Welcome to Slashdot - where there are more conspiracy theories spun than those found on alt.conspiracy.
Slashdot is riddled with conspiracy theorists...and followers of Richard M. Stallman. Some say that they're one in the same, but don't say that near the Helicopters with the Penguins painted on their sides.
Richard - I said your name on Slashdot. Please send me my US$5.00 ASAP.
Why should he be forced to comment in a manner that is inconsistent with others that post comments that are anti-Microsoft and are *decidedly* subjective?
"Because WPF is largely written in managed code on the common language runtime, it never ran in kernel mode. There are elements of WPF (called the MIL) that are written in unmanaged code, but that code also largely runs (and always has run) in user mode. Insofar as WPF needs to touch kernel mode stuff (e.g., drivers), it interacts with them through the existing DirectX APIs. The user mode and kernel mode aspects of the WPF architecture haven't changed,"
Hence, since WPF is largely managed code facing the CLR, it's nowhere near the kernel level. This process does provide some level of secure isolation between the WPF & GDI/GDI+/Avalon/DirectX/Direct3D code and the kernel and finally gives the UI a managed code platform.
Since graphics cards are vastly more powerful than they were 5 years ago, coupling the GDI in a ring[0] or ring[1] or kernel-level process is no longer needed for graphics performance.
Be carefull about posting that kind of pro-Microsoft stuff here - you'll be modded-down to obscurity here like the rest of the pro-Microsoft camp here.
Moderating in the manner that/. moderates is a somewhat benign form of censorship - and there's nothing like censoring those who try to correct your dis-information to silence the "opposition".
Hang in there, bob2cam - they'll be eating crow soon, but news of it will be, of course, quashed here.
If your system is capable of running XP right now, it will be fully capable of running Vista when it is RTM'ed. You may not get the "Glass" effects, and you might get a darker-looking Taskbar & UI than what you are used to on XP, but that all depends on the hardware you have or will have later this year. If a given system is barely running XP right now, it will barely run Vista and you might end-up with the "Classic" Taskbar and UI. Those that want your self-described "Captain Amazing" level of performance will pay for it if they want to - it's too bad that "Captain Obvious" can't come down and tap you on your shoulder.
It's pretty ignorant of you to think that your particular way of using a computer - a CLI - is either superior, the best way or what others should base their usage on - so, just run along and play with your full-of-glitz-and-bling Powerbook and your hobbyist OS.
This is one of the problems with dealing with and discussing such topics; Too many people believe in the reality of all of the technology they've seen and read in Science Fiction as fact, but take very little time to actually learn about or study what is being presented to them in a fictional way.
Would a supposedly "heavier quark" violate Einstein's Theories (which have proven to be fairly reliable during most of the 20th Century and on through the 21st)? Also most quarks are repelled by other quarks due to electrostatic forces at relativistic sizes (upspin quarks have a positive charge of 2/3 and downspin quarks have a negative charge of 1/3 of a proton), and also note that there is a 200:1 difference between the mass of a proton and the mass of a quark. Having a "heavy quark" that could cause such events as you described would virtually break charge-symmetry (for more information on "breaking charge-symmetry" visit http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/6/3 ). The inherrent mass of a quark is so small that it would not really attract anything, and charge-opposition between upspin and downspin quarks would create the previously-described symmetrical elecrostatic repulsion.
Yes, strange things do happen at the 1TeV level. Fermilab, Brookhaven and Berkeley labs have been investigating "heavy quark" creation in heavy-ion collisions, but since these are forced collission events (aka "fission"), the chances of the creation of such particles in a fusion framework are virtually non-existant. If that were the case and if we followed the scenario presented in the BBC show you mentioned, the largest fusion furnace we know - THE SUN - should have greated the aformentioned scenario and created it's own heavy quarks attracting other heavy quarks and so on.
Remember to take the roots of those two words I used earlier; "Fiction" and "Science"
Fiction: a story, not usually true = false Science: the process of discovery, analysis and the explanation of all around us.
Now concatenate the two:
"A false description of discovery, analysis and the explanation of all around us"
Now, I like good Science Fiction. Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica - it's all good entertaniment...but that's all it is. Some people, like those that produced the BBC series previously noted, will take the smallest bit of scientific fact and twist it into the most obsurd forms of entertainment and try to make themselves look clever in the process...when all they're doing is making a mockery of those who actually *do* the scientific process.
