As has been pointed out before, nothing stops any given tin-pot dictatorship from building their own version of the Internet that connects to the rest of the Internet,
If it "connects to the rest of the Internet", it's not "their own version of the Internet", it's a subnetwork of the Internet.
They're just too lazy or too cheap to do so,
If it "connects to the rest of the Internet", they don't have to buy their own protocols or whatever it is you're thinking of. They might have to pay for the hardware and software, but everybody has to do that.
Why would the US give up control of the Internet? We built it, it's ours.
Who's "we", and what does "built it" mean? If you mean "researchers paid by the US government developed many of the protocols", yes. If you mean "all of the infrastructure on the Internet was paid for by the US government and US individuals and organizations", no. If you mean "all of the work on all of the protocols used on the Internet was done by people paid by the US government", no, not even if you mean the core protocols.
I hate this stupid myth, Arpanet has fuck-all to do with the internet.
Both of them shared a separately created system, packet switching, to route data around it. THAT IS IT.
Many networks use packet switching. The ARPANET used, and the Internet uses, the same protocols to implement packet switching (except for protocols that didn't exist yet at the time the ARPANET went away, such as IPv6). TCP and IP were originally developed for use on the ARPANET.
Arpanet and Internet are two completely different beasts.
Yes. Given that the ARPANET no longer exists, and the Internet does, it would be very difficult for them to be the same.
Internet was a joint creation with US and UK after they figured out they were working on similar systems and decided to scale it across seas.
The ARPANET ceased being US-only in 1973, when NORSAR joined. If you're thinking of JANET, that existed at the same time that some UK sites were already on the ARPANET; eventually JANET offered an IP-based service.
FreeBSD... actually BSD is very newsworthy as it holds an integral part of computer history. Like other important pieces of history such as VMS, IBM 360, and other gone technologies BSD will be part of it that we owe a gratitude for.
A few years ago I regularly built Qt-based binaries on my Linux machine, targeting PPC OS X (10.3). It was pretty slick. I tried to set up a cross-compiling environment later under 10.4 fat binary days, but that proved too difficult, sadly. As it stands now, if I could run apple's native compiler and tools under linux, outputting nice OS X app bundles for Qt apps, that would be pretty slick.
I already have that.. it's called VMWare Fusion on a Macbook Pro. =^)
That's a little different, but if somebody were to make a package to let you run Linux binaries on OS X (including hacking the execsw[] table in xnu/bsd/kern/kern_exec.c to have an image activator for ELF binaries) and combine it with Wine for OS X, that's another alternative along the lines of Wine+Darling-on-Linux. (Extra credit for hacking execsw[] to handle PE binaries as well.:-))
I don't know how much Windows NT source would be needed to complete the circle and add the ability to run OS X and Linux binaries on Windows.
I'm not saying that's the issue both both applications you mentioned use GTK so maybe that's one reason why it works but may not work in other cases.
And GNU/Linux isn't all GTK.
"All GTK" may be sufficient to make cut/copy/paste work between applications, but it's not necessary. I just did a quick Wireshark build (to get a GTK+ application) on my Fedora-16-with-KDE-4 (virtual) machine, and was able to cut with ^X or copy with ^C from the Wireshark filter text box and paste with ^V into the app launcher Search text box and KWord, and cut or copy from either of the latter and paste it into the Wireshark filter text box.
So it works at least between those versions of GTK+ 2.x and Qt 4.x. There's no guarantee it will work between toolkits A and B for arbitrary values of A and B, but if a toolkit implements cut/copy/paste as per the freedesktop.org clipboard consensus - as that page notes, Qt and GTK+ both do - cut/copy/paste should work between applications using that toolkit and other applications using that toolkit and other toolkits that implement cut/copy/paste as per that consensus. (According to the page on that consensus, Qt 2 and GNU Emacs 20 didn't implement cut/copy/paste as per that consensus, but Qt 3 and GNU Emacs 21 would.)
None of that, BTW, gets rid of paste-current-selection, i.e. the action usually bound to the middle mouse button on many UN*X GUIs.
(Note, BTW, that the X11 term "selection" doesn't necessarily mean "what you've selected in the application"; that's the PRIMARY selection, but there's also the CLIPBOARD selection, which is whatever you've cut or copied, and the SECONDARY selection, which is probably unused unless you're using an XView application.)
