Ah, thank you for that explanation. I must say "miti-chlorite" sounds a heck of a lot better than my feeble "medigloricans" (or however I spelled that gosh-awful word).
In response to what you said about Mitochondria, well, if you take any kind of worthwhile biology course (I mean, "biology," not the larger pool of highly diversified and specialized courses that fall under the scientific category of being a biology), you'll learn that mitochondrian are/were believed to have been seperate entities before being taken in by cells (they have their own DNA, etc.). So that I already knew. (Thank you for pointing it out, nonetheless.)
And I'm assuming they did mean to imply all of the spiritual over/undertones that were implied by that statement... because, the whole of Star Wars is that it's another great myth explaining the universe and the world as we know it. yay Star Wars!
I thought they were "medigloricans" or something like that. I'm sure it probably was "mitochondria," and I was just hearing things, but oh well.... either way, I wonder what _their_ explanation is for how they get into the blood, since they mentioned them in the blood and not in the cells. I think. Any more thoughts on this?
I have/had a laptop running linux. it was a Compaq, but the only prob was that it had a WinModem, so no net for me.. tsk-tsk. other than that, I never really had probs with it.. yay linux!!
If/when I get another one, i'm going to make sure it has NO winmodem....
why are you complaining about windows CE (yes, it's bad) because this article is about developing a NEW OS? Oh well, I guess I'm just missing the point.... sorry.
There may be "more pressing issues," but, to be honest, that is a very relative term, and if we continue to claim that there are more pressing issues, we will continue to accept what is being done to us and eventually it will be like Animal Farm (George Orwell): the bad guys will pull the "wool over our eyes" by degrees until we just accept everything. Then, as someone has already mentioned, it will be too late to do anything about it.
I realize that gaming, etc. is not the only thing to life, but I think this is a very pressing issue becaus I feel that if they're going to prohibit the sale of all such material to minors, we've got a big problem because I believe this is censorship! Furthermore, we're leaving the terms of the censorship in the hands of a bunch of morons who don't know what they're doing, and don't know how to go about doing it, and likely won't seek help, and overall we're entrusting another wide field of our lives to relative type-casting, and then we've just let ourselves be screwed over some more.
I say to hell with it. Bad, bad bad thing. I would vote against it, if I could.
Star Trek aliens had makeup on something more than their faces/necks. I realize this will likely be moderated Flamebait, and so be it, but honestly, I find their aliens/races rather uninteresting.
Furthermore, it seems that they mix at will, and the mixing doesn't do much to produce a more exciting race, and the ony way you can tell the difference is if you watch the show more than once, or memorize all the different tattoes they like to wear. Or their big hair and ridged foreheads (re: Klingons).
I'm not saying Star Trek isn't a good show, because I like it and I used to watch it every day (back in the days when I watched T.V.) but I don't anymore, and I love Star Wars a heck of a lot more than I like Star Trek, maybe because they seem more creative or something.. It couldn't be the fact that their alien races actually look like alien races, or that they have lightsabers, or....
But back on topic, I think this is interesting, and I'd certainly try it out. Yay Star Trek!
i really am "The Fleck" but why log in when you can have anonymosity How can you claim to have anonymity when you tell us who you are? Unless, as you are most certainly able to claim, you are lying to us. In which case, I wonder, why go to all the trouble?
Answer: Troll Anonymous Cowards (though I will admit, some are very wonderful people)
Some women btw like beards and anyone who thinks that something so trivial is the key to a successful relationship probably has big problems Indeed, I agree. Anyone who feels that physical characteristics are the basis for a functional, successful relationship most likely has problems of their own that they are unable to solve. To think that so many people in this world allow themselves to be consumed by the vanity of the outward appearance. Case in point: the apparent success of the cosmetics industry.... for pete's sake, it's been around since long before I was born, and it doesn't show many signs of dying yet. Furthermore, as Alan mentioned, the plastic surgery business... which I would discount only for those who use it for purely cosmetic purposes, not for those who need it, or who use it to remove large, "unsightly" scars.
Either way, I think his hair is beautiful (from the gif it looks that way) and I figure it this way: it's his body, he may do as he pleases with it.
For those [women] who may write in to discredit him for his facial hair and long mane, someone could just as easily discredit them if they shave their legs. You don't have to, and although I do and don't really wish to not do so, it's not a necessary evil, just a ritual that many partake of.
In other words, it goes both ways, so shut up and live your own dang life, while we live ours.