"the problem is Apple believes in a closed system. It's hard to see how MTV and our brand work within that"
Isn't this odd: that the company wanting everyone to "Think Differently" changes it's corporate mantra to be "Think Capitalistically" or "Think Monopolistically" when it comes to portable media devices?
Hmmmm...You're saying that if I've already had it installed as Konfabulator, that running the new installer will cause it to fail?
Anyone else see what's wrong with this logic? The Installer script checks for a valid OS version, regardless of whether the application is installed or not. Yahoo's Installer works just fine, since I just used it.
I would start by making sure you haven't done any tweaking to your system before blaming Yahoo! and their staff.
Thanks for the excellent info on what you saw. It's a real shame that ISPs can't keep on-top of what's happening with their customer's systems or at least implement a process where they monitor and have the ability to identify and trap "suspicious" activity on their network. It might be an administrative headache to implement something like an inline-snort solution for their border or gateway routers for something like a single class-c (or/24 for our CIDR fans) block and then set-off alarms when heavy traffic and connects are seen on known ports for customer's systems; It's given that:
1) Most compromised boxes are end-user boxes on broadband connections
2) Most ISPs that offer broadband have specific terms of service that virtually forbid any kind of "server" activity on the end-user's system, so they could actually enforce that if they really wanted to by just having something like an inline-snort to do the monitoring and flagging of suspicious activity.
Another wrinkle in this whole scenario is that many of these compromised boxes are in nations where "sufficiently effective" IT Staff are in very short supply, and end-users are not provided the needed info to secure their systems from being compromised in the first place; many "developing" and quite a few Asian nations ("developing" in relation to IT and Computing Infrastructure) have a huge population of users who are absolutely clueless in regards to the possible dangers of being on such an open network as the Internet; take into account the number of reported "cyber-attacks" targeted at US Government systems eminating from obviously compromized systems in China, South Korea (and in a lesser extent, North Korea), Malaysia and Thailand. I've spoken to many Malaysian and Thai users who go to cyber-cafes to get on the Internet, and I'm astonished at the level of infection and it's spread across these systems: 90% of the systems at these cyber-cafes in the aformentioned Asian countries are infected with everything from backdoor-trojans to key-loggers.
Any chance you could reveal to us what IRC Networks you are seeing when the worm/virus does it's callback-notification to the user/author/abuser/scum-of-the-earth?
Maybe some IRC admins might be lurking and by advising them that their network is being used as the communications channel could help in the further sleuthing of this activity?
Try scrolling-up a little and you'll see the USPTO listing for the "Word Mark" for "Windows"
It's there, for everyone to see - kinda interesting how you simply dodge the facts to support your own mis-informed bias.
Some salient bits from the actual article:
"Lyttle wasn't inclined to get into a legal tussle with the
software giant and its army of lawyers. For one thing, he had
stopped working on his Windows Defender program nearly a year
before that point."
So, he had given-up on his product, so it was pretty much a dead project.
"That was when the law firm contacted Lyttle on Microsoft's
behalf, Evans said. Under trademark law, companies need to pursue
cases of trademark infringement as part of the process of ensuring
that their marks are protected.
"It's a pretty normal procedure in terms of how we enforce our
trademarks," Evans said. "In the course of enforcing that
trademark... we asked him to agree to waive any rights he had to
the name, which he did."
"Why didn't the company tell Lyttle that it was considering the
name for its own product? "We just don't disclose our business
plans to third parties before we announce new products," Evans
said."
Just to show the nay-sayers and MS-bashers here that Microsoft doesn't always win in such situations - more from the article:
"In August, Microsoft settled a trademark infringement suit filed
by Artemis Solutions Group of Whidbey Island, which retained
rights to the disputed name, BioCert. Microsoft has stopped using
the name for one of its research projects.
So, this is just another excuse for the Anti-Microsoft zealots to pound their chests - too bad they're doing it for absolutely nothing.
