Summarily dismissing the findings is just as meaningless as blind belief in the fact that it can't be helpful.
He's not dismissing the findings, he's dismissing one explanation of the findings. Just because some traditional medicine or traditional medical practice is found to work, that doesn't necessarily mean that the traditional explanation of that medicine or process is correct.
Minimally all that the firware needs to do is initial the CPU and memory
And the peripherals...
then load and execute the bootloader.
Both "initialize the peripherals" and "load the bootloader" require drivers. One design goal of Open Firmware was to allow peripherals to have minimal drivers in ROM on the peripheral to handle that. PC BIOSes do that with "BIOS extensions" in x86 machine code; Open Firmware does that with drivers in Forth byte code (which can be executed by Open Firmware regardless of the processor).
Most modern operating systems ignore the BIOS when they load. Sun does the same.
New World firmware on the other hand does just the opposite. It is in many ways an operating system itself. Pull the hard drive from a Mac and see what all you can do. There are graphical routines, forth compilers, advanced drivers, etc. the Origional 128k Macintosh started the problem.
If by "the problem" you mean the fact that the New World firmware is Open Firmware, with a Forth intepreter and a lot of Forth code, Open Firmware itself was originally invented by Sun, not Apple, for use with an OS that, from Day One, had its own drivers for all hardware.
I do think that I made my origional point. Fat binaries may work for applications and user programs but I really doubt that they would work for the operating system.
I wouldn't assume that. I don't know what the boot process will be on future x86-based Macs, and I don't know whether current Macs support booting El Torito CD-ROMs, but the El Torito spec appears to make at least some effort to support CDs and DVDs that can boot on multiple platforms. I don't know whether OpenFirmware on PowerPC-based Macs directly reads the CD-ROM to find BootX, but it doesn't appear to be a Mach-O binary on my machine (file says it's "data"), and if x86-based Macs would find BootX on some other place on the DVD-ROM (e.g., in one of those "Bootable Disk Image" sections), different versions of BootX could be loaded on different processor types, and those could load the appropriate component of a fat/mach_kernel and of fat kexts.
since half of the operating system is in the firmware anyway!
Fascinating assertion. Do you have any evidence to support it? (Note: anything using the word "ToolBox" doesn't count as evidence; this is the New World, and it's even newer with OS X.)
Whether someone is allowed to give a speech is not up to me or the government.
I wasn't asking about just "giving a speech". I was asking about giving speeches on government property, as that's one thing George Will was talking about in the op-ed of his that you cited. If giving speeches, talks, etc. in government buildings is not up to the government, that's fine; if it is, however, the government had better allow people to give talks saying , for example, "Christianity is stupid. Communism is good." (to pick an extreme example) on the floor of the house if they're going to allow "two very Christian discourses" there.
Funny you should bring that up, just the other day I was reading an op-ed piece in the Washington post about this very subject. It was an interesting read, check it out here.
So if religious talks, etc., are given in Government buildings, should and would "secular humanists"/atheists, etc. be allowed to give speeches, etc., in those same buildings?
Which US-controlled root servers are required to look up, say, "news.bbc.co.uk" or "news.independent.co.uk" or "www.guardian.co.uk", for example?
...and please indicate in your answer what means would prevent, say, RIPE's root server in London from responding to US queries, or prevent hosts in the US from using that root server (i.e., indicate how the US has sufficient control over non-US root servers that this allows the US to "control the internet").
I.e., what means do they have to enforce their ability to "[authorize] changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file", as per the U.S. Statement of Principles 06-30-2005? (Or even force changes that make, say, ".uk" or ".fr" or... no longer valid.)
Yes, we have to go overseas to find out what's happening in our own country. Broadcast flag, National ID, Downing Street Memo--most Americans have no clue what these things are. If the US government wants to control the internet, you can bet it's so that they can control the information that we receive so that they can carry out their agenda with minimal risk of a revolution.
Which US-controlled root servers are required to look up, say, "news.bbc.co.uk" or "news.independent.co.uk" or "www.guardian.co.uk", for example?
Has anyone seen any actual announcements from Sun ?
Try following the links in the posting to which you responded. (Hint: the link with the word "announcing" might point to an, err, umm, announcement. Scroll down and you'll find the Ultra 3 Mobile Workstation mentioned.)
And the pictures are obviously not sun kit ?
