Interesting page.. although, I'll admit that I didn't read it.. but, I found one part particularly interesting (it was actually a footnote, but who's looking?):
Operating systems, even Windows (which hides the fact from its users as thoroughly as possible), are actually collections of components, rather than undivided unities. Most of what an operating system does (manage file systems, control process execution, etc.) can be abstracted from the actual details of the computer hardware on which the operating system runs. Only a small inner core of the system must actually deal with the eccentric peculiarities of particular hardware. Once the operating system is written in a general language such as C, only that inner core, known in the trade as the kernel, will be highly specific to a particular computer architecture.
Of course.. that's because it mentioned Windows, and their futile efforts.. mwahaha!
sounds like a good idea. of course, that idea could also be extended to cover basically the whole thing (or, rather, in someone's more realistic view, only the parts that lack/take more time & effort) so that the XFree86 project could have a panel that designated the individual projects that were developed by groups, and then they could just put the finished pieces together into a nice, finished product. hmm.. smart idea of yours!
He'd pay millions for a new one because if he didn't, it'd look like he was getting a piece of junk, and he wouldn't want that, would he? He's got to keep up the "good rep." (ha!)
I'm sure eventually I'd find some way to at least cause the thing to die. It might take weeks, or days. Hard to say. What do you mean by "the thing"? I had originally assumed that you meant, "killing" the PPC machine. Or did you mean, to kill the page? I changed my thought, of course, when I saw this statement:
As soon as i was 100% certian I'd found a way to kill it, then and only then would i begin to attack the machine in question. Apparently, I was mistaken on the "it," so I was wondering if someone could explain the "it" to a pitiful little ignorant person such as myself. Thank you. =)
It costs $79.99 in a store, so you must owe someone $3.99. Maybe I'll just buy my teacher sister-in-law a beer instead. Now _there's_ somebody who knows what they're talking about, and how ridiculous this whole affair is.. at least, IMO.
well, darn it, I feel rather stupid now. Oh well...
I guess I was thinking they could do something more in the way to keep us from speculating, although that's an impossibility. but anyway, sorry about that wasted post of mine
So, they _didn't_ know that Linux was an existing operating system? hmmm.. slow news, i suppose. Then again, maybe not.
But what I'm wondering is, did they think they invented Linux themselves? Who are they kidding? (or what were they trying to trademark Linux as, if not for/as the OS?)
just have a page where a list of all software patents are categorized by topic/function/genre/whatever where people could roam through and find the ones that they violate?
Other than that, I agree with those who believe that software shouldn't be patentable, because, as good and clean of an idea the original one is/was, the task of maintaining that cleanness and orderlyness and preventing it from being abused/getting out of hand is such a task that I don't think it can be done. Not by people now, not by people before, not by people ever. It will _always_ be abused, somehow. That's just the way things are (though I'm not trying to be pessimistic here.. it just is inevitable, as far as I can see).
I didn't actually get to hear the sound clip (school network, no sound card on this machine), but, assuming that, in the speach, he doesn't use the "ein" then... oops. And then, yeah, technically, we'd all know that he meant to say "I'm a Berliner" if he had said "Ich bin ein Berliner" (and we'd really know it if he said "Ich bin Berliner." ) seeing as how I'm learning German and am obviously no native speaker, I have been taught that the "ein" article is not to be used when stating what nationality, locality one is of. So, in another technical sense, if I/someone wanted to be anal retentive, they could still argue for the jelly donut cause, but hey, we all get the point.
Thanks for the correction. Thanks very much indeed.
My thoughts as well. A further thought was that, assuming we (and all the other like minded/.ers) are correct, Amiga could/should have simply posted something on their executive update page that they were in the process of major internal workings, and that further details won't be available until they can organize their thoughts, or something like that. At least that way, their going ahead and just keeping people like us from major speculation, and making themselves look a bit more organized.
Ah! The infamous jelly donut statement by JFK (right?).... hee hee hee... hoo! Glad I wasn't him. Geez, you'd think, if they were going to have him speak German (or did he have a translator?), they'd get him to do a bit of studying first.. oh hell, I guess not.
I'm going to assume that, even though the article is about something happening in Utah, the person to whose comment you just replied was not likely talking about Utah alone. (I'm hoping you actually realized this, as opposed to the implications of your post).
