What an ingnorant and rediculous answer. I swear slashdot needs a high-user-id-filter.
I can give a much better and factually based argument for all all those dumb slashdoters who moded this junk up.
In the very early 1990s, AT&T and BSDi were just finishing up their copyright dispute (btw, AT&T was in the right on some things and BSDi on others).
The two people maintaining 386BSD were not accepting desperate pleas by BSDers to indegrate some IDE patches. FreeBSD started largely because of the 386BSD maintainers recalcitrance.
On the other hand, Linux was quickly gaining steam and it was a wild and woolly time. IDE support was in Linux 12 to 18 months prior to FreeBSD (at least in what each camp claimed was the "stable" version).
Developers with cheap PCs with IDE controllers flocked to Linux. Lots of newbies, and I was one of them, bought ISA IDE cards and new drives to replace their RLL drives, just to run Linux.
BSD was clearly more mature compared to Linux in the early days. I believe Linux started winning the Linux vs. FreeBSD debate around Linux 2.2. Both NetBSD and OpenBSD have less sofisticated features for very good reasons. NetBSD is port-anywhere, and OpenBSD is run by a paranoid schizophrenic (sometimes that is a good thing:). And while I said Linux wins (in my mind) vs. FreeBSD (scalabilty, features, drivers, speed, etc.); FreeBSD is still an excellent kernel and has a few very cool features that I wish Linux had. FreeBSD as a distribution is a very compelling product. Ports rule.
If the "Tech Boom Era" was a factor in the FreeBSD vs. Linux on cheep PCs competition, FreeBSD would win. During the "Tech Boom Era", most of the biggest Porn sites (porn is the biggest money maker, and driver of bandwidth), have traditionally run on FreeBSD because of its consistant stability under extreme load, and efficient TCP/IP stack. Yahoo was built on FreeBSD. UUNet was a MAJOR FreeBSD user. If the "Tech Boom Era" is anything to go by, FreeBSD should have "won".
Bottom line, both kernels (linux and freebsd) were/are on a geometric growth curve, Linux had 12-18 month lead time with IDE, that is why Linux "won".
Oh! and Linus Torvalds is a fucking genius. I am not sure what he is a genius at, but as an all around Project Maintainer he is a fucking genius.
I suspect it is a "you must be this tall to ride this coaster" thing.
I registered as a CPAN author, got my ID, then registered my namespace and uploaded my module. It all took about 36 hours from sending email to register as an author to my module being on all the CPAN mirrors I checked (ego surfing:).
And all the documentation says wait 2-3weeks for any action to be taken. I am a very happy CPAN contributor.
I imagine you were just joking, but in the case that your jokes are a cry for help...:)
First, perl has native threads in the current perl 5.8.0.
Second, if you are interested in threads (or more generally multiple concurrent processing), check out POE from CPAN. POE *is* the best thing to happen to perl since LWP. It is an event driven application framework, which allows cooperatively multi-tasking sessions to do work in parallel. It is the bees knees, and the cat's meow.
We need a truly open cross-language VM. Mono would be OK,
According to stuff I saw on perl6-internals, both the Mono and Java Virtual Machines would be to low-level for Parrot. Both of those VMs are pretty close to the metal. My read of this is that MVM and JVM are really largely virtual CPUs. Where Parrot is a simplification of Perl op codes and generalization to allow other dynamic languages target their op-code generation to Parrot assembly (aka op-codes).
From what I gather, sharing parrot-compiled libraries accros languages is a stated goal of Parrot.
However, then it was chosen as the name for the Perl6 Virtual Machine. The name Parrot was chosen because the programmers envisoned that the VM, which is designed for dynamic languages, could be used by both Python and Ruby. And Parrot was the name of a fictional project to do just that, hence make the fiction into reality. Nice joke on a joke.
BTW, people keep asking "Why make Yet Another VM?". The answer is that this "Virtual Machine" is a high level VM. For instance, something like regular expression operations might be a single assembly op in this VM. Or dispatching a method on an object might be a single op. Parrot is not a Virtual CPU, it is a synthesis of the highest level of operations that can be distilled from several dynamic languages.
