).
Though you can distribute a GPL programme in binary form, in order to be GPL, the code must be provided somewhere, and with the LGPL, you can limit that access (as Microsoft refers to it "shared source"), but the idea behind the GPL is that the software is free speech, and therefore, the code must be available somewhere.
I don't know where you here that this that or the other license prevents the author from changing licenses, but my experience is that this is often the result of a misunderstanding. In my example about module, it was several leftest dot-head gnuist-wannabe's that tried making people believe that switching from GPL to BSD was "not allowed." Such a thing would only help Microsoft's position.
There once was a time, however, that relicensing was challenged. It was back in the mid-nineties, some nowhere company, I believe, was licensing software to IBM, but they changed the license, but only after IBM had bought the related software. It was all very Microsoftian, the idea that "we changed our license policy, so, you must conform." IBM won, as licensing techniques weren't all that matured at the time, i.e. they hadn't learned the Microsoft technique of claiming something like, "Every year you use our software is a renewal of our licensing terms."
Only people like that ever try to make extend claims about what and where the license applies, i.e. Microsoft wannabes and gnuist wannabes. In reality, you could use GPL source in a project, and open source only the areas that piece of code relates; it does not span the whole work, and despite a misunderstanding created by Microsoft, it does not create a dominoe effect (like a world of open source would be a bad thing...).
If I have caused your misunderstanding by using the module example, I apologize; I hope this clears things up ^_^
The reason peole refer to it as the GNU GPL and not just GPL, is because the name is GNU Gross (as in complete) Public License; as just GPL, it's Gross Public License, but only two groups have ever had a license called GPL, so no one questions that you mean GNU (as the other refers toaster overs, yes, toaster ovens; that license is about "if you use this toaster oven for anything other than toasting slices of bread, it's not our fault on whatever the repurcussions.")
It's not like the programme won't still run under Linux on a 386 in that time...you're only issue will be finding a 386.
In 75 years, I predict that the Linux Kernel will be at 3.2.8-pre67, and will support recently de-copyrighted software in a subenvironment with in the kernel, which will take advantage of bio-processors!
Silliness post, feel free to be amused at the brilliance of the law.
This caused some controversy about a year ago when one of the Linux kernel modules moved over to a BSD License. Everyone was wondering whether or not anyone could do such a thing, and whether or not it could remain in the Kernel.
Well, you can do such a thing, but it can't remain as part of the incorporated modules of the Linux Kernel (as the kernel is under the GPL, which conflicts with parts of the BSD License). When realizing his addition would nolonger be a part of the Kernel, it went back to the GPL, which is allowed by the BSD License. The cornerstone of any good license is the breathing room to allow someone to change...not applicable with driver's license, btw;0)
In reality, and when the FSF got started, copyright remains a sound foundation for code. From Dickie's standpoint, the idea stems from the suggest of the code is as much a form as art as a novel, and anyone that ever read the copyright notice may remember the phrase "in whole or in part," and is also familiar with the precept that this excludes, "common use and quotations."
Often, when software is patented, it's either about such a broad idea, like being able to import and export a wide variety of documents, as Corel did in the early nineties, a relatively common or simple idea, like Amazon.com's attempt on the "one-click shopping," or a less than concrete idea, like Apple's "look and feel" suit against Microsoft (ironic as MS probably has the most patents on look and feel today). Another point about patents, even software patents, is that you have 13 years to apply for one, which is good, because it's not abnormal to take nearly that long, sometimes longer, to be able to afford one (Mechanical patents are among the cheapest, costing US$5,000 LISP(five thousand) and take, in some cases, as long as 6mos to get through, as the patent office is almost entirely hard copy, so, you can imagine how long it takes to make sure you're not infringing). Compare that to a group of hackers, many going to college at the time, and you can understand the appeal of the US$20 (twenty) copyright.