Either way, I also realize that this comment of mine isn't very important, but I just wanted to say two things, one of which I've already said. The other of which is: Congratulations, Job Well Done!!
I can't believe he used M$ when in his interview, he said that no M$ products would be bought with that Cuesta program while he was there.. traitor.. grrr
so, now that we know the reason that mir doesn't work is because of m$, let's forge on and solve the rest of the world's problems... (j/k! aack! don't shoot me down!)
So, they finally found extraterrestrial water, _last_ year. And we're finally being able to hear about it this year, and so far they still haven't been able to make any conclusion(s) from the data collected to give us an idea about what this says for us? I find that rather odd. Then again, I should assume that analysis of such a discovery _would_ take a long time... so, I should be patient.
Still, I find it strange that, if they found the meteorite last year, it didn't likely take them a year to discover it had water in it, right? So, why haven't we at least heard of it before now? Or have we, and I missed it.....?
Well, didn't the article say that it had been published on Wired in 1992? But it also mentioned that comments and links/updates had been placed, in [], throughout the original article.
They need to proofread... sheesh. Or at least skim for consistency.
Indeed, they do need to. I'm thinking that the article was written in stages, or something like that, for it to be so contradictory. (As in, for it to contradict itself so, it makes it seem as if the author(s) found something to write/wrote a paragraph, and then later, upon more research, etc., they found a new statement to make, which contradicted what they'd already said, but they didn't know that because they apparently chose not to review the final draft before submission.)
You know that song (by some female artist or other, I don't know the name) "Why don't you love me, David Duchovny?" It'd be neat if someone (perhaps this person to whom I'm replying.. [sarcastic "hmmmm"]) would take that song and rewrite it to Linus Torvalds. Then again, maybe I'm just losing what I never really had to begin with...
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting page.. although, I'll admit that I didn't read it.. but, I found one part particularly interesting (it was actually a footnote, but who's looking?):
Operating systems, even Windows (which hides the fact from its users as thoroughly as possible), are actually collections of components, rather than undivided unities. Most of what an operating system does (manage file systems, control process execution, etc.) can be abstracted from the actual details of the computer hardware on which the operating system runs. Only a small inner core of the system must actually deal with the eccentric peculiarities of particular hardware. Once the operating system is written in a general language such as C, only that inner core, known in the trade as the kernel, will be highly specific to a particular computer architecture.
Of course.. that's because it mentioned Windows, and their futile efforts.. mwahaha!
a link to this?
sounds like a good idea. of course, that idea could also be extended to cover basically the whole thing (or, rather, in someone's more realistic view, only the parts that lack/take more time & effort) so that the XFree86 project could have a panel that designated the individual projects that were developed by groups, and then they could just put the finished pieces together into a nice, finished product. hmm.. smart idea of yours!
I just tried to log in (several times) to the new server, and nothing really happened (perhaps I didn't wait long enough.. darn my impatience)
just wanted to let you know, and wonder if anyone else was having probs like that...
He'd pay millions for a new one because if he didn't, it'd look like he was getting a piece of junk, and he wouldn't want that, would he? He's got to keep up the "good rep." (ha!)
I was going to post this comment in response to someone's comment on the mirrored test site:
their topic: Hell
My comment:
hell? faster!
"You're driving like a bat outta Hades!"
But I couldn't post the comment because of 500 Internal Server Error, or something like that... oh well
I'm sure eventually I'd find some way to at least cause the thing to die. It might take weeks, or days. Hard to say. What do you mean by "the thing"? I had originally assumed that you meant, "killing" the PPC machine. Or did you mean, to kill the page? I changed my thought, of course, when I saw this statement:
As soon as i was 100% certian I'd found a way to kill it, then and only then would i begin to attack the machine in question. Apparently, I was mistaken on the "it," so I was wondering if someone could explain the "it" to a pitiful little ignorant person such as myself. Thank you. =)
It costs $79.99 in a store, so you must owe someone $3.99. Maybe I'll just buy my teacher sister-in-law a beer instead.
Now _there's_ somebody who knows what they're talking about, and how ridiculous this whole affair is.. at least, IMO.
oops..
silly me
what was I thinking?
well, darn it, I feel rather stupid now. Oh well...
I guess I was thinking they could do something more in the way to keep us from speculating, although that's an impossibility. but anyway, sorry about that wasted post of mine
Why would someone flame you for liking SuSE?