Umm, yeah, one could conclude, from the picture on the page linked to by the other link in the posting to which you responded, that the two models are rebadged Tadpole and Naturetech laptops. (In fact, the posting to which you responded said as much: "...although the picture on that page suggests that perhaps Sun are just re-branding Tadpole and Naturetech SPARC laptops.")
A media experiment, perhaps, in the style of negativland
"I got fired by my boss Pepsi^WSun. I nailed Jesus to the cross Pepsi^WSun."
No, I think the real news is Sun announcing their new AMD Opteron workstation for under $900, the Ultra 20.
I.e., the workstation I mentioned when I said ("The announcement mainly talks about a new x86 workstation, but it also mentions the SPARC laptops.)"? Yes, Sun selling a PC-style workstation is arguably a more significant change than Sun OEMing SPARC laptops, but 1) I wasn't saying otherwise and 2) the original article, and this thread, were about the SPARC laptop.
i don't know where this article is coming from at all.
It's coming from Sun announcingthe Sun Ultra 3 Mobile Workstation, although the picture on that page suggests that perhaps Sun are just re-branding Tadpole and Naturetech SPARC laptops. (The announcement mainly talks about a new x86 workstation, but it also mentions the SPARC laptops.)
The article didn't say "first SPARC laptop", it said "Sun announces its first laptop", i.e. the first one that Sun is selling as a Sun, rather than somebody else selling it as a SPARC-compatible.
The Sun announcement clearly says "Entry-level pricing for the Sun Ultra 3 Mobile Workstation begins at $3,400 (USD)." Perhaps, as they've "been out for a long time", your workplace bought SPARC workstations when they were a lot more expensive.
Answer: Never. Or when the U.S. changes over to proportional representation, whichever comes first.
So presumably there's something more than just proportional representation involved here, unless I've missed something, as this was somebody in the UK Parliament, which, as far as I know, does not use proportional representation.
Note, of course, that when he said he was "the first Jedi Member of this place", he was speaking of his religion, not his political party, as the cited Hansard section shows him as "Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)", not "Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Jedi)". Are you saying that, without proportional representation, nobody with the courage to state in Congress that they're a Jedi would get elected?
It's up to the individual whether you interpret those as millions of years or actual 24hr days, or whatever.
...or whether you assume "and it was so" means "and so macroevolution, a consequence of the architecture of the universe as created by God, coughed up those creatures".
I.e., you're going to have to work a lot harder to come even close to convincing me that objecting to creationism is somehow being "negative towards Christians and Christian ideas".
Now, given that the evidence seems to suggest that whales haven't been around as long as, say, lizards, taking the Bible as being literally true would appear to contradict observation (i.e., it wasn't "sea creatures first, then land creatures") - but you're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that Biblical literalism is "a Christian idea" rather than an idea some Christians have, or that criticizing or dismissing Biblical literalism is "negative towards Christians" rather than "negative towards Biblical literalists".
Speaking of which, I thought it was a bit amusing that somebody in this subthread had a Larry Wall quote in his signature line. Wall's an evangelical Christian and "[considers] the theory of evolution to be by and large proven", as per an interview with him, although I guess there are some folks who would consider his belief that the theory of evolution is by and large proven to render him not a Christian.
As per your electron commentary, well, that's just "shockingly" stupid and has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
Which part of his comment was "'shockingly' stupid"? He was responding to your statement that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" by noting that many ideas are, in a sense, "a theory", but that doesn't mean that they're merely One Man's Opinion, there's evidence to back them up.
doing nothing to stop some one means that you can do it.
The fact that nobody's explicitly trying to stop you from doing something is not necessarily sufficient to arrange that you can do it. "Doing something to stop Windows from running on an x86 Mac" would be something such as "booting only 'trusted' OSes and refusing to treat Windows as a 'trusted' OS"; if they didn't do that, but built the x86 Macs with their own chipset, as they apparently do with at least some of their PowerMac systems, the machine might not necessarily be "PC compatible" and Windows might have to be tweaked (at, say, the HAL layer) to boot on an x86 Mac.
Define "Pro App". The Software page on the Apple Web site has a "Pro Applications" section, buyt the only apps listed there are the apps in the Final Cut Studio suite (Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Motion, and DVD Studio Pro), Logic Pro, and Shake. Pages is listed in the iWork section.
Anyway, I think that answers your question in more detail than you needed.
No, that's the level of detail I like.