Relying on the obvious exploitation of a security hole to prove its existence is bad practice. But is that not some of what (cr)hacker (I keep forgetting which word is correct) group(s) such as Cult of the Dead Cow and their Back Orifice 2000 are trying to do? I thought that was one of the excuses for their software; they were doing us all a favor by pointing out (and exploiting) security holes in other software.
I'm thinking that NSA should have already known this, right? I mean:
It's their job.
It's been there since the beginning of Windows (or since the beginning of the Win32 versions, right?)
Are these people really the first to figure it out>
How could we know that they've not known all along? Perhaps they have been using it, even in some small, obscure, or very unnoticed way, and we're seemingly not the worse for it.
Well, that's just my thoughts. Although I don't like the idea that it's there, and I know I'll download a fixer for Win98 when they code one, I'm not going to panick, because we all knew Windows sucked anyway, right?
Maybe we need to have a thing in/. codebase that auto emaisl any email href=addy on the page linked to:-) Well, that might be nice, for a while, but then I'd get tired of having to check my email all the time just to get to a story, and I'd get tired of having my inbox filled with minute-sized emails with only a link inside. oh well, just call me picky. or complainy.
on another note, it did *thud* on me too.. several times. but da's ok, I got to see them, they're pretty darned cool pics. woo hoo for the net!
it seemed slow to me, then again, that was probably because it was being/.-ed itself, from people on the old server load testing the new one. but it's nice, spiffy, and fast now.. if only that darned DNS would update; i keep having to manually type the IP addy in when I want to log in. oh well... at least we _have_ the new server (yay!)
I'd hope that licensees of BSD Unix would still give credit to UC Berkeley, even if it is a voluntary decision on the licensee's part. That would be nice of them, indeed. But I'm still puzzled over what great, all-mighty, omniscient effect this will have on the grand scheme of the BSD camp of OSes. Other than the fact that they no longer have to include that paragraph, has anything changed? (I noted that someone said that they're now GPL compatible, due to the lack of the advertisement, because GPL is released to the community as a whole, no? Is that _all_ that's important about this? What are the effects, then, of such a change?)
You said (quoting him, and adding your own comments):
"no PC has even been able to match the aging Reality Engine gfx first made available on the original Onyx in 1994, much less the 88 million polys/second (shaded, textured, and antialiased) of the Infinite Reality on the Onyx, introduced two years later."
The Onyx2 Infinite Reality 2 is rated at 13 million polygons per second (http://www.sgi.com/onyx2/sys_hardware.html).
Nvidia's NV10 (now called the GeForce 256) is quoted at 15 million triangles per second (http://www.3dgpu.com/chip/index.cfm).
Now, I'll be the first to say that I've had experience with neither card/PC/whatever, nor will I anytime soon, most likely, but I just wanted to point out something and attempt to ascertain whether or not you were correct in making your claim about the Nvidia NV10. You said "triangles," which I don't consider polygons, and I never really thought anyone else did either. Now, I realize that this may not matter, because I'm guessing the NV10's performance with polygons matches that of its performance with triangles, but I just wanted to point out that [apparent, to me at least] error in your argument against the Onyx2 Infinite Reality 2 and in favor of the NV10. That said, I haven't quite figure out which side to believe: the pro-SGI camp or the con-SGI camp, although I'm wondering if I'd just go a bit more with the con-SGI camp, because I'm thinking that, if they were _that_ good, they'd be more prevelant.
but, to me, it also looks like, once folded, it would serve as a nice footstool.... now, for that sofa (I've got plenty of books to sit back and read....)
You're right. The feds will, theoretically, get better at catching these sort of "criminals." Of course, we might also assume that these same sort of "criminals" will get better at the criminal activities that they are participating in. Therefore, the feds will not only have to "catch-up" (i.e., improve their crime-fighting skills enough to catch criminals of the "caliber" that is present now), they'll also have to push themselves far enough so that they are capable and ready for future, more advanced, and "harder" attacks.
I'd say the feds have got a bunch of work to do. "Go get 'em, boys" (cliche, I realize, but I felt the __urge__... oooo... be frightened)
Slashdot Mirror
George Lucas took his scetches, stocked up on literature of the genre, which reached from Edgar Rice Burrough's classics and Frank Herbert's DUNE to J.R.R. Tolkiens LORD OF THE RINGS and wrote the script to STAR WARS. STAR WARS - A new hope (1977) The Empire strikes back (1980) Return of the JEDI (1983) STAR WARS © 1977, 1996 Lucasfilm Ltd.; The Empire Strikes Back © 1980, 1996 Lucasfilm Ltd.; Return of the Jedi © 1983, 1996 Lucasfilm Ltd.; Lucasfilm, LucasArts, ILM, Skywalker Sound and THX are registered trademarks of Lucasfilm Ltd. © 1997. All Rights Reserved. I got this from some website... I can't remember the name of it though.. doh!
