Actually they've been working on it longer than that. In 1987 they started "negotiating with Professor Rashid of Carnegie-Mellon University about working with them on the development of the Mach kernel". 1991 is only when they started working on a detailed plan. It still took them until 1994 before they got to the milestone of "it boots".
Also a heck of a lot of airports WERE out in the countryside, when they were built. But since then, the areas around them have been built up, often by people who travel a lot and want to live near the airport.
Because the alternative is for a malfunctioning engine to cause major structural damage. Converting a minor accident into a major one. There have been many incidents where a engine and plyon has been lost, and the craft continued on and landed safely.
Your logic is totally faulty. Terrorists are going to vary their attack profiles, because they know that after an incident, security on that profile will be intensified.
Many of MS's problems aren't bugs, they're designed to work that way. MS has had a poor record of thinking about security. They tend to think more of features, and what can the enable, rather than what shouldn't be permitted. Allowing a macro to be automatically run on opening of a document, which can then have full access to the system, is a classic example.
Get exposure to as many different versions of Unix as you can lay your hands on, and learn the differences between them.
I'd definatly agree with this. If you learn 4 different versions, and know how they differ and how they're similar, you're set for every other Unix & Unix clone out there.
I think it's fair to say that almost anything which has been invented in the last 2000 years or so has been a joint effort. Some people make the first version, which shows that the concept works, but it's not practical. Some other people take that concept and make a it practical design. Some other people take the practical design and make a product out of it.
In fact, as a Lisp programmer, your choices of interpretation for ")", that is "block", "function argument" or "other syntax element" seem strange to me. ")" doesn't denote any of those things. From your examples, I can't even tell what you mean by "syntax element."
But that's the exact point. I cannot tell exactly what a ")" means. I have to go back to the corresponding "(" and see what it's being used for. This means that reading lisp code, even properly formatted is slower for me than reading C code. Now this may well be due to my relative experiences in lisp & C, but I think that it's systematic. I agree that C overloads "()" & "," to mean multiple meanings, however I consider this a bug, not a feature. Having unique characters for each unique element of the syntax would be ideal, though not accomplisable with existing keyboards, character encodings and systems.
You're assuming that all 10,000 combinations are valid. Most systems exclude 'first guess' combinations such as 0000,1234, etc. This reduces the number to 9000 and some.
The banks can do the opposite. All ATMs are fittable with a camera, and can be programmed to take a picture of the person making the withdrawal. When this is produced, almost certainly it's someone known to the cardholder, if not the cardholder themselves.
Many modern ATMs are coming equiped with an audio output socket, which allows the blind person to plug in a headset and have the screen instructions read to her by the ATM directly. Here is a link to a bank which has this in some of their ATMs. NCR has said that all future ATMs they produce will be audio enabled by default. I hope that other ATM manufacturers will follow.
Yes, but if there is a diagram that is useful to explain or understand a subject, or there is a paper which explains it well, but they are copyrighted, you can redraw the diagram or rewrite the paper. You cannot copyright ideas only implementations. If they are patented then you cannot.
Just think of it as trading all of your semicolons, colons, parentheses, braces, brackets and weirdo digraphs and trigraphs (e.g., ->) -- all that line noise -- for two characters, opening and closing parentheses. Once you do, you stop seeing them.
However having differing characters for different syntax elements means that we can read them more easily. If I see a } in a C like language, I know that that } belongs to a block. If I see a ) in lisp, I cannot tell if it's a block, or a function argument or other syntax element. english also has similar redundancy. we could write without uppercase letters and everyone, including kent m. pitman, would understand us. however by using uppercase letters we impart more information.
No, what he's saying is that if it wasn't for him and his drive to convince IBM that they should let people make PC clones, Linux would never have happened,
Except it's wrong. Before PC clones there were CP/M S100 boxes. If Compaq hadn't cloned the IBM, then CP/M wouldn't have died.
However, I fear for the Shuttle Astronauts. Although NASA's safety record has been good under Goldin, the Shuttle program is already stretched too thin on safety and maintenance. It's an amazing vehicle which requires a standing army to launch it safely.
Get rid of them. There is no benefit to putting people into space.
I think HMV & Walmart were the much bigger factors. They could go to the suppliers and demand big discounts. Sam's was just too small to compete. As the last paragraph says '"Even when the company began investing in its e-commerce business in 1998, Sams was already in trouble, he said. "I'm sure the money they spent on the Internet didn't help" "'
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they've been working on it longer than that. In 1987 they started "negotiating with Professor Rashid of Carnegie-Mellon University about working with them on the development of the Mach kernel". 1991 is only when they started working on a detailed plan. It still took them until 1994 before they got to the milestone of "it boots".