Atleast having the copyright will allow you, if you wish to patent later on, to prove the length of time you may have had the idea. As a hypothetical, imagine you write a programme that can layer over any application to add extra capability (like GNOME on a smaller scale), and you copyright the programme. Now some nut-job working in a software company (let's pretend it may or may not be a monopoly;-), sees your idea, steals your idea, then stashes your idea under his companies long list of patents. These people are rarely dumb enough to declare your breaking the law with your programme (unless said nut-job moves to another department or position and can't warn the bad folks of bob knows which company that suing you would be a really bad idea), but, let's say you mature the code (which is probably better than said nut-job's version) and want to start making money off of it...you apply for your patent, the company gets contacted that someone is applying for a similar patent, then, to save face, they sue you! What the F* are you going to do? You show the court your copyright, and abra cadabra, you counter sue for US$1,000,000 (one million/Dr. Evil Pinky Thing)!
Only difference is, with the GNU GPL, you really don't have a date, just some ASCII you've been distributing with your software, but that doesn't mean you can't go out and get a real copyright as a just in case type of protection.
Oh, um, my idea of an application layer that adds additional features to other applications is GPL'd...most of you know where to get a copy of that;o)
My experience is that we tend to have more problems with either over zealous moderators (Slashdot? NO NEVER! Well, on occaision), like recent incidents at DSLR and AnandTech, which have resulted in a few friends getting together an unmodded place at CosmicShell.
It's been working out quite nicely. We've had no real problems, though, activity has gone down with our favourite coder doing extra-solar planet observations for the next week.
First off, Maxim can hardly be considered a good magazine. Personally, I figure any magazine that has over 20% of its general use space dedicated to advertisements is a rather questionable as a source of useful information.
Secondly, Maxim is selling Ms. Blalock as a "midrif." Midrif's are unreal media-formed identities of young females who are obsessed with their appearance and how people think of them, use their sexuality as a tool and are constantly attempting to establish their individual identity while remaining in the mainstream. Her willingness to pose for the pictures is just part of getting herself out there; an unknown actress or actor, even one that has a set of projects, has an insecure future. By willingly posing for the pictures and doing the interview, she gets knowledge of herself out there, as well as knowledge of anything she's involved in, from Enterprise to Green Peace.
Considering this, you might ask what it is you can tell? Well, she's willing to cater to the popular market, hence the photos. She's not that verbose, but she is very candid, so much so, she tells us the she once previously used drugs. She likes active outdoor activities, especially water-related sports. Now, it's too easy to be presumptious about "She's a whirlwind;" however, if nothing else, she is once again being candid.
Try to keep an open mind and read between the lines, or else you may end up yelling at a mother who's just trying ween her child off of methane dioxide gas.
I thought a majority of web servers run a varient of linux
The majority run systems that are POSIX compliant. This tends to be a problem to people who are new to Linux, or for whom that Linux was their gateway OS. BSD, the most popular general brand of POSIX compliant systems, came over a decade before Linux and therefore cannot be as a Linux variant. The fact that most applications compiled for Solaris don't run on Linux should be a sign that Solaris isn't exactly a variant on Linux. You can only call an OS a variant of Linux if the actual Linux kernel is involved, as that is the only part of the GNU/Linux operating systems that can be referred to as just "linux."
There are two sets of POSIX standards: The first was the original "theoretical model" of what a multi-user OS should be like, and the latter was formed after a long time of seeing how such systems evolved and where they were lacking. It's understandable for people who have just started using Linux to put all of POSIX systems under that name, and even more so for those that have no experience on any POSIX system, but it is something that people should learn and understand. It's just as offensive for a BSD developer to be told that, say, OpenBSD is just another version of Linux as it is for me to write to Dickie Stallman, "Hey man, I hear you're a hacker; it's jackasses like you that keep cracking my server and I demand reperation!"
I don't find that easily believable, then again, I've only managed POSIX compliant systems, and therefore, cannot judge.
I'm not talking about one or two, I'm talking about four universities, from MSEO to Madison itself. And in setting up their system, I didn't have to setup a whole new system for each, every single day. It was a great nine months for me, of course, as I said, I didn't have to setup multicasting (which will lead to another security leak for you), write policies for four areas and bring an informational thoughts to three meetings. If I had to do that every single day, I probably wouldn't have time to patch the system. Luckily for me, most POSIX systems have semi-intelligent patch automation, and, oh yes, NFS + cpuui.o + SSH2 + VI + tdmake would've made that last kvetch relatively short.