From the little I have seen on the perl6-internals mailing list, Parrot looks like it will be faster and smaller than the current Perl5 runtime. Further, It looks like the Ruby folk are more interested in cooperating than the Python folk. But in my mind it would be amazing if Python, Perl6, Ruby, and some Lisp variations all had Parrot backends.
I am very suprised about the "slowness" of Mason and it's memory consumption. Mason's advantage is the cacheing of pseudo-compiled components. I wonder if this Benchmark suite is reasonably testing Mason's scalability (does it scale linearly or logrithmicly, or what).
I was under the impression that OS X was _A_ BSD but not actually a code fork of FreeBSD. Do they really share the same code in the base distribution? Or are they just cousins in the same family tree?
BTW, I do know that Hubbard(sp?) and other FreeBSD folk have become employed by Apple. How does that factor in?
Until recently, interacting with Linux was almost entirely text-driven -- much like Windows' precursor, DOS. So converting meant learning an arcane vocabulary of computerese to give the PC even the simplest commands.
I am not as concerned about the "MS" in "MSNBC". In the past they have published flattering stories about linux. But the above quote is just mind bogglingly ignorant. So ignorant and so prosaic, that it does make the article look like a hatchet job.
No worries though. Open source is a revolution and it will continue build a place in the industry and people everyday lives. Flattering pieces didn't make OSS/Linux and hatchet jobs won't break it. End of story.
I would add to your list: Infrastructure. Railroads, cities, grainaries, irrigation, etcetra all specifically service geographic regions. Any shift in rainfall, rivers, temprature in the timeframe measured in decades will cause catastrophic economic and social impact. That is the lesson from this article.
Then I guess we disagree. As I see it, having a defense that is 99% effective (which, allowing for human error, is as good as you can ever hope for in the real world) is much better and safer than not having the defense. Specifically, it is much better in situations that fall short of an all-out attack. Think of the scenario where a single rogue missile gets launched by one side (through malfunction, error, insanity, whatever). The other side, possessing a defense, has much better options (shoot it down) than they would otherwise (retaliate or just take it).
We really don't disagree then. However, Ronald Regans own estimates (sorry don't have the source for this in my head) were %85 effectivity, primarily focused on protecting Military infrastructure (to ensure retaliation and maintain MAD). Against China and less capable militaries, missle defense is quite reasonable. And in my mind , missle defense research is a moral imperative.
BTW, in my last posting where I asked "How old are you?", it was not meant to be a put down. I realized what it would sound like after I posted. I was really trying to get to the Regan vs. Bush Jr. versions of SDI; which are substantially different.
As to speling, don't be fooled into the simplistic equation that there is a correlation between speling and intelligence. I believe there is a greater correlation between people who nit-pick speling and simple mindedness (not you of course:). Remeber Kwalitee is Gob won.
Your argument is, if I can't have a 100% impervious shield, why bother with defense?
Basicallly, yes. There are times when less than five nines (99.999%) security means no security at all. Defense against the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal is one of those.
To repeat myself, I do believe missle defense is a good investment. However, missle defense and SDI as proposed by the Regan Administration are different things.
If I'm acting high and mighty, it's because I bothered to actually do the basic research and learn the basic facts, and the vast majority of talking heads out there did not. And neither have you.
How old are you?
The information I am working on is from the Regan Administration, not the refried-beans regugitated by the Bush Jr. Administration. Specifically, my education in this area goes back to a presentation at the MIT Club of Washington DC by some Air Force General involved in the developement of SDI part I in 1987.
No SDI plan has ever been proposed that would satisfy my critereon: less than 10 warheads get thru. Any more than a dozen, and there wouldn't be a USA to bother with. We are talking 10+ megaton warheads. No piddling 14 kiloton crap that hit Hiroshima.
Further, your characterization of the opposition to SDI is what is truely flawed. Lauching more missles is a viable counter to SDI. Missles are the cheap parts, warheads are the expensive part of a Nuclear wepon. Further, lasars and particle beams were definitely the most talked about SDI wepons. Specifically, mini-nuclear explosions creating focused X-ray beams. The kenetic wepons "smart-pebbles" are more plausible but have tons of drawbacks.