Ah, thank you for that explanation. I must say "miti-chlorite" sounds a heck of a lot better than my feeble "medigloricans" (or however I spelled that gosh-awful word).
In response to what you said about Mitochondria, well, if you take any kind of worthwhile biology course (I mean, "biology," not the larger pool of highly diversified and specialized courses that fall under the scientific category of being a biology), you'll learn that mitochondrian are/were believed to have been seperate entities before being taken in by cells (they have their own DNA, etc.). So that I already knew. (Thank you for pointing it out, nonetheless.)
And I'm assuming they did mean to imply all of the spiritual over/undertones that were implied by that statement... because, the whole of Star Wars is that it's another great myth explaining the universe and the world as we know it. yay Star Wars!
I thought they were "medigloricans" or something like that. I'm sure it probably was "mitochondria," and I was just hearing things, but oh well.... either way, I wonder what _their_ explanation is for how they get into the blood, since they mentioned them in the blood and not in the cells. I think. Any more thoughts on this?
I have/had a laptop running linux. it was a Compaq, but the only prob was that it had a WinModem, so no net for me.. tsk-tsk. other than that, I never really had probs with it.. yay linux!!
If/when I get another one, i'm going to make sure it has NO winmodem....
Just as long as they don't use M$ Office.....
why are you complaining about windows CE (yes, it's bad) because this article is about developing a NEW OS? Oh well, I guess I'm just missing the point.... sorry.
There may be "more pressing issues," but, to be honest, that is a very relative term, and if we continue to claim that there are more pressing issues, we will continue to accept what is being done to us and eventually it will be like Animal Farm (George Orwell): the bad guys will pull the "wool over our eyes" by degrees until we just accept everything. Then, as someone has already mentioned, it will be too late to do anything about it.
I realize that gaming, etc. is not the only thing to life, but I think this is a very pressing issue becaus I feel that if they're going to prohibit the sale of all such material to minors, we've got a big problem because I believe this is censorship! Furthermore, we're leaving the terms of the censorship in the hands of a bunch of morons who don't know what they're doing, and don't know how to go about doing it, and likely won't seek help, and overall we're entrusting another wide field of our lives to relative type-casting, and then we've just let ourselves be screwed over some more.
I say to hell with it. Bad, bad bad thing. I would vote against it, if I could.
Star Trek aliens had makeup on something more than their faces/necks. I realize this will likely be moderated Flamebait, and so be it, but honestly, I find their aliens/races rather uninteresting.
Furthermore, it seems that they mix at will, and the mixing doesn't do much to produce a more exciting race, and the ony way you can tell the difference is if you watch the show more than once, or memorize all the different tattoes they like to wear. Or their big hair and ridged foreheads (re: Klingons).
I'm not saying Star Trek isn't a good show, because I like it and I used to watch it every day (back in the days when I watched T.V.) but I don't anymore, and I love Star Wars a heck of a lot more than I like Star Trek, maybe because they seem more creative or something.. It couldn't be the fact that their alien races actually look like alien races, or that they have lightsabers, or....
But back on topic, I think this is interesting, and I'd certainly try it out. Yay Star Trek!
i really am "The Fleck" but why log in when you can have anonymosity
How can you claim to have anonymity when you tell us who you are?
Unless, as you are most certainly able to claim, you are lying to us. In which case, I wonder, why go to all the trouble?
Answer: Troll Anonymous Cowards (though I will admit, some are very wonderful people)
Some women btw like beards and anyone who thinks that something so trivial is the key to a successful relationship probably has big problems
Indeed, I agree. Anyone who feels that physical characteristics are the basis for a functional, successful relationship most likely has problems of their own that they are unable to solve. To think that so many people in this world allow themselves to be consumed by the vanity of the outward appearance. Case in point: the apparent success of the cosmetics industry.... for pete's sake, it's been around since long before I was born, and it doesn't show many signs of dying yet. Furthermore, as Alan mentioned, the plastic surgery business... which I would discount only for those who use it for purely cosmetic purposes, not for those who need it, or who use it to remove large, "unsightly" scars.
Either way, I think his hair is beautiful (from the gif it looks that way) and I figure it this way: it's his body, he may do as he pleases with it.
For those [women] who may write in to discredit him for his facial hair and long mane, someone could just as easily discredit them if they shave their legs. You don't have to, and although I do and don't really wish to not do so, it's not a necessary evil, just a ritual that many partake of.
In other words, it goes both ways, so shut up and live your own dang life, while we live ours.