It is true that if you compare the base-level architecture of VAX VMS to NT 3.1, you *will* see striking similarities, including the mutation of the RPC to an "LPC" using the precursor to Named Pipes in NT 3.1; however, as a former member of the NT 3.1 DevTeam under Ken Gregg and S. Somassegar I can make certain categorical statements:
1) There is no VMS code within NT, as far back as NT 3.1
2) The *only* bits of OS/2 that were included in NT 3.1 were for the OS/2 Subsystem to provide for the running of OS/2 Character-mode applications, just as there are POSIX bits to provide for NT 3.1's support for POSIX & POSIX-compliant applications.
3) NT was *not* developed from OS/2, but were developed in-parallel - which caused the rift between IBM and Microsoft and the dropping of Microsoft's involvement in OS/2.
4) "NT" stood for "New Technology", which is exactly what NT was within the PC Industry. The ideas may have migrated when Dave and his team moved to Microsoft from DEC, but NT was totally new from the ground up.
Regarding Mr. Russinovich's "analysis"; he's about as far off the target as the linux-fanboys make their yearly claim that "Linux will be fully accepted by regular computers users this year".
If you *really* want the whole story about NT and it's development, read "SHOWSTOPPER" - available at Amazon via this URL:
I had a similar situation back when I worked at the Computer Center at LBL - mice chewing through the high-voltage supply for our CDC 7600Z back in '80 set-off the fire alarms...I was the lucky stiff who had the joy of holding-down the "HALON DEFEAT" deadman switch until they could find where the carbonized rat was.
It's fairly simple: Slashdot is mecca for teh linux fanboys and the rest of the penguin-fetishists out there. They're so ingrained into Linux that they either forget about the other (and vastly superior OSS projects) like OpenBSD, or that they're such newbies to OSS that the first thing they heard from their friends in computer class in high school was this really cool and FREE OS called Linux and this cool website that talks about it alot and other kewl things like people showing pictures of people holding their various orrifices open for all to see and it's really funny and all of that kind of stuff OMG LOL ROFLMAO......
(please note that the rambling portion of the previous paragraph was done in pure slight against the young pups here who don't know how to use punctuation in their sentences, let alone know how to properly construct a sentence)
OpenBSD is such a breath of fresh air in contrast to the moldy scent of Linux. I'll be firing-up my 3rd OpenBSD box here next week - Yeah, people...SUPRISE!!! I'm not an OSS bigot like 98% of you think I am!
This whole treatise is nothing more than a straw-man argument.
The author forgets some critical points:
1) How would one hack into a Naval vessel running *any* particular OS? No outside communications wired into the C3 systems of a ship other than ship-to-ship communications, which has the absolute-strongest encryption available in the world - by the time you were able to crack the encryption the said ship would already be in the process of being mothballed or scrapped. The quote included is laughable at best:
<i>"Perhaps the Minister can now explain why his desktop PC doesn't even run properly."</i>
The systems used in such vessels are <i>not</i> the same systems that you can buy through Dell for your office or home desktop - they are custom-build, Trident-certified and hardened systems with MTBF values a magnatude of 10 higher than your average PC
2) In regards to system crashes - I really wonder how a Linux-based system of similar design would fair in such an environment...and don't give me lame-ass quotes and figures about how your Debian box that runs as a web server off of your xDSL line hasn't crashed in months; there is absolutely no comparison to using such a system in the most mission-critical environment. <i>ANY</i> system in such an environment can be prone to failures - hence the in-build redundancy. If anyone has hard figures or examples of Linux or any other F/OSS product being used in an equally-demanding environment, I'm sure that most would agree that a CFC/CFR would be in order to validate whether a F/OSS solution would be better.
I get a good chuckle at the people who compare such a scenario to their desktop systems - mission-critical hardware and software are a totally different environment, and I'm sure that with whatever OS is used for such tasks that thousands of man-hours are devoted to ensuring that system failures are the extreme exception.
3) Mr. Hatton's comments are another typical straw-man argument - notice that he doesn't provide any information to show that steering systems were and are controlled by *any* kind of computer? I've got experience with Process Control Systems as far back as 1985, and I can tell you with near-certainty that the computer systems used on a bridge of a ship are mostly simple displays driven by PCs that get data from PCL/PLC-based systems, encoders & controllers and interpret that data to show direction/heading, rate, rudder angle, etc. The computers there are nothing more than graphical data and situational displays.