Don't act so high and mighty when you are clearly just an ignorant of the fact that people of differing view points might be inteligent, informed, and well intentioned, yet still disagree with you.
Disclaimer: I support a diverse set of missle defence systems. They are workable against a dozen lauches rather than several thousand. Defence against several thousand missile implausible in the extreme, and it only takes a few dozen multi-megaton bombs to end the world that I want to live in.
However, there in NO EVIDENCE that the Regan Administrations increase in defence spending, or much less their spending on missile defence systems. Please, take a look at the CIA fact books. The military spending by the Soviet Union DECREASED from the late 70s on.
Further, the time frame for this theory to be operative is between the first Regan budget for 1981 and Gorbachev(sp?) coming to power in 1984. Gorbi ended the cold war, and Gorbi ended the defacto Soviet Empire. The timing doesn't work, and the facts (from the above CIA factbooks) don't support that theory.
BTW, the increase in US military spending began with that submarine captain's Presidentcy (James Carter for those of you weak in US history). Carter started the Seawolf submarine program and the B2 Bomber program and many other wepon systems attributed to the Regan Administration.
I agree that the commentary that the Strategic Defense Initiative was destabilizing is LAME. However, what is being refered to is that in Game Theory if you have a defense against a mutually shared wepon with the power to mutually annihilate both combatants, you are more likely to feel you can use your wepon. A percieved protection by Star Wars Defense Shield, could fool stressed out people to "Go for it". But just think about what the US would be like if we did have 100% effectivity against Soviet missles, and the US successfully detonated a few dozen or hundreds of 10 megaton bombs on the Soviet Union. There was no victory scenario between the US and Soviet Union in a Nuclear exchange.
It is not just republican control. The vote has filibuster(sp?) proof, there are enough Senators against the treaty that it has to be 60-40 (the vote required to shutdown a filibuster).
Further, votes have to come to the floor. The leadership of the controling party has to bring it to the floor. They schedule votes, hence they determine if somethings are even concidered.
I am a "pro-environment" democrat, but even I am not so sure the Kyoto Treaty is the effective tool for CO2 reduction that is is advertized as. Feel free to convince me.
I hole heartedly aggree with you. I have been advocating the need for a Redhat sponsered version of Debian packages and/or *BSD ports.
Further, your point about a GPL'ed base distro is right on. If SuSE, Caldera, Turbo Linux, and Connectiva are after RedHat's buisness they might want to notice that RedHat is makeing money because it has a GPL base distro out there, NOT inspite of that fact.
RedHat user since 3.03.
By the way. I noticed your low slashdot user id. I thing it would be great if I could filter messages, not only based on score but also user id.
I must contradict you on this point. RPM most certainly predates DPKG. More importantly RPM was deployed in a distro before DPKG. You may not remember the intolerably long delay till the release of Debian 1.0 but it haunts me to this day.
I beg to differ. You are not cognizant of history. Slackware beatout SLS, because of better support and packaging. Then came RedHat and RedHat dethroned Slackware with RPMs. RedHat also built a large buisness around it's linux distro. Slackware didn't put as much emphisis on building a biz.
RedHat became the dominant distro long before business support contracts became a significant revenue stream to linux vendors. Companies choose RedHat primarily because it is the largest vendor; RedHat is not the largest vendor because Companies choose their product. However, RedHat is striving to make a lot of revenue based on support contracts. But that is the revenue model of the GPL, so it has be revealed to the people by Saint Ignacious.
Joe Linux User built linux, and determined the fate of the distros, long before corperations got in on the game.
Caldera, Turbo Linux, and Connectiva ALL forked from RedHat. Suse adopted RedHats RPM format early on, but I haven't the foggiest idea whether they are Yet Another RedHat Fork (YARF).
[below flame is not directed at the parent of this posting] This is one of the things annoying me with the large population of lamers on slashdot. RedHat got big because they made installs and maintainence easy with RPM. RedHat beat Slackware because, RedHat made a self-sustaining company off of Linux. And RedHat has done all this with a FULLY GPL'ed DISTRIBUTION.