In fact, I did have time to give, for the first month, two times a week, classes to teachers, secretaries and attendants how to use POSIX commands, GNOME and KDE along with a few of the necessary applications, including Corel Word, Netscape, Mozilla and Konqueror, GNumeric and GIMP. The most stressful thing was upgrading from 2.0 to 2.2, and the most time consuming was importing TTF's.
I guess I'll never know what it's like to do that every single day....ah well...
A couple of thoughts are on the table about the Klingon evolution tract, especially now that there's a temporal cold war. There are two first contacts that have occurred; you only know about one. Wait a season, the latter will be fixed; the former, on the other hand, may be quite a bit down the road, if handled at all. My guess is it'll just remain alluded to, but I point out that this temporal cold war (originating five to eight hundred years in the future) will solve many of the currently perceived "conflicts."
It's not verbatum, now is it?
Personally, I'm a bit split on this. If the few people on slashdot that actually programmed looked upon this code, particularly those with experience in reverse-engineering, I'm sure they could tell you that, in the process of such an act, despite the PERL cheer otherwise, one tends to have a similarly structured code.
FreeBSD is for desktops. OpenBSD is for servers. What BSD is for embedding and system costumization? That's right kids, you use NetBSD!
Yeah, normally, I'm the first to jump in and confuse people about which BSD is for which, but when you budge up this big, someone's got think clearly here. Now, whose brilliant idea was this? I want to know!
Cryptography is useless if it has a backdoor, and if it has a backdoor, who will use it?
Ousama will just use an older PGP, while were stuck with "regulated" cryptographic software. This goes against everything we've been working on for the past two decades!
Did the OpenBSD fish start floating belly up!? The idea is utter nonsense!
This story from CNN.Com's/Space section:
Cool Star Chills Stellar Theories
The referred to article explains a discovery of the Chandra X-ray Observatory finding a surprisingly cool star, despite being bombarded by its companion star.
As for the rest of what you discussed, I concur completely
The theory that evaporation occurs with the collapse of a wavelength is that which results particle formation. This goes against the TSR (true singularity rule), however, even with displacing that rule, as I tend not to believe in it, it goes against the quantum behavioural pattern of black holes. The idea of the "tie-off" in relating theories doesn't appeal to me, and thus far, hasn't appealed to most structural theories of the universe with a conditional twist in the first law of thermodynamics. The anomaly will extend itself, and the collapse will result in an equatorial discharge of the redundant, unsustainable energy. I extend that if that is the result, these intrepid explorers of dimensions won't even realize they've created a black hole or any similar event.
No, we are not talking about black holes capable of swallowing matter, nor are we talking about the ability to "place them" at any particular point. Though, it does make for an interesting bit of science-fiction.
You must understand that every individual type of particles and radiants have their own, what may be referred to as, gravimetric frequency. You may note in the article that Dr. Giddings' calculations suggest that the interactions of cosmic rays and sub-atomic particles produce, what he calls, "organic," black holes, referring to naturally occurring black holes.
This team is producing the black holes from specific, fully separated subatomic particles, those being gluons and quarks. Black holes produced by collapsing stars result from still-integrated subatomic particles (matter), which remain connected gravimetrically to other large sources of gravity (fuel), are not anything to worry about here; in fact, they couldn't even be produced on the surface of the planet (the core, however, is a different idea altogether). The "man-made" varieties will only be able to effect other nearby gluons and quarks. In an vacuum-sealed accelerator, they will not be able to "find" that source of energy and will evaporate relatively quickly; though, I disagree that the result will be an abundance in the spawning of similar sub-atomic particles.
I recommend The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene. You'll learn about how the universe works according to ideas as old as "General Relativity" to as recent as the "M-Theory".
In the first point, Remote Calling, nannites switch processes based on infromation transmitted to them, typically radio wavelengths, though can be light, sound, chemical or electrical. This would be similar to sending specific signals to the large robotic implements along the a car factory's assembly line, to adjust for, say, the varying heights of the welding spots along a car's body A unique radio frequency, as an example, can cause the relatively simple transmitter bank, i.e. microchip, to trigger a structural change, say, shifting pseudopodic structures to allow the nannite to grab a particular particle when in reach.