True, but one package which does it all can be easier to install than 3 seperate packages.
Also a heck of a lot of airports WERE out in the countryside, when they were built. But since then, the areas around them have been built up, often by people who travel a lot and want to live near the airport.
Because the alternative is for a malfunctioning engine to cause major structural damage. Converting a minor accident into a major one. There have been many incidents where a engine and plyon has been lost, and the craft continued on and landed safely.
I'd say that even with only 1 project, SourceForge could be useful. CVS, Bug Tracking and discussion are all useful things.
Not if the alternative is to use more dangerous methods of transit. If you drive instead of flying, you are increasing your risk.
Your logic is totally faulty. Terrorists are going to vary their attack profiles, because they know that after an incident, security on that profile will be intensified.
Note there have been past accidents where an engine has been lost on takeoff, most prominatly El-Al 1862 at Amsterdam in October 1992.
Many of MS's problems aren't bugs, they're designed to work that way. MS has had a poor record of thinking about security. They tend to think more of features, and what can the enable, rather than what shouldn't be permitted. Allowing a macro to be automatically run on opening of a document, which can then have full access to the system, is a classic example.
I'd definatly agree with this. If you learn 4 different versions, and know how they differ and how they're similar, you're set for every other Unix & Unix clone out there.
I think it's fair to say that almost anything which has been invented in the last 2000 years or so has been a joint effort. Some people make the first version, which shows that the concept works, but it's not practical. Some other people take that concept and make a it practical design. Some other people take the practical design and make a product out of it.
But that's the exact point. I cannot tell exactly what a ")" means. I have to go back to the corresponding "(" and see what it's being used for. This means that reading lisp code, even properly formatted is slower for me than reading C code. Now this may well be due to my relative experiences in lisp & C, but I think that it's systematic. I agree that C overloads "()" & "," to mean multiple meanings, however I consider this a bug, not a feature. Having unique characters for each unique element of the syntax would be ideal, though not accomplisable with existing keyboards, character encodings and systems.
You're assuming that all 10,000 combinations are valid. Most systems exclude 'first guess' combinations such as 0000,1234, etc. This reduces the number to 9000 and some.
The banks can do the opposite. All ATMs are fittable with a camera, and can be programmed to take a picture of the person making the withdrawal. When this is produced, almost certainly it's someone known to the cardholder, if not the cardholder themselves.
Many modern ATMs are coming equiped with an audio output socket, which allows the blind person to plug in a headset and have the screen instructions read to her by the ATM directly. Here is a link to a bank which has this in some of their ATMs. NCR has said that all future ATMs they produce will be audio enabled by default. I hope that other ATM manufacturers will follow.
If you have the card number and the pin, then you can write your own card with that number on it, put it into any machine, and enter the pin.
Yes, but if there is a diagram that is useful to explain or understand a subject, or there is a paper which explains it well, but they are copyrighted, you can redraw the diagram or rewrite the paper. You cannot copyright ideas only implementations. If they are patented then you cannot.
However having differing characters for different syntax elements means that we can read them more easily. If I see a } in a C like language, I know that that } belongs to a block. If I see a ) in lisp, I cannot tell if it's a block, or a function argument or other syntax element. english also has similar redundancy. we could write without uppercase letters and everyone, including kent m. pitman, would understand us. however by using uppercase letters we impart more information.
You can adopt the GPL without being part of the GNU project. In fact, the majority of GPL'd programs are not part of the GNU project.
Except it's wrong. Before PC clones there were CP/M S100 boxes. If Compaq hadn't cloned the IBM, then CP/M wouldn't have died.
Get rid of them. There is no benefit to putting people into space.
Except it's not his company. He's an employee.
What if the market place isn't prepared to buy? Van Gogh sold only 1 painting in his entire life.
Actually most actors make only a few hundred dollars a year. Go to LA and talk to waiters and other similar jobs.
I think HMV & Walmart were the much bigger factors. They could go to the suppliers and demand big discounts. Sam's was just too small to compete. As the last paragraph says '"Even when the company began investing in its e-commerce business in 1998, Sams was already in trouble, he said. "I'm sure the money they spent on the Internet didn't help" "'