So, they _didn't_ know that Linux was an existing operating system? hmmm.. slow news, i suppose. Then again, maybe not.
But what I'm wondering is, did they think they invented Linux themselves? Who are they kidding? (or what were they trying to trademark Linux as, if not for/as the OS?)
What's Twinkle?
(I don't mean to be stupid, but....)
just have a page where a list of all software patents are categorized by topic/function/genre/whatever where people could roam through and find the ones that they violate?
Other than that, I agree with those who believe that software shouldn't be patentable, because, as good and clean of an idea the original one is/was, the task of maintaining that cleanness and orderlyness and preventing it from being abused/getting out of hand is such a task that I don't think it can be done. Not by people now, not by people before, not by people ever. It will _always_ be abused, somehow. That's just the way things are (though I'm not trying to be pessimistic here.. it just is inevitable, as far as I can see).
Oh. wow.
I didn't actually get to hear the sound clip (school network, no sound card on this machine), but, assuming that, in the speach, he doesn't use the "ein" then... oops. And then, yeah, technically, we'd all know that he meant to say "I'm a Berliner" if he had said "Ich bin ein Berliner" (and we'd really know it if he said "Ich bin Berliner." ) seeing as how I'm learning German and am obviously no native speaker, I have been taught that the "ein" article is not to be used when stating what nationality, locality one is of. So, in another technical sense, if I/someone wanted to be anal retentive, they could still argue for the jelly donut cause, but hey, we all get the point.
Thanks for the correction. Thanks very much indeed.
My thoughts as well. A further thought was that, assuming we (and all the other like minded /.ers) are correct, Amiga could/should have simply posted something on their executive update page that they were in the process of major internal workings, and that further details won't be available until they can organize their thoughts, or something like that. At least that way, their going ahead and just keeping people like us from major speculation, and making themselves look a bit more organized.
but why change it when, as the old expression goes "a picture says a thousand words"?
or, at least I _think_ I got the old expression right
what's with these random-crap Anonymous Coward posts!! aaggh! Stop it, please!
Ah! The infamous jelly donut statement by JFK (right?). ... hee hee hee... hoo! Glad I wasn't him. Geez, you'd think, if they were going to have him speak German (or did he have a translator?), they'd get him to do a bit of studying first.. oh hell, I guess not.
I'm going to assume that, even though the article is about something happening in Utah, the person to whose comment you just replied was not likely talking about Utah alone. (I'm hoping you actually realized this, as opposed to the implications of your post).
Either way, I also realize that this comment of mine isn't very important, but I just wanted to say two things, one of which I've already said. The other of which is:
Congratulations, Job Well Done!!
I can't believe he used M$ when in his interview, he said that no M$ products would be bought with that Cuesta program while he was there.. traitor.. grrr
yes, indeed, thou speakest the truth.
for sooth! we have discovered it!
so, now that we know the reason that mir doesn't work is because of m$, let's forge on and solve the rest of the world's problems... (j/k! aack! don't shoot me down!)
-my $0.000000000001 worth-
So, they finally found extraterrestrial water, _last_ year. And we're finally being able to hear about it this year, and so far they still haven't been able to make any conclusion(s) from the data collected to give us an idea about what this says for us? I find that rather odd.
Then again, I should assume that analysis of such a discovery _would_ take a long time... so, I should be patient.
Still, I find it strange that, if they found the meteorite last year, it didn't likely take them a year to discover it had water in it, right? So, why haven't we at least heard of it before now? Or have we, and I missed it.....?
Well, didn't the article say that it had been published on Wired in 1992? But it also mentioned that comments and links/updates had been placed, in [], throughout the original article.
They need to proofread... sheesh. Or at least skim for consistency.
Indeed, they do need to. I'm thinking that the article was written in stages, or something like that, for it to be so contradictory. (As in, for it to contradict itself so, it makes it seem as if the author(s) found something to write/wrote a paragraph, and then later, upon more research, etc., they found a new statement to make, which contradicted what they'd already said, but they didn't know that because they apparently chose not to review the final draft before submission.)
Oh well, c'est la vie.
You know that song (by some female artist or other, I don't know the name) "Why don't you love me, David Duchovny?" It'd be neat if someone (perhaps this person to whom I'm replying.. [sarcastic "hmmmm"]) would take that song and rewrite it to Linus Torvalds. Then again, maybe I'm just losing what I never really had to begin with...