So, in effect, even on Windows, the user "tells" the system what type of card they have, by installing the driver from the CD-ROM that came with the card. Easier than having to add the tuner module as a parameter (although if, for example, a system using HAL can be configured to fire up a particular program if it detects hardware that it hasn't yet seen, that program might, for TV tuner cards, be able to determine whether the card type can be automatically determined or not, and, if not, offer the user a choice of card types, which might arguably be as easy, if not easier), although it doesn't work if you change the TV tuner card out from under it.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not dismissing the findings, he's dismissing one explanation of the findings. Just because some traditional medicine or traditional medical practice is found to work, that doesn't necessarily mean that the traditional explanation of that medicine or process is correct.
Perhaps, but it doesn't run inside Yellowbox/OS X (a/k/a Cocoa), it's Boring Old Carbon:
(extra white space was inserted by Slashdot to prevent page widening).
Wanna buy a grunt with a third party check
And the peripherals...
Both "initialize the peripherals" and "load the bootloader" require drivers. One design goal of Open Firmware was to allow peripherals to have minimal drivers in ROM on the peripheral to handle that. PC BIOSes do that with "BIOS extensions" in x86 machine code; Open Firmware does that with drivers in Forth byte code (which can be executed by Open Firmware regardless of the processor).
So does Apple.
If by "the problem" you mean the fact that the New World firmware is Open Firmware, with a Forth intepreter and a lot of Forth code, Open Firmware itself was originally invented by Sun, not Apple, for use with an OS that, from Day One, had its own drivers for all hardware.
I wouldn't assume that. I don't know what the boot process will be on future x86-based Macs, and I don't know whether current Macs support booting El Torito CD-ROMs, but the El Torito spec appears to make at least some effort to support CDs and DVDs that can boot on multiple platforms. I don't know whether OpenFirmware on PowerPC-based Macs directly reads the CD-ROM to find BootX, but it doesn't appear to be a Mach-O binary on my machine (file says it's "data"), and if x86-based Macs would find BootX on some other place on the DVD-ROM (e.g., in one of those "Bootable Disk Image" sections), different versions of BootX could be loaded on different processor types, and those could load the appropriate component of a fat /mach_kernel and of fat kexts.
Except that "Macintosh computers that use an Intel microprocessor do not use Open Firmware."
Fascinating assertion. Do you have any evidence to support it? (Note: anything using the word "ToolBox" doesn't count as evidence; this is the New World, and it's even newer with OS X.)
I wasn't asking about just "giving a speech". I was asking about giving speeches on government property, as that's one thing George Will was talking about in the op-ed of his that you cited. If giving speeches, talks, etc. in government buildings is not up to the government, that's fine; if it is, however, the government had better allow people to give talks saying , for example, "Christianity is stupid. Communism is good." (to pick an extreme example) on the floor of the house if they're going to allow "two very Christian discourses" there.
So if religious talks, etc., are given in Government buildings, should and would "secular humanists"/atheists, etc. be allowed to give speeches, etc., in those same buildings?
...and please indicate in your answer what means would prevent, say, RIPE's root server in London from responding to US queries, or prevent hosts in the US from using that root server (i.e., indicate how the US has sufficient control over non-US root servers that this allows the US to "control the internet").
I.e., what means do they have to enforce their ability to "[authorize] changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file", as per the U.S. Statement of Principles 06-30-2005? (Or even force changes that make, say, ".uk" or ".fr" or... no longer valid.)
Which US-controlled root servers are required to look up, say, "news.bbc.co.uk" or "news.independent.co.uk" or "www.guardian.co.uk", for example?
Try following the links in the posting to which you responded. (Hint: the link with the word "announcing" might point to an, err, umm, announcement. Scroll down and you'll find the Ultra 3 Mobile Workstation mentioned.)
Umm, yeah, one could conclude, from the picture on the page linked to by the other link in the posting to which you responded, that the two models are rebadged Tadpole and Naturetech laptops. (In fact, the posting to which you responded said as much: "...although the picture on that page suggests that perhaps Sun are just re-branding Tadpole and Naturetech SPARC laptops.")
"I got fired by my boss
Pepsi^WSun.
I nailed Jesus to the cross
Pepsi^WSun."
I.e., the workstation I mentioned when I said ("The announcement mainly talks about a new x86 workstation, but it also mentions the SPARC laptops.)"? Yes, Sun selling a PC-style workstation is arguably a more significant change than Sun OEMing SPARC laptops, but 1) I wasn't saying otherwise and 2) the original article, and this thread, were about the SPARC laptop.