In the second point, Physical Trigger, the nannites react to their environment on levels not much different than cells, both simply doing what is required of them by the immediate stimuli. Like cells, these are typically chemically induced, or atleast, when referring to areas of negotiable medium. Say, perhaps, a nannite designed for acting like an enzyme, by the mere process of kinetic diffusion action or molecular attraction, the carbohydrate molecule will enter a specific area of the nannite, where the presence of the molecule causes the nannite to send out a small electrical pulse to break up the molecule.
Now, though we can't programme the three laws of robotics into an actual nannite, we could adopt them socially, i.e. treaties and laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what usually happens:
LiLo gets placed on the MBR
When back in Windows, defrag is eventually run
Defrag says there's an error on the drive, run scandisk.
Linux newbie runs scandisk and gets the message:
Newbie "repairs" this error
Newbie either cannot reboot the system or cannot get to Linux without a boot disk.
Either newbie gives up on Linux or asks experienced person for help.
Some people re-install various times thinking it was their fault that something went wrong, when it's only partially so. Usually, I recommend using NT's bootloader to point to Linux, which allows you to be able to boot to Linux and defrag safely.
When I read the article, I couldn't believe the coincidence of the name. I guess part of all this was to see if it would go up. I guess the XP icons pushed it through. I've known Chris for a long time, but every once in awhile, you can chance like this and you just have to take it. I should point out, even though I did put the link in, the article is /quite/ like I wrote it. Just look at the link to me, http a mailto; I actually fixed that;)
This does include preventing allowing pre-installed software. The article is not written in the way I originally posted it, so some of the bias is with the editor, and some is from within your need to see bias (this is just as common as actually being biased, as it is a form of bias in and of itself).
Your argument, and several that I've read, will show the good thing about XP; with seperated libraries, when the system crashes or freezes, it IS Microsoft's fault. If you have a problem filtering memory leaks, switch to OpenBSD, but don't whine to me that photoshop is responsible for locking up your system...that is in the power of Microsoft to prevent.  Now, if you honestly believe all hardware errors that occur in the BSOD's are really the problem of the hardware vendors, I'd be interested to know what hardware you're currently using...
It's not just Netscape; unfortunatly, the focus on the that lone, viable application has nearly totally stripped the appearance of the potency of the claims. Ironically, since NS was unable to compete as well as IE for the known reasons, it prevented NS from getting better development.  The fact is, when Mosaic was bought and abused and became IE, IE was nowhere near as good as NS at the time, but new computer users (anyone using 95 with their first pre-built computers, most commonly) didn't understand the idea of alternative software. Netscape is just the archetype. This is an issue that goes beyond computer literacy....
Am I the only person who hasn't dated Natalee Portam!?
http://www.cosmicshell.com/~doublec/chat/
In case you want to visit #queenofgeeks
Meet the almost girl-friend of the author;)
(if only he'd quit calling her fat!)
I just watched him in a public announcement that's only two hours old!!
You people are lousey, board consuming punks! Eat Karma!
Have a comment? Have something worth mentioning?
You're free to come and talk kietch with the author of the article at either #queenofgeeks or #aselabs at the chat.planetz.net server on port 7000
__________
Lost me, I was talking about the author choosing which license he releases under. If you get a programme or code under the BSD License, there are conditions before you can release code or a programme based on that code under the GPL (BSD allows the author to do multiple licenses, ie, BSD to the masses and GPL to someone doing some extended something or another, in which, said code is in use).
Though you can distribute a GPL programme in binary form, in order to be GPL, the code must be provided somewhere, and with the LGPL, you can limit that access (as Microsoft refers to it "shared source"), but the idea behind the GPL is that the software is free speech, and therefore, the code must be available somewhere.
I don't know where you here that this that or the other license prevents the author from changing licenses, but my experience is that this is often the result of a misunderstanding. In my example about module, it was several leftest dot-head gnuist-wannabe's that tried making people believe that switching from GPL to BSD was "not allowed." Such a thing would only help Microsoft's position.
There once was a time, however, that relicensing was challenged. It was back in the mid-nineties, some nowhere company, I believe, was licensing software to IBM, but they changed the license, but only after IBM had bought the related software. It was all very Microsoftian, the idea that "we changed our license policy, so, you must conform." IBM won, as licensing techniques weren't all that matured at the time, i.e. they hadn't learned the Microsoft technique of claiming something like, "Every year you use our software is a renewal of our licensing terms."