Slightly earlier claim, but it depends on what you mean by "welfare"; if you mean the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program - the program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, both programs being what people often mean by "welfare", it's not true. The Republican statement to which the Weekly Standard was referring is using "welfare" to refer to a list of 83 items.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
(with the first sentence updated by section 2 of the 14th Amendment, further updated by the 19th and 26th Amendments), so, if "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand", that allows up to about 10,000 Representatives.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say how many Representatives there should be per person, it just says that number must be less than or equal to 1/30000 of the population, So "The House is supposed to grow (and shrink) with population, yet it has not for nearly 100 years." is not true and the size of Congress is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
Blame for Congress not having grown in size can be laid at the feet of Public Law 62-5.
Meh, Apple took the cheap/easy way out. They solved a software problem with Hardware. The effective resolution is the same as it was previously, They just double the amount of pixels used.
"Low resolution" is a hardware problem - you want higher-res, you need smaller pixels and more of them, and the only software that would affect that would be the software in the machines used in the design and manufacturing process for the displays.
Open-source apps are not generally architecture specific.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Sometimes Open Source apps are written to be architecture agnostic, but only if they're big enough. Lots of times, they start out with one architecture in mind and ports have to be done after a lot of assumptions were initially made.
And sometimes they might even start out with no particular architecture in mind but end up making implicit assumptions because the authors weren't even aware, for example, that not all processors can make unaligned memory references without trapping or that not all processors are little-endian - they might not have started out with x86 in mind, but they might have been working on an x86-based machine for so long that they didn't even know that some of the characteristics of x86 aren't universal characteristics of all architectures.
If you have source code and development tools, you can build it on whatever you like
And the knowhow, and the time to switch around low level code.
There might not even be any low level code specifically written for some particular architecture - at least code such as that might be easy to find; code that cheerfully dereferences pointers not guaranteed to be aligned to the appropriate memory boundary for the data to which they point, or that somehow does something that only happens to work on little-endian machines, might not be as easy to find.
and for literally destroying private practice medicine
"Literally destroying private practice medicine"? Wow, I didn't know we even had enough drones to kill every single private medical practitioner in the US and destroy their offices.
But let's ignore the "literally", as literally nobody uses it correctly any more.:-)
It's been a couple of years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, but I went to my doctors' [sic - husband does internal medicine, wife is an endocrinologist, which is a bit of a jackpot for a type 1 diabetic...] office a couple of months ago and saw no signs that they had magically transformed into gummint employees. Heck, even in the UK, with a much more "gummint run" system than in many countries in socialist Continental Yerp, much less in the US, private practitioners still exist, although the private sector is significantly smaller than the public sector.
What every one of our foreign competitors has chosen over the past several generations is a public health insurance system like unemployment insurance, which we already have for a lot of Americans in either Medicare, Medicaid, VA insurance and some others.
Ahh, so what you really want is the BSD rc subsystem or perhaps rcng in Gentoo
Or maybe launchd, which was one of the inspirations from systemd, but has 25022 lines of source code (as per a recent download of a source tarball of the 10.8.2 version) rather than 158743 lines (as per a recent checkout with git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd), with "lines of source code" determined by finding all source files (files matching any of *.[chylsSxm], *.ch, *.fth, *.sh, *.m[td], *.asm, *.java, *.jav, *.cpp, *.cc, *.cxx, *.cp) and xargsing them through wc -l.
No, launchd probably doesn't do as much as systemd; some might consider that a feature.
It's natural for homo sapiens with average intelligence to fear the gifted. After all, if you admit they exist, then you may have to accept that their insights into things you don't understand may be true
Or maybe God not only plays dice with the universe but throws them where we can't see them (to quote another gifted person who may have more than one thing genetically different about his nervous system).
For that matter, I think I remember that MSWindows was derived from VMS, but with the security and multi-taksing deleted because "personal computers don't need that". But it could have been NT rather than MSWind.
The main architect of NT was Dave Cutler, who was, as far as I know, also the main architect of VMS, so there are similarities in the innards (same "16 time-sharing priorities, 16 real-time priorities" scheduling model and similar I/O subsystem, for example). However, the multi-tasking was definitely not deleted from NT, nor was the security (in the sense of having user IDs and process credentials and ACLs on files, at least in NTFS, and on other objects).
"Classic" MS Windows antedated Cutler, and had no VMS influences I know of.
UNIX preemptively multitasked in 1969. Kinda predates Amiga.
The earliest example of a protected memory model using separated memory paging I can think of is OS/2 (1987).
If by "separated memory paging" you mean "paging in separate per-process address spaces", the earliest example I can think of is the Berkeley Timesharing System on the SDS 940 (1966 or so), followed by Multics (1969), TSS/360 (1967 or so), and TENEX (1968-1970 or so).
(Given that you mention UNIX in 1969, you're not restricting this to OSes running on IBM-compatible PCs.)