As always: If I'm wrong, give me some citations or references and I'll be more than happy to review them - and if I'm proven wrong I'll admit that I was mis-informed, or that my information is out-of-date...or that I was dead-wrong. If the cites and refs are not from reputable & verifiable sources or are just second-hand info or SWAGs, then don't even bother replying.
Bear in mind that every single Salyut/Zond mission and MIR were build and placed in orbit during the existence of the USSR and before the break-up and subsequent collapse of the USSR and the Russian economy - remember the days of Peristroika and Glasnost?
The largest difference between Salyut/Zond & MIR and SkyLab was that the Soviet projects were actually Soviet MILITARY Recon bases, and SkyLab was a SCIENTIFIC space-station. Only after the break-up of the Soviet Union did MIR's mission change to that of scientific research. SkyLab was nearly twice the size of the Salyut/Zond 1-4 mission craft, and only had crews of 2.
Because of the fact that the Russian economy is far worse than ours, they most definitely need help from *someone* - whether it be NASA or ESA.
It appears to me, and probably every other member of the church who read your post that you're already down that slope that would require a meeting with your Bishop and probably your Stake President fairly soon.
Teaching a child about the Gospel =! Brainwashing; it's simply teaching what we believe to be the truth - if you were a faithful member of the church you would know that.
If you believe everything you read on Google and other books like those written by The Tanners or Fawn Brodie and consider them as having more authority over "Personal Revelation", then you are in deed in deep trouble.
1. Liquid Metal cooling doesn't require a electoconductive substance that can quite easily ruin your hardware if a leak develops, whereas Liquid Metal cooling systems are in a permanently-sealed system which looks like a heat-pipe.
2. Liquid Metal cooling systems don't require noisy pumps, clumsy and leak-prone water-based cooling liquid resivoirs, clamps, valves, tubes, etc.
Typical Anti-LDS post - I take it that you also troll on alt.religion.mormon?
These Anti-LDS zealots are a laughable bunch - they spew and spout all of the "standard line" Anti-LDS tripe. I guess that you feel that Fawn Brodie, The Tanners, or Lighthouse Ministries are "objective" sources? Or, how about Ed Decker and Dick Baer?
I really feel sorry for people like you, who were so easily deluded and lied to by people who say that they "mean well" and then get you to leave the Church.
My sincere prayer is that one day you'll come to the same realization that I made many years ago - that you were wrong, and that you'll have the same change-of-heart that I had.
On the contrary: most "former" members of the church were either ex-communicated for a very short list of reasons, or they left the church because they had an axe to grind with someone or some "well-meaning" "Anti" used the usual Anti-Mormon rhetoric, lies and deception on them.
The sad thing about your point is that there is so much Anti-LDS crap out there that it's difficult to separate the genuine facts from supposition, conjecture and outright lies.
My Grandfather made an excellent point concerning this: You don't go to see an Electrician to get advice on plumbing.
And your comment proves what? That an asshat that posts as an AC is better than me?
Who's putting their head in the sand now, monkey-boy.
BTW - I already have a registered domain - the URL I listed is my personal page, and I chose to use FrontPage because it was quick and painless. I've designed Intranet sites for former employers over the past 10 years, and I'm a paid member of the HTML Writer's Guild, you hapless twit!
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to Slashdot - where there are more conspiracy theories spun than those found on alt.conspiracy.
Slashdot is riddled with conspiracy theorists...and followers of Richard M. Stallman. Some say that they're one in the same, but don't say that near the Helicopters with the Penguins painted on their sides.
Richard - I said your name on Slashdot. Please send me my US$5.00 ASAP.
--ScottKin
Why should he be forced to comment in a manner that is inconsistent with others that post comments that are anti-Microsoft and are *decidedly* subjective?
0 2540,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
Anyhow - some clarification from Microsoft on WPF Architecture and where it fits into Vista (pulled from Mary Joe Foley's www.microsoft-watch.com site) can be found in the article at http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,19
"Because WPF is largely written in managed code on the common language runtime, it never ran in kernel mode. There are elements of WPF (called the MIL) that are written in unmanaged code, but that code also largely runs (and always has run) in user mode. Insofar as WPF needs to touch kernel mode stuff (e.g., drivers), it interacts with them through the existing DirectX APIs. The user mode and kernel mode aspects of the WPF architecture haven't changed,"
Hence, since WPF is largely managed code facing the CLR, it's nowhere near the kernel level. This process does provide some level of secure isolation between the WPF & GDI/GDI+/Avalon/DirectX/Direct3D code and the kernel and finally gives the UI a managed code platform.