Only people like that ever try to make extend claims about what and where the license applies, i.e. Microsoft wannabes and gnuist wannabes. In reality, you could use GPL source in a project, and open source only the areas that piece of code relates; it does not span the whole work, and despite a misunderstanding created by Microsoft, it does not create a dominoe effect (like a world of open source would be a bad thing...).
If I have caused your misunderstanding by using the module example, I apologize; I hope this clears things up ^_^
________
Don't you hate the fact that slashdot is usually second in the line of whatever the discussion is?
/ ms ad12nov97_1.htm
Well, now it's third.
Here's the original:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/
I know because I'm there.
The reason peole refer to it as the GNU GPL and not just GPL, is because the name is GNU Gross (as in complete) Public License; as just GPL, it's Gross Public License, but only two groups have ever had a license called GPL, so no one questions that you mean GNU (as the other refers toaster overs, yes, toaster ovens; that license is about "if you use this toaster oven for anything other than toasting slices of bread, it's not our fault on whatever the repurcussions.")
It's not like the programme won't still run under Linux on a 386 in that time...you're only issue will be finding a 386.
In 75 years, I predict that the Linux Kernel will be at 3.2.8-pre67, and will support recently de-copyrighted software in a subenvironment with in the kernel, which will take advantage of bio-processors!
Silliness post, feel free to be amused at the brilliance of the law.
This caused some controversy about a year ago when one of the Linux kernel modules moved over to a BSD License. Everyone was wondering whether or not anyone could do such a thing, and whether or not it could remain in the Kernel.
Well, you can do such a thing, but it can't remain as part of the incorporated modules of the Linux Kernel (as the kernel is under the GPL, which conflicts with parts of the BSD License). When realizing his addition would nolonger be a part of the Kernel, it went back to the GPL, which is allowed by the BSD License. The cornerstone of any good license is the breathing room to allow someone to change...not applicable with driver's license, btw;0)
________
In reality, and when the FSF got started, copyright remains a sound foundation for code. From Dickie's standpoint, the idea stems from the suggest of the code is as much a form as art as a novel, and anyone that ever read the copyright notice may remember the phrase "in whole or in part," and is also familiar with the precept that this excludes, "common use and quotations."
;-), sees your idea, steals your idea, then stashes your idea under his companies long list of patents. These people are rarely dumb enough to declare your breaking the law with your programme (unless said nut-job moves to another department or position and can't warn the bad folks of bob knows which company that suing you would be a really bad idea), but, let's say you mature the code (which is probably better than said nut-job's version) and want to start making money off of it...you apply for your patent, the company gets contacted that someone is applying for a similar patent, then, to save face, they sue you! What the F* are you going to do? You show the court your copyright, and abra cadabra, you counter sue for US$1,000,000 (one million/Dr. Evil Pinky Thing)!
Often, when software is patented, it's either about such a broad idea, like being able to import and export a wide variety of documents, as Corel did in the early nineties, a relatively common or simple idea, like Amazon.com's attempt on the "one-click shopping," or a less than concrete idea, like Apple's "look and feel" suit against Microsoft (ironic as MS probably has the most patents on look and feel today). Another point about patents, even software patents, is that you have 13 years to apply for one, which is good, because it's not abnormal to take nearly that long, sometimes longer, to be able to afford one (Mechanical patents are among the cheapest, costing US$5,000 LISP(five thousand) and take, in some cases, as long as 6mos to get through, as the patent office is almost entirely hard copy, so, you can imagine how long it takes to make sure you're not infringing). Compare that to a group of hackers, many going to college at the time, and you can understand the appeal of the US$20 (twenty) copyright.
Atleast having the copyright will allow you, if you wish to patent later on, to prove the length of time you may have had the idea. As a hypothetical, imagine you write a programme that can layer over any application to add extra capability (like GNOME on a smaller scale), and you copyright the programme. Now some nut-job working in a software company (let's pretend it may or may not be a monopoly
Only difference is, with the GNU GPL, you really don't have a date, just some ASCII you've been distributing with your software, but that doesn't mean you can't go out and get a real copyright as a just in case type of protection.