Ok, I'll bite. All app stores are "just a package manager prettied up". If that is what makes something not a walled garden, then they don't exist.
What makes an app store not a walled garden is the ability to run apps you got from somewhere other than the app store, so iOS is a walled garden (and I have the impression Windows RT is as well), while OS X, pick-your-Linux-distribution-with-an-app-store, and Windows-for-x86 aren't walled gardens (and I have the impression Android, at least by default, isn't a walled garden as well).
I'd suggest that you try the demos for Fusion and Parallels, see if either is worth the cost or if the free alternative works well enough for your needs.
The original poster's going to start out using Windows as the host, and possibly switch to Linux later, so "VMware Workstation" rather than "VMware Fusion" is the name of the product they want to look at. For Parallels, it's Parallels Workstation (rather than Parallels Desktop, which is the version for OS X hosts).
Other than that, yes, try demos - and bear in mind that, for the non-free-as-in-beer version, switching from Windows to Linux as the host may mean buying another copy.
Slashdot Mirror
As has been pointed out before, nothing stops any given tin-pot dictatorship from building their own version of the Internet that connects to the rest of the Internet,
If it "connects to the rest of the Internet", it's not "their own version of the Internet", it's a subnetwork of the Internet.
They're just too lazy or too cheap to do so,
If it "connects to the rest of the Internet", they don't have to buy their own protocols or whatever it is you're thinking of. They might have to pay for the hardware and software, but everybody has to do that.
Why would the US give up control of the Internet? We built it, it's ours.
Who's "we", and what does "built it" mean? If you mean "researchers paid by the US government developed many of the protocols", yes. If you mean "all of the infrastructure on the Internet was paid for by the US government and US individuals and organizations", no. If you mean "all of the work on all of the protocols used on the Internet was done by people paid by the US government", no, not even if you mean the core protocols.
I hate this stupid myth, Arpanet has fuck-all to do with the internet. Both of them shared a separately created system, packet switching, to route data around it. THAT IS IT.
Many networks use packet switching. The ARPANET used, and the Internet uses, the same protocols to implement packet switching (except for protocols that didn't exist yet at the time the ARPANET went away, such as IPv6). TCP and IP were originally developed for use on the ARPANET.
Arpanet and Internet are two completely different beasts.
Yes. Given that the ARPANET no longer exists, and the Internet does, it would be very difficult for them to be the same.
Internet was a joint creation with US and UK after they figured out they were working on similar systems and decided to scale it across seas.
The ARPANET ceased being US-only in 1973, when NORSAR joined. If you're thinking of JANET, that existed at the same time that some UK sites were already on the ARPANET; eventually JANET offered an IP-based service.
VMS and CP/M have nothing to with BSD.
Neither does CP/CMS, which, for that matter, has nothing to do with CP/M, either.
FreeBSD... actually BSD is very newsworthy as it holds an integral part of computer history. Like other important pieces of history such as VMS, IBM 360, and other gone technologies BSD will be part of it that we owe a gratitude for.
Actually, neither BSD nor VMS are gone - OS X is a BSD-flavored OS at the UNIX layer, and DEC^WCompaq^WHP are still selling VMS IBM haven't made S/360's for a while, but they are making their (64-bit) descendants, which still run a descendant of OS/360, a descendant of DOS/360, a descendant of CP/CMS, and even a descendant of the Airlines Control Program. And, yes, it runs Linux, although I don't know of any BSD ports.
A few years ago I regularly built Qt-based binaries on my Linux machine, targeting PPC OS X (10.3). It was pretty slick. I tried to set up a cross-compiling environment later under 10.4 fat binary days, but that proved too difficult, sadly. As it stands now, if I could run apple's native compiler and tools under linux, outputting nice OS X app bundles for Qt apps, that would be pretty slick.
Start here.
I already have that.. it's called VMWare Fusion on a Macbook Pro. =^)
That's a little different, but if somebody were to make a package to let you run Linux binaries on OS X (including hacking the execsw[] table in xnu/bsd/kern/kern_exec.c to have an image activator for ELF binaries) and combine it with Wine for OS X, that's another alternative along the lines of Wine+Darling-on-Linux. (Extra credit for hacking execsw[] to handle PE binaries as well. :-))
I don't know how much Windows NT source would be needed to complete the circle and add the ability to run OS X and Linux binaries on Windows.
I'm not saying that's the issue both both applications you mentioned use GTK so maybe that's one reason why it works but may not work in other cases.
And GNU/Linux isn't all GTK.