Since graphics cards are vastly more powerful than they were 5 years ago, coupling the GDI in a ring[0] or ring[1] or kernel-level process is no longer needed for graphics performance.
--ScottKin
Be carefull about posting that kind of pro-Microsoft stuff here - you'll be modded-down to obscurity here like the rest of the pro-Microsoft camp here.
/. moderates is a somewhat benign form of censorship - and there's nothing like censoring those who try to correct your dis-information to silence the "opposition".
Moderating in the manner that
Hang in there, bob2cam - they'll be eating crow soon, but news of it will be, of course, quashed here.
--ScottKin
You sir, are an idiot.
If your system is capable of running XP right now, it will be fully capable of running Vista when it is RTM'ed. You may not get the "Glass" effects, and you might get a darker-looking Taskbar & UI than what you are used to on XP, but that all depends on the hardware you have or will have later this year. If a given system is barely running XP right now, it will barely run Vista and you might end-up with the "Classic" Taskbar and UI. Those that want your self-described "Captain Amazing" level of performance will pay for it if they want to - it's too bad that "Captain Obvious" can't come down and tap you on your shoulder.
It's pretty ignorant of you to think that your particular way of using a computer - a CLI - is either superior, the best way or what others should base their usage on - so, just run along and play with your full-of-glitz-and-bling Powerbook and your hobbyist OS.
Enjoy your ignorance, porkchop!
--ScottKin
This is one of the problems with dealing with and discussing such topics; Too many people believe in the reality of all of the technology they've seen and read in Science Fiction as fact, but take very little time to actually learn about or study what is being presented to them in a fictional way.
Would a supposedly "heavier quark" violate Einstein's Theories (which have proven to be fairly reliable during most of the 20th Century and on through the 21st)? Also most quarks are repelled by other quarks due to electrostatic forces at relativistic sizes (upspin quarks have a positive charge of 2/3 and downspin quarks have a negative charge of 1/3 of a proton), and also note that there is a 200:1 difference between the mass of a proton and the mass of a quark. Having a "heavy quark" that could cause such events as you described would virtually break charge-symmetry (for more information on "breaking charge-symmetry" visit http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/6/3 ). The inherrent mass of a quark is so small that it would not really attract anything, and charge-opposition between upspin and downspin quarks would create the previously-described symmetrical elecrostatic repulsion.
Yes, strange things do happen at the 1TeV level. Fermilab, Brookhaven and Berkeley labs have been investigating "heavy quark" creation in heavy-ion collisions, but since these are forced collission events (aka "fission"), the chances of the creation of such particles in a fusion framework are virtually non-existant. If that were the case and if we followed the scenario presented in the BBC show you mentioned, the largest fusion furnace we know - THE SUN - should have greated the aformentioned scenario and created it's own heavy quarks attracting other heavy quarks and so on.
Remember to take the roots of those two words I used earlier; "Fiction" and "Science"
Fiction: a story, not usually true = false
Science: the process of discovery, analysis and the explanation of all around us.
Now concatenate the two:
"A false description of discovery, analysis and the explanation of all around us"
Now, I like good Science Fiction. Star Trek, Babylon 5, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica - it's all good entertaniment...but that's all it is. Some people, like those that produced the BBC series previously noted, will take the smallest bit of scientific fact and twist it into the most obsurd forms of entertainment and try to make themselves look clever in the process...when all they're doing is making a mockery of those who actually *do* the scientific process.
'nuff said!
--ScottKin
I take it that you haven't heard the news: It's already being created!
w s/critics/chi-0512210012dec21,1,423123.column?coll =chi-ent_critics-hed, Jason Hirschhorn, MTV Networks' chief digital officer said that they had talked to Apple about working together on Music and Video properties from MTV's catalog and was quoted saying:
http://www.urge.com/
http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/1924
In an article by Steve Johnson in the Chicago Tribune's online news-site http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/revie
"the problem is Apple believes in a closed system. It's hard to see how MTV and our brand work within that"
Isn't this odd: that the company wanting everyone to "Think Differently" changes it's corporate mantra to be "Think Capitalistically" or "Think Monopolistically" when it comes to portable media devices?