They build a solid conservative distribution. They have become successfull thru competence. Big fsking deal.
In case you didn't get it that was a joke. The "dancing hotdogs" is an old advertizement from Movie houses. Several independent cinemas in my area play that clip before their movies. It is a sentimental throw-back to bygone years kinda thing. Hence, it is a play on the simmilarity to you watching all those pseudo commercials during the install, and the commercials before a movie.
Let's all go to the lobby Let's all go to the lobby And get our selves a drink
Normal keyboards force your forearms to be parallel. That is a position that required muscle exertion and an awkward "twisting" of joints. It is the twisting that forces your tendons to rub against other tissues. Also the twisting can narrow the passages tendons move back and forth in. The bottom line is that tendons rubbing on other tissue cause inflamation and damage.
My forarms and wrists were getting painfull after exclusively using my laptop for several months. I was worried so I looked into RSI and solutions. I didn't go overboard, but I did buy an excellent (re: $$) "broken" keyboard. It is a Maxim(tm). I also paid more attention to my posture. These two precautions helped alleviate the pain after a few more months.
Let me turn that around one more time. Spying...why is it bad? I would love to have the EU spying on the US.
Spying reassures each country that the others are doing what each say they are doing. Spying evens out technological developements. Without spying your fears are fed with ignorance, and in the end your enemy may be hiding a Nuke behind his back.
Spying between nations is good. I think it sucks when it goes from national security (ie war, death, territorial gain, etc), to enomomic security. That is were the it changes from self preservation to a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You will also need to upgrade your glibc.
Yes it is in. Ben LaHaise is doing this. See linux-aio list, or ben's web page at redhat (google it; I don't recall it right now).
From a Senator like Helmes, this is a old school shakedown of the Copyright industry. Once, he gets enough money his "objections" will disappear.
I have a low opinion of Helmes not because of his purported politics, but because of the crassness of his behavior as a politician/campaigner.
What an ingnorant and rediculous answer. I swear slashdot needs a high-user-id-filter.
I can give a much better and factually based argument for all all those dumb slashdoters who moded this junk up.
In the very early 1990s, AT&T and BSDi were just finishing up their copyright dispute (btw, AT&T was in the right on some things and BSDi on others).
The two people maintaining 386BSD were not accepting desperate pleas by BSDers to indegrate some IDE patches. FreeBSD started largely because of the 386BSD maintainers recalcitrance.
On the other hand, Linux was quickly gaining steam and it was a wild and woolly time. IDE support was in Linux 12 to 18 months prior to FreeBSD (at least in what each camp claimed was the "stable" version).
Developers with cheap PCs with IDE controllers flocked to Linux. Lots of newbies, and I was one of them, bought ISA IDE cards and new drives to replace their RLL drives, just to run Linux.
BSD was clearly more mature compared to Linux in the early days. I believe Linux started winning the Linux vs. FreeBSD debate around Linux 2.2. Both NetBSD and OpenBSD have less sofisticated features for very good reasons. NetBSD is port-anywhere, and OpenBSD is run by a paranoid schizophrenic (sometimes that is a good thing:). And while I said Linux wins (in my mind) vs. FreeBSD (scalabilty, features, drivers, speed, etc.); FreeBSD is still an excellent kernel and has a few very cool features that I wish Linux had. FreeBSD as a distribution is a very compelling product. Ports rule.
If the "Tech Boom Era" was a factor in the FreeBSD vs. Linux on cheep PCs competition, FreeBSD would win. During the "Tech Boom Era", most of the biggest Porn sites (porn is the biggest money maker, and driver of bandwidth), have traditionally run on FreeBSD because of its consistant stability under extreme load, and efficient TCP/IP stack. Yahoo was built on FreeBSD. UUNet was a MAJOR FreeBSD user. If the "Tech Boom Era" is anything to go by, FreeBSD should have "won".
Bottom line, both kernels (linux and freebsd) were/are on a geometric growth curve, Linux had 12-18 month lead time with IDE, that is why Linux "won".
Oh! and Linus Torvalds is a fucking genius. I am not sure what he is a genius at, but as an all around Project Maintainer he is a fucking genius.