"All GTK" may be sufficient to make cut/copy/paste work between applications, but it's not necessary. I just did a quick Wireshark build (to get a GTK+ application) on my Fedora-16-with-KDE-4 (virtual) machine, and was able to cut with ^X or copy with ^C from the Wireshark filter text box and paste with ^V into the app launcher Search text box and KWord, and cut or copy from either of the latter and paste it into the Wireshark filter text box.
So it works at least between those versions of GTK+ 2.x and Qt 4.x. There's no guarantee it will work between toolkits A and B for arbitrary values of A and B, but if a toolkit implements cut/copy/paste as per the freedesktop.org clipboard consensus - as that page notes, Qt and GTK+ both do - cut/copy/paste should work between applications using that toolkit and other applications using that toolkit and other toolkits that implement cut/copy/paste as per that consensus. (According to the page on that consensus, Qt 2 and GNU Emacs 20 didn't implement cut/copy/paste as per that consensus, but Qt 3 and GNU Emacs 21 would.)
None of that, BTW, gets rid of paste-current-selection, i.e. the action usually bound to the middle mouse button on many UN*X GUIs.
(Note, BTW, that the X11 term "selection" doesn't necessarily mean "what you've selected in the application"; that's the PRIMARY selection, but there's also the CLIPBOARD selection, which is whatever you've cut or copied, and the SECONDARY selection, which is probably unused unless you're using an XView application.)
I suspect he'd have to go to the US in order to be able to leave the US.
Average welfare spending per poor household IS NOT higher than median income. That is a god damn lie and you fucking know it.
Then perhaps you should direct your fuck-yous to the appropriate liars then.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/welfare-spending-equates-168-day-every-household-poverty_665160.html
Slightly earlier claim, but it depends on what you mean by "welfare"; if you mean the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program - the program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, both programs being what people often mean by "welfare", it's not true. The Republican statement to which the Weekly Standard was referring is using "welfare" to refer to a list of 83 items.
(Of course, if you're a fan of Congressional Research Service reports, you're presumably not going to argue that cutting tax rates for the top tax brackets is a way to boost economic growth, but I digress....)
the size of congress is spelled out in the constitution moron
Article I, section 2, says:
(with the first sentence updated by section 2 of the 14th Amendment, further updated by the 19th and 26th Amendments), so, if "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand", that allows up to about 10,000 Representatives.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly say how many Representatives there should be per person, it just says that number must be less than or equal to 1/30000 of the population, So "The House is supposed to grow (and shrink) with population, yet it has not for nearly 100 years." is not true and the size of Congress is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.
Blame for Congress not having grown in size can be laid at the feet of Public Law 62-5.
Remember that the internet was invented for the specific military purpose of withstanding a nuclear war.
[citation needed]
Meh, Apple took the cheap/easy way out. They solved a software problem with Hardware. The effective resolution is the same as it was previously, They just double the amount of pixels used.
...and use the extra pixels to show stuff at higher resolution except for some applications.
"Low resolution" is a hardware problem - you want higher-res, you need smaller pixels and more of them, and the only software that would affect that would be the software in the machines used in the design and manufacturing process for the displays.
As of A15 Cortex, ARM's architecture supports any instruction set natively, automatically.
And it shrinks hemorrhoids without surgery and automatically changes your {penis,breasts} to the size you desire!
(If we're going to troll, let's just go for it....)
Open-source apps are not generally architecture specific.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Sometimes Open Source apps are written to be architecture agnostic, but only if they're big enough. Lots of times, they start out with one architecture in mind and ports have to be done after a lot of assumptions were initially made.
And sometimes they might even start out with no particular architecture in mind but end up making implicit assumptions because the authors weren't even aware, for example, that not all processors can make unaligned memory references without trapping or that not all processors are little-endian - they might not have started out with x86 in mind, but they might have been working on an x86-based machine for so long that they didn't even know that some of the characteristics of x86 aren't universal characteristics of all architectures.
If you have source code and development tools, you can build it on whatever you like
And the knowhow, and the time to switch around low level code.
There might not even be any low level code specifically written for some particular architecture - at least code such as that might be easy to find; code that cheerfully dereferences pointers not guaranteed to be aligned to the appropriate memory boundary for the data to which they point, or that somehow does something that only happens to work on little-endian machines, might not be as easy to find.
and for literally destroying private practice medicine
"Literally destroying private practice medicine"? Wow, I didn't know we even had enough drones to kill every single private medical practitioner in the US and destroy their offices.