It's coming from Sun announcing the Sun Ultra 3 Mobile Workstation, although the picture on that page suggests that perhaps Sun are just re-branding Tadpole and Naturetech SPARC laptops. (The announcement mainly talks about a new x86 workstation, but it also mentions the SPARC laptops.)
The article didn't say "first SPARC laptop", it said "Sun announces its first laptop", i.e. the first one that Sun is selling as a Sun, rather than somebody else selling it as a SPARC-compatible.
The Sun announcement clearly says "Entry-level pricing for the Sun Ultra 3 Mobile Workstation begins at $3,400 (USD)." Perhaps, as they've "been out for a long time", your workplace bought SPARC workstations when they were a lot more expensive.
So presumably there's something more than just proportional representation involved here, unless I've missed something, as this was somebody in the UK Parliament, which, as far as I know, does not use proportional representation.
Note, of course, that when he said he was "the first Jedi Member of this place", he was speaking of his religion, not his political party, as the cited Hansard section shows him as "Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)", not "Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Jedi)". Are you saying that, without proportional representation, nobody with the courage to state in Congress that they're a Jedi would get elected?
...or whether you assume "and it was so" means "and so macroevolution, a consequence of the architecture of the universe as created by God, coughed up those creatures".
I.e., you're going to have to work a lot harder to come even close to convincing me that objecting to creationism is somehow being "negative towards Christians and Christian ideas".
Now, given that the evidence seems to suggest that whales haven't been around as long as, say, lizards, taking the Bible as being literally true would appear to contradict observation (i.e., it wasn't "sea creatures first, then land creatures") - but you're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me that Biblical literalism is "a Christian idea" rather than an idea some Christians have, or that criticizing or dismissing Biblical literalism is "negative towards Christians" rather than "negative towards Biblical literalists".
Speaking of which, I thought it was a bit amusing that somebody in this subthread had a Larry Wall quote in his signature line. Wall's an evangelical Christian and "[considers] the theory of evolution to be by and large proven", as per an interview with him, although I guess there are some folks who would consider his belief that the theory of evolution is by and large proven to render him not a Christian.
Which part of his comment was "'shockingly' stupid"? He was responding to your statement that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" by noting that many ideas are, in a sense, "a theory", but that doesn't mean that they're merely One Man's Opinion, there's evidence to back them up.
So, given the production method being discussed, would that be SCAT-5 cable?
I think CP/M did so, and QDOS was imitating CP/M.
As for CP/M, they probably chose / because various OSes from DEC did so.
The fact that nobody's explicitly trying to stop you from doing something is not necessarily sufficient to arrange that you can do it. "Doing something to stop Windows from running on an x86 Mac" would be something such as "booting only 'trusted' OSes and refusing to treat Windows as a 'trusted' OS"; if they didn't do that, but built the x86 Macs with their own chipset, as they apparently do with at least some of their PowerMac systems, the machine might not necessarily be "PC compatible" and Windows might have to be tweaked (at, say, the HAL layer) to boot on an x86 Mac.
Not if they design their own support chips and contract with a fab to do it; you do not need to have your own fab to get chips made to your design.
No, "an ill-informed Slashdot rumor" would be "Apple's not going with x86, they just said 'Intel', not 'x86'; they're probably {licensing PowerPC to Intel,going with XScale}". The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines say "Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware."
Define "Pro App". The Software page on the Apple Web site has a "Pro Applications" section, buyt the only apps listed there are the apps in the Final Cut Studio suite (Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Motion, and DVD Studio Pro), Logic Pro, and Shake. Pages is listed in the iWork section.
So what brought the Macintosh versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, and InDesign back?
Yellow Dog Linux, for one....
Abandon all hope, ye who read the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, as the section on Open Firmware says "Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware."
No, that's the level of detail I like.
So, in effect, even on Windows, the user "tells" the system what type of card they have, by installing the driver from the CD-ROM that came with the card. Easier than having to add the tuner module as a parameter (although if, for example, a system using HAL can be configured to fire up a particular program if it detects hardware that it hasn't yet seen, that program might, for TV tuner cards, be able to determine whether the card type can be automatically determined or not, and, if not, offer the user a choice of card types, which might arguably be as easy, if not easier), although it doesn't work if you change the TV tuner card out from under it.