WhoWouldaThough?
--ScottKin
Hmmmm...You're saying that if I've already had it installed as Konfabulator, that running the new installer will cause it to fail?
Anyone else see what's wrong with this logic? The Installer script checks for a valid OS version, regardless of whether the application is installed or not. Yahoo's Installer works just fine, since I just used it.
I would start by making sure you haven't done any tweaking to your system before blaming Yahoo! and their staff.
--ScottKin
Works just fine for me. How about trying to uninstall then re-install it, hmmmm?
Take a look at http://users.adelphia.net/~scottkin/scottcam1.jpg
--ScottKin
Thanks for the excellent info on what you saw. It's a real shame that ISPs can't keep on-top of what's happening with their customer's systems or at least implement a process where they monitor and have the ability to identify and trap "suspicious" activity on their network. It might be an administrative headache to implement something like an inline-snort solution for their border or gateway routers for something like a single class-c (or /24 for our CIDR fans) block and then set-off alarms when heavy traffic and connects are seen on known ports for customer's systems; It's given that:
1) Most compromised boxes are end-user boxes on broadband connections
2) Most ISPs that offer broadband have specific terms of service that virtually forbid any kind of "server" activity on the end-user's system, so they could actually enforce that if they really wanted to by just having something like an inline-snort to do the monitoring and flagging of suspicious activity.
Another wrinkle in this whole scenario is that many of these compromised boxes are in nations where "sufficiently effective" IT Staff are in very short supply, and end-users are not provided the needed info to secure their systems from being compromised in the first place; many "developing" and quite a few Asian nations ("developing" in relation to IT and Computing Infrastructure) have a huge population of users who are absolutely clueless in regards to the possible dangers of being on such an open network as the Internet; take into account the number of reported "cyber-attacks" targeted at US Government systems eminating from obviously compromized systems in China, South Korea (and in a lesser extent, North Korea), Malaysia and Thailand. I've spoken to many Malaysian and Thai users who go to cyber-cafes to get on the Internet, and I'm astonished at the level of infection and it's spread across these systems: 90% of the systems at these cyber-cafes in the aformentioned Asian countries are infected with everything from backdoor-trojans to key-loggers.
So, where do we go from here?
--ScottKin
Any chance you could reveal to us what IRC Networks you are seeing when the worm/virus does it's callback-notification to the user/author/abuser/scum-of-the-earth?
Maybe some IRC admins might be lurking and by advising them that their network is being used as the communications channel could help in the further sleuthing of this activity?
--ScottKin
Try scrolling-up a little and you'll see the USPTO listing for the "Word Mark" for "Windows"
... we asked him to agree to waive any rights he had to
It's there, for everyone to see - kinda interesting how you simply dodge the facts to support your own mis-informed bias.
Some salient bits from the actual article:
"Lyttle wasn't inclined to get into a legal tussle with the
software giant and its army of lawyers. For one thing, he had
stopped working on his Windows Defender program nearly a year
before that point."
So, he had given-up on his product, so it was pretty much a dead project.
"That was when the law firm contacted Lyttle on Microsoft's
behalf, Evans said. Under trademark law, companies need to pursue
cases of trademark infringement as part of the process of ensuring
that their marks are protected.
"It's a pretty normal procedure in terms of how we enforce our
trademarks," Evans said. "In the course of enforcing that
trademark
the name, which he did."
"Why didn't the company tell Lyttle that it was considering the
name for its own product? "We just don't disclose our business
plans to third parties before we announce new products," Evans
said."
Just to show the nay-sayers and MS-bashers here that Microsoft doesn't always win in such situations - more from the article:
"In August, Microsoft settled a trademark infringement suit filed
by Artemis Solutions Group of Whidbey Island, which retained
rights to the disputed name, BioCert. Microsoft has stopped using
the name for one of its research projects.
So, this is just another excuse for the Anti-Microsoft zealots to pound their chests - too bad they're doing it for absolutely nothing.
--ScottKin
Ah yes - the usual straw-man argument rears it's ugly head.
If your arguments can't stand on their own, attack the person directly.
The typical refuge of a know-nothing twit.