Relying on the obvious exploitation of a security hole to prove its existence is bad practice.
But is that not some of what (cr)hacker (I keep forgetting which word is correct) group(s) such as Cult of the Dead Cow and their Back Orifice 2000 are trying to do? I thought that was one of the excuses for their software; they were doing us all a favor by pointing out (and exploiting) security holes in other software.
Perhaps I am wrong; if so, let me know.
5 exclamation marks are a sure sign of someone who wears their underpants on their heard, aren't they?
heard?
If I had a heard to wear my underpants on, I wouldn't, nor would I use 5 exclamation marks.
Thank you for your time, and have a nice day.
I love you! yay Beowulf comments!
(childish, i realize, but oh hell..)
Well, that's just my thoughts. Although I don't like the idea that it's there, and I know I'll download a fixer for Win98 when they code one, I'm not going to panick, because we all knew Windows sucked anyway, right?
Maybe we need to have a thing in /. codebase that auto emaisl any email href=addy on the page linked to :-)
Well, that might be nice, for a while, but then I'd get tired of having to check my email all the time just to get to a story, and I'd get tired of having my inbox filled with minute-sized emails with only a link inside. oh well, just call me picky. or complainy.
on another note, it did *thud* on me too.. several times. but da's ok, I got to see them, they're pretty darned cool pics. woo hoo for the net!
it seemed slow to me, then again, that was probably because it was being /.-ed itself, from people on the old server load testing the new one. but it's nice, spiffy, and fast now.. if only that darned DNS would update; i keep having to manually type the IP addy in when I want to log in. oh well... at least we _have_ the new server (yay!)
guarantees that something will go wrong, especially when it's most needed to NOT go wrong.
(Because yes, you can want things to go wrong....sometimes...)
it's a one-in-a-million chance of winning the lottery...
I'd hope that licensees of BSD Unix would still give credit to UC Berkeley, even if it is a voluntary decision on the licensee's part. That would be nice of them, indeed. But I'm still puzzled over what great, all-mighty, omniscient effect this will have on the grand scheme of the BSD camp of OSes. Other than the fact that they no longer have to include that paragraph, has anything changed? (I noted that someone said that they're now GPL compatible, due to the lack of the advertisement, because GPL is released to the community as a whole, no? Is that _all_ that's important about this? What are the effects, then, of such a change?)
Thankie kindly...
I'm going to have to get a few more PC card slots to hold all those darned PC Cards I need to get..... grrr.....
even "regular" mice are smarter than those stupid things
How about "Red Light Linux"
mwa haha!
You said (quoting him, and adding your own comments):
"no PC has even been able to match the aging Reality Engine gfx first made available on the original Onyx in 1994, much less the 88 million polys/second (shaded,
textured, and antialiased) of the Infinite Reality on the Onyx, introduced two years later."
The Onyx2 Infinite Reality 2 is rated at 13 million polygons per second (http://www.sgi.com/onyx2/sys_hardware.html).
Nvidia's NV10 (now called the GeForce 256) is quoted at 15 million triangles per second (http://www.3dgpu.com/chip/index.cfm).
Now, I'll be the first to say that I've had experience with neither card/PC/whatever, nor will I anytime soon, most likely, but I just wanted to point out something and attempt to ascertain whether or not you were correct in making your claim about the Nvidia NV10. You said "triangles," which I don't consider polygons, and I never really thought anyone else did either. Now, I realize that this may not matter, because I'm guessing the NV10's performance with polygons matches that of its performance with triangles, but I just wanted to point out that [apparent, to me at least] error in your argument against the Onyx2 Infinite Reality 2 and in favor of the NV10. That said, I haven't quite figure out which side to believe: the pro-SGI camp or the con-SGI camp, although I'm wondering if I'd just go a bit more with the con-SGI camp, because I'm thinking that, if they were _that_ good, they'd be more prevelant.
That said, thank you.
hee hee.. yeah, you're right!
but, to me, it also looks like, once folded, it would serve as a nice footstool.... now, for that sofa (I've got plenty of books to sit back and read....)
You're right. The feds will, theoretically, get better at catching these sort of "criminals." Of course, we might also assume that these same sort of "criminals" will get better at the criminal activities that they are participating in. Therefore, the feds will not only have to "catch-up" (i.e., improve their crime-fighting skills enough to catch criminals of the "caliber" that is present now), they'll also have to push themselves far enough so that they are capable and ready for future, more advanced, and "harder" attacks.
I'd say the feds have got a bunch of work to do. "Go get 'em, boys"
(cliche, I realize, but I felt the __urge__... oooo... be frightened)