But let's ignore the "literally", as literally nobody uses it correctly any more. :-)
It's been a couple of years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, but I went to my doctors' [sic - husband does internal medicine, wife is an endocrinologist, which is a bit of a jackpot for a type 1 diabetic...] office a couple of months ago and saw no signs that they had magically transformed into gummint employees. Heck, even in the UK, with a much more "gummint run" system than in many countries in socialist Continental Yerp, much less in the US, private practitioners still exist, although the private sector is significantly smaller than the public sector.
And as for libertarians, they happen to be the only poeple to have enough principle to be pissed about Bush's torture AND Obama's drone executions.
Not too fond of Bush or Obama on civil liberties, and concerned that Social Security, Medicare, etc. will get cut. Unless you have a very unusual definition of "libertarian", or by "the only people" you don't literally mean "the only people", your claim appears to be untrue. Even if you argue that by "the only people" you meant "the only political party", there's another party that's opposed to torture, has at least some members opposed to drone attacks, and not exactly fans of free-market solutions for everything.
(Admittedly, what you actually said was "the only poeple", so maybe neither Glenn Greenwald nor anybody in the Green Party are "poeple". :-))
What every one of our foreign competitors has chosen over the past several generations is a public health insurance system like unemployment insurance, which we already have for a lot of Americans in either Medicare, Medicaid, VA insurance and some others.
I would count Germany, for example, as a competitor, but they don't have a fully-public health insurance system. However, it has a lot more "gummint interference" than I suspect would be acceptable to fans of the free market.
Ahh, so what you really want is the BSD rc subsystem or perhaps rcng in Gentoo
Or maybe launchd, which was one of the inspirations from systemd, but has 25022 lines of source code (as per a recent download of a source tarball of the 10.8.2 version) rather than 158743 lines (as per a recent checkout with git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd), with "lines of source code" determined by finding all source files (files matching any of *.[chylsSxm], *.ch, *.fth, *.sh, *.m[td], *.asm, *.java, *.jav, *.cpp, *.cc, *.cxx, *.cp) and xargsing them through wc -l.
No, launchd probably doesn't do as much as systemd; some might consider that a feature.
It's natural for homo sapiens with average intelligence to fear the gifted. After all, if you admit they exist, then you may have to accept that their insights into things you don't understand may be true
Or maybe God not only plays dice with the universe but throws them where we can't see them (to quote another gifted person who may have more than one thing genetically different about his nervous system).
Let's not forget CMS, MVT, MFT, etc.
If we're talking pre-PC, let's not forget CTSS.
For that matter, I think I remember that MSWindows was derived from VMS, but with the security and multi-taksing deleted because "personal computers don't need that". But it could have been NT rather than MSWind.
The main architect of NT was Dave Cutler, who was, as far as I know, also the main architect of VMS, so there are similarities in the innards (same "16 time-sharing priorities, 16 real-time priorities" scheduling model and similar I/O subsystem, for example). However, the multi-tasking was definitely not deleted from NT, nor was the security (in the sense of having user IDs and process credentials and ACLs on files, at least in NTFS, and on other objects).
"Classic" MS Windows antedated Cutler, and had no VMS influences I know of.
UNIX preemptively multitasked in 1969. Kinda predates Amiga.
The earliest example of a protected memory model using separated memory paging I can think of is OS/2 (1987).
If by "separated memory paging" you mean "paging in separate per-process address spaces", the earliest example I can think of is the Berkeley Timesharing System on the SDS 940 (1966 or so), followed by Multics (1969), TSS/360 (1967 or so), and TENEX (1968-1970 or so).
(Given that you mention UNIX in 1969, you're not restricting this to OSes running on IBM-compatible PCs.)
Ok, I'll bite. All app stores are "just a package manager prettied up". If that is what makes something not a walled garden, then they don't exist.
What makes an app store not a walled garden is the ability to run apps you got from somewhere other than the app store, so iOS is a walled garden (and I have the impression Windows RT is as well), while OS X, pick-your-Linux-distribution-with-an-app-store, and Windows-for-x86 aren't walled gardens (and I have the impression Android, at least by default, isn't a walled garden as well).
> I seem to recall the major feature of any electronic calculator was the ability to write 80085 and make your classmates giggle.
Isn't it 8085?
If your calculator can show "Bob"s, that's pretty cool.
I'd suggest that you try the demos for Fusion and Parallels, see if either is worth the cost or if the free alternative works well enough for your needs.
The original poster's going to start out using Windows as the host, and possibly switch to Linux later, so "VMware Workstation" rather than "VMware Fusion" is the name of the product they want to look at. For Parallels, it's Parallels Workstation (rather than Parallels Desktop, which is the version for OS X hosts).
Other than that, yes, try demos - and bear in mind that, for the non-free-as-in-beer version, switching from Windows to Linux as the host may mean buying another copy.