Oh, um, my idea of an application layer that adds additional features to other applications is GPL'd...most of you know where to get a copy of that;o)
My experience is that we tend to have more problems with either over zealous moderators (Slashdot? NO NEVER! Well, on occaision), like recent incidents at DSLR and AnandTech, which have resulted in a few friends getting together an unmodded place at CosmicShell.
It's been working out quite nicely. We've had no real problems, though, activity has gone down with our favourite coder doing extra-solar planet observations for the next week.
First off, Maxim can hardly be considered a good magazine. Personally, I figure any magazine that has over 20% of its general use space dedicated to advertisements is a rather questionable as a source of useful information.
Secondly, Maxim is selling Ms. Blalock as a "midrif." Midrif's are unreal media-formed identities of young females who are obsessed with their appearance and how people think of them, use their sexuality as a tool and are constantly attempting to establish their individual identity while remaining in the mainstream. Her willingness to pose for the pictures is just part of getting herself out there; an unknown actress or actor, even one that has a set of projects, has an insecure future. By willingly posing for the pictures and doing the interview, she gets knowledge of herself out there, as well as knowledge of anything she's involved in, from Enterprise to Green Peace.
Considering this, you might ask what it is you can tell? Well, she's willing to cater to the popular market, hence the photos. She's not that verbose, but she is very candid, so much so, she tells us the she once previously used drugs. She likes active outdoor activities, especially water-related sports. Now, it's too easy to be presumptious about "She's a whirlwind;" however, if nothing else, she is once again being candid.
Try to keep an open mind and read between the lines, or else you may end up yelling at a mother who's just trying ween her child off of methane dioxide gas.
I thought a majority of web servers run a varient of linux
The majority run systems that are POSIX compliant. This tends to be a problem to people who are new to Linux, or for whom that Linux was their gateway OS. BSD, the most popular general brand of POSIX compliant systems, came over a decade before Linux and therefore cannot be as a Linux variant. The fact that most applications compiled for Solaris don't run on Linux should be a sign that Solaris isn't exactly a variant on Linux. You can only call an OS a variant of Linux if the actual Linux kernel is involved, as that is the only part of the GNU/Linux operating systems that can be referred to as just "linux."There are two sets of POSIX standards: The first was the original "theoretical model" of what a multi-user OS should be like, and the latter was formed after a long time of seeing how such systems evolved and where they were lacking. It's understandable for people who have just started using Linux to put all of POSIX systems under that name, and even more so for those that have no experience on any POSIX system, but it is something that people should learn and understand. It's just as offensive for a BSD developer to be told that, say, OpenBSD is just another version of Linux as it is for me to write to Dickie Stallman, "Hey man, I hear you're a hacker; it's jackasses like you that keep cracking my server and I demand reperation!"
*unable to find "THE" letter*
I don't find that easily believable, then again, I've only managed POSIX compliant systems, and therefore, cannot judge.
I'm not talking about one or two, I'm talking about four universities, from MSEO to Madison itself. And in setting up their system, I didn't have to setup a whole new system for each, every single day. It was a great nine months for me, of course, as I said, I didn't have to setup multicasting (which will lead to another security leak for you), write policies for four areas and bring an informational thoughts to three meetings. If I had to do that every single day, I probably wouldn't have time to patch the system. Luckily for me, most POSIX systems have semi-intelligent patch automation, and, oh yes, NFS + cpuui.o + SSH2 + VI + tdmake would've made that last kvetch relatively short.
In fact, I did have time to give, for the first month, two times a week, classes to teachers, secretaries and attendants how to use POSIX commands, GNOME and KDE along with a few of the necessary applications, including Corel Word, Netscape, Mozilla and Konqueror, GNumeric and GIMP. The most stressful thing was upgrading from 2.0 to 2.2, and the most time consuming was importing TTF's.
I guess I'll never know what it's like to do that every single day....ah well...
A couple of thoughts are on the table about the Klingon evolution tract, especially now that there's a temporal cold war. There are two first contacts that have occurred; you only know about one. Wait a season, the latter will be fixed; the former, on the other hand, may be quite a bit down the road, if handled at all. My guess is it'll just remain alluded to, but I point out that this temporal cold war (originating five to eight hundred years in the future) will solve many of the currently perceived "conflicts."