--ScottKin
Some amplification:
9 356717/qid=1131056728/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8665 403-3011016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
It is true that if you compare the base-level architecture of VAX VMS to NT 3.1, you *will* see striking similarities, including the mutation of the RPC to an "LPC" using the precursor to Named Pipes in NT 3.1; however, as a former member of the NT 3.1 DevTeam under Ken Gregg and S. Somassegar I can make certain categorical statements:
1) There is no VMS code within NT, as far back as NT 3.1
2) The *only* bits of OS/2 that were included in NT 3.1 were for the OS/2 Subsystem to provide for the running of OS/2 Character-mode applications, just as there are POSIX bits to provide for NT 3.1's support for POSIX & POSIX-compliant applications.
3) NT was *not* developed from OS/2, but were developed in-parallel - which caused the rift between IBM and Microsoft and the dropping of Microsoft's involvement in OS/2.
4) "NT" stood for "New Technology", which is exactly what NT was within the PC Industry. The ideas may have migrated when Dave and his team moved to Microsoft from DEC, but NT was totally new from the ground up.
Regarding Mr. Russinovich's "analysis"; he's about as far off the target as the linux-fanboys make their yearly claim that "Linux will be fully accepted by regular computers users this year".
If you *really* want the whole story about NT and it's development, read "SHOWSTOPPER" - available at Amazon via this URL:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/002
Enjoy!
--ScottKin
I had a similar situation back when I worked at the Computer Center at LBL - mice chewing through the high-voltage supply for our CDC 7600Z back in '80 set-off the fire alarms...I was the lucky stiff who had the joy of holding-down the "HALON DEFEAT" deadman switch until they could find where the carbonized rat was.
Ah, those were the days.
--ScottKin
It's fairly simple: Slashdot is mecca for teh linux fanboys and the rest of the penguin-fetishists out there. They're so ingrained into Linux that they either forget about the other (and vastly superior OSS projects) like OpenBSD, or that they're such newbies to OSS that the first thing they heard from their friends in computer class in high school was this really cool and FREE OS called Linux and this cool website that talks about it alot and other kewl things like people showing pictures of people holding their various orrifices open for all to see and it's really funny and all of that kind of stuff OMG LOL ROFLMAO......
(please note that the rambling portion of the previous paragraph was done in pure slight against the young pups here who don't know how to use punctuation in their sentences, let alone know how to properly construct a sentence)
OpenBSD is such a breath of fresh air in contrast to the moldy scent of Linux. I'll be firing-up my 3rd OpenBSD box here next week - Yeah, people...SUPRISE!!! I'm not an OSS bigot like 98% of you think I am!
--ScottKin
This whole treatise is nothing more than a straw-man argument.
The author forgets some critical points:
1) How would one hack into a Naval vessel running *any* particular OS? No outside communications wired into the C3 systems of a ship other than ship-to-ship communications, which has the absolute-strongest encryption available in the world - by the time you were able to crack the encryption the said ship would already be in the process of being mothballed or scrapped. The quote included is laughable at best:
<i>"Perhaps the Minister can now explain why his desktop PC doesn't even run properly."</i>
The systems used in such vessels are <i>not</i> the same systems that you can buy through Dell for your office or home desktop - they are custom-build, Trident-certified and hardened systems with MTBF values a magnatude of 10 higher than your average PC
2) In regards to system crashes - I really wonder how a Linux-based system of similar design would fair in such an environment...and don't give me lame-ass quotes and figures about how your Debian box that runs as a web server off of your xDSL line hasn't crashed in months; there is absolutely no comparison to using such a system in the most mission-critical environment. <i>ANY</i> system in such an environment can be prone to failures - hence the in-build redundancy. If anyone has hard figures or examples of Linux or any other F/OSS product being used in an equally-demanding environment, I'm sure that most would agree that a CFC/CFR would be in order to validate whether a F/OSS solution would be better.
I get a good chuckle at the people who compare such a scenario to their desktop systems - mission-critical hardware and software are a totally different environment, and I'm sure that with whatever OS is used for such tasks that thousands of man-hours are devoted to ensuring that system failures are the extreme exception.
3) Mr. Hatton's comments are another typical straw-man argument - notice that he doesn't provide any information to show that steering systems were and are controlled by *any* kind of computer? I've got experience with Process Control Systems as far back as 1985, and I can tell you with near-certainty that the computer systems used on a bridge of a ship are mostly simple displays driven by PCs that get data from PCL/PLC-based systems, encoders & controllers and interpret that data to show direction/heading, rate, rudder angle, etc. The computers there are nothing more than graphical data and situational displays.