It's not verbatum, now is it? Personally, I'm a bit split on this. If the few people on slashdot that actually programmed looked upon this code, particularly those with experience in reverse-engineering, I'm sure they could tell you that, in the process of such an act, despite the PERL cheer otherwise, one tends to have a similarly structured code.
No long rant here, just a quick explanation.
FreeBSD is for desktops. OpenBSD is for servers. What BSD is for embedding and system costumization? That's right kids, you use NetBSD!
Yeah, normally, I'm the first to jump in and confuse people about which BSD is for which, but when you budge up this big, someone's got think clearly here. Now, whose brilliant idea was this? I want to know!
Cryptography is useless if it has a backdoor, and if it has a backdoor, who will use it?
Ousama will just use an older PGP, while were stuck with "regulated" cryptographic software. This goes against everything we've been working on for the past two decades!
Did the OpenBSD fish start floating belly up!? The idea is utter nonsense!
*moves to Canadia*
This story from CNN.Com's /Space section:
Cool Star Chills Stellar Theories
The referred to article explains a discovery of the Chandra X-ray Observatory finding a surprisingly cool star, despite being bombarded by its companion star.
As for the rest of what you discussed, I concur completely
The theory that evaporation occurs with the collapse of a wavelength is that which results particle formation. This goes against the TSR (true singularity rule), however, even with displacing that rule, as I tend not to believe in it, it goes against the quantum behavioural pattern of black holes. The idea of the "tie-off" in relating theories doesn't appeal to me, and thus far, hasn't appealed to most structural theories of the universe with a conditional twist in the first law of thermodynamics. The anomaly will extend itself, and the collapse will result in an equatorial discharge of the redundant, unsustainable energy. I extend that if that is the result, these intrepid explorers of dimensions won't even realize they've created a black hole or any similar event.
No, we are not talking about black holes capable of swallowing matter, nor are we talking about the ability to "place them" at any particular point. Though, it does make for an interesting bit of science-fiction.
You must understand that every individual type of particles and radiants have their own, what may be referred to as, gravimetric frequency. You may note in the article that Dr. Giddings' calculations suggest that the interactions of cosmic rays and sub-atomic particles produce, what he calls, "organic," black holes, referring to naturally occurring black holes.
This team is producing the black holes from specific, fully separated subatomic particles, those being gluons and quarks. Black holes produced by collapsing stars result from still-integrated subatomic particles (matter), which remain connected gravimetrically to other large sources of gravity (fuel), are not anything to worry about here; in fact, they couldn't even be produced on the surface of the planet (the core, however, is a different idea altogether). The "man-made" varieties will only be able to effect other nearby gluons and quarks. In an vacuum-sealed accelerator, they will not be able to "find" that source of energy and will evaporate relatively quickly; though, I disagree that the result will be an abundance in the spawning of similar sub-atomic particles.
I recommend The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene. You'll learn about how the universe works according to ideas as old as "General Relativity" to as recent as the "M-Theory".
Nannites only have two ways of acting:
(1) Remote Calling
(2) Physical Trigger
In the first point, Remote Calling, nannites switch processes based on infromation transmitted to them, typically radio wavelengths, though can be light, sound, chemical or electrical. This would be similar to sending specific signals to the large robotic implements along the a car factory's assembly line, to adjust for, say, the varying heights of the welding spots along a car's body A unique radio frequency, as an example, can cause the relatively simple transmitter bank, i.e. microchip, to trigger a structural change, say, shifting pseudopodic structures to allow the nannite to grab a particular particle when in reach.
In the second point, Physical Trigger, the nannites react to their environment on levels not much different than cells, both simply doing what is required of them by the immediate stimuli. Like cells, these are typically chemically induced, or atleast, when referring to areas of negotiable medium. Say, perhaps, a nannite designed for acting like an enzyme, by the mere process of kinetic diffusion action or molecular attraction, the carbohydrate molecule will enter a specific area of the nannite, where the presence of the molecule causes the nannite to send out a small electrical pulse to break up the molecule.
Now, though we can't programme the three laws of robotics into an actual nannite, we could adopt them socially, i.e. treaties and laws.