As always: If I'm wrong, give me some citations or references and I'll be more than happy to review them - and if I'm proven wrong I'll admit that I was mis-informed, or that my information is out-of-date...or that I was dead-wrong. If the cites and refs are not from reputable & verifiable sources or are just second-hand info or SWAGs, then don't even bother replying.
'nuff said!
--ScottKin
Bear in mind that every single Salyut/Zond mission and MIR were build and placed in orbit during the existence of the USSR and before the break-up and subsequent collapse of the USSR and the Russian economy - remember the days of Peristroika and Glasnost?
The largest difference between Salyut/Zond & MIR and SkyLab was that the Soviet projects were actually Soviet MILITARY Recon bases, and SkyLab was a SCIENTIFIC space-station. Only after the break-up of the Soviet Union did MIR's mission change to that of scientific research. SkyLab was nearly twice the size of the Salyut/Zond 1-4 mission craft, and only had crews of 2.
Because of the fact that the Russian economy is far worse than ours, they most definitely need help from *someone* - whether it be NASA or ESA.
--ScottKin
Here's two exercises for you:
1) Go to the bottom of this page and click on the "OSTG" Link. OSTG is the umbrella for slashdot, as well as SourceForge and OSDN.
2) Find *any* Article posted over the last 5 years that is pro-Microsoft.
I rest my case.
--ScottKin
It appears to me, and probably every other member of the church who read your post that you're already down that slope that would require a meeting with your Bishop and probably your Stake President fairly soon.
Teaching a child about the Gospel =! Brainwashing; it's simply teaching what we believe to be the truth - if you were a faithful member of the church you would know that.
If you believe everything you read on Google and other books like those written by The Tanners or Fawn Brodie and consider them as having more authority over "Personal Revelation", then you are in deed in deep trouble.
--ScottKin
I just get such a kick out of "revisionist" history.
Keep on thinking the way you are now and you'll probably end-up thinking that Hitler was "quite a nice guy, really", just like Nevill Chamberlain.
--ScottKin
1. Liquid Metal cooling doesn't require a electoconductive substance that can quite easily ruin your hardware if a leak develops, whereas Liquid Metal cooling systems are in a permanently-sealed system which looks like a heat-pipe.
2. Liquid Metal cooling systems don't require noisy pumps, clumsy and leak-prone water-based cooling liquid resivoirs, clamps, valves, tubes, etc.
--ScottKin
Please tell me that this is YAAF (Yet Another April Fool's) post.
So what if this is a near-FP. I don't care about FPs or Karma.
Have a nice day!
--ScottKin
Typical Anti-LDS post - I take it that you also troll on alt.religion.mormon?
These Anti-LDS zealots are a laughable bunch - they spew and spout all of the "standard line" Anti-LDS tripe. I guess that you feel that Fawn Brodie, The Tanners, or Lighthouse Ministries are "objective" sources? Or, how about Ed Decker and Dick Baer?
I really feel sorry for people like you, who were so easily deluded and lied to by people who say that they "mean well" and then get you to leave the Church.
My sincere prayer is that one day you'll come to the same realization that I made many years ago - that you were wrong, and that you'll have the same change-of-heart that I had.
--ScottKin
On the contrary: most "former" members of the church were either ex-communicated for a very short list of reasons, or they left the church because they had an axe to grind with someone or some "well-meaning" "Anti" used the usual Anti-Mormon rhetoric, lies and deception on them.
The sad thing about your point is that there is so much Anti-LDS crap out there that it's difficult to separate the genuine facts from supposition, conjecture and outright lies.
My Grandfather made an excellent point concerning this: You don't go to see an Electrician to get advice on plumbing.
--ScottKin
And your comment proves what? That an asshat that posts as an AC is better than me?
Who's putting their head in the sand now, monkey-boy.
BTW - I already have a registered domain - the URL I listed is my personal page, and I chose to use FrontPage because it was quick and painless. I've designed Intranet sites for former employers over the past 10 years, and I'm a paid member of the HTML Writer's Guild, you hapless twit!
Typical AC post. Go soak your head!