I suspect it is a "you must be this tall to ride this coaster" thing.
:).
I registered as a CPAN author, got my ID, then registered my namespace and uploaded my module. It all took about 36 hours from sending email to register as an author to my module being on all the CPAN mirrors I checked (ego surfing
And all the documentation says wait 2-3weeks for any action to be taken. I am a very happy CPAN contributor.
I imagine you were just joking, but in the case that your jokes are a cry for help ...:)
First, perl has native threads in the current perl 5.8.0.
Second, if you are interested in threads (or more generally multiple concurrent processing), check out POE from CPAN. POE *is* the best thing to happen to perl since LWP. It is an event driven application framework, which allows cooperatively multi-tasking sessions to do work in parallel. It is the bees knees, and the cat's meow.
According to stuff I saw on perl6-internals, both the Mono and Java Virtual Machines would be to low-level for Parrot. Both of those VMs are pretty close to the metal. My read of this is that MVM and JVM are really largely virtual CPUs. Where Parrot is a simplification of Perl op codes and generalization to allow other dynamic languages target their op-code generation to Parrot assembly (aka op-codes).
From what I gather, sharing parrot-compiled libraries accros languages is a stated goal of Parrot.
However, then it was chosen as the name for the Perl6 Virtual Machine. The name Parrot was chosen because the programmers envisoned that the VM, which is designed for dynamic languages, could be used by both Python and Ruby. And Parrot was the name of a fictional project to do just that, hence make the fiction into reality. Nice joke on a joke.
BTW, people keep asking "Why make Yet Another VM?". The answer is that this "Virtual Machine" is a high level VM. For instance, something like regular expression operations might be a single assembly op in this VM. Or dispatching a method on an object might be a single op. Parrot is not a Virtual CPU, it is a synthesis of the highest level of operations that can be distilled from several dynamic languages.
From the little I have seen on the perl6-internals mailing list, Parrot looks like it will be faster and smaller than the current Perl5 runtime. Further, It looks like the Ruby folk are more interested in cooperating than the Python folk. But in my mind it would be amazing if Python, Perl6, Ruby, and some Lisp variations all had Parrot backends.
I am very suprised about the "slowness" of Mason and it's memory consumption. Mason's advantage is the cacheing of pseudo-compiled components. I wonder if this Benchmark suite is reasonably testing Mason's scalability (does it scale linearly or logrithmicly, or what).
I was under the impression that OS X was _A_ BSD but not actually a code fork of FreeBSD. Do they really share the same code in the base distribution? Or are they just cousins in the same family tree?
BTW, I do know that Hubbard(sp?) and other FreeBSD folk have become employed by Apple. How does that factor in?
No worries though. Open source is a revolution and it will continue build a place in the industry and people everyday lives. Flattering pieces didn't make OSS/Linux and hatchet jobs won't break it. End of story.
I would add to your list: Infrastructure. Railroads, cities, grainaries, irrigation, etcetra all specifically service geographic regions. Any shift in rainfall, rivers, temprature in the timeframe measured in decades will cause catastrophic economic and social impact. That is the lesson from this article.
We really don't disagree then. However, Ronald Regans own estimates (sorry don't have the source for this in my head) were %85 effectivity, primarily focused on protecting Military infrastructure (to ensure retaliation and maintain MAD). Against China and less capable militaries, missle defense is quite reasonable. And in my mind , missle defense research is a moral imperative.
BTW, in my last posting where I asked "How old are you?", it was not meant to be a put down. I realized what it would sound like after I posted. I was really trying to get to the Regan vs. Bush Jr. versions of SDI; which are substantially different.
As to speling, don't be fooled into the simplistic equation that there is a correlation between speling and intelligence. I believe there is a greater correlation between people who nit-pick speling and simple mindedness (not you of course:). Remeber Kwalitee is Gob won.
Basicallly, yes. There are times when less than five nines (99.999%) security means no security at all. Defense against the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal is one of those.
To repeat myself, I do believe missle defense is a good investment. However, missle defense and SDI as proposed by the Regan Administration are different things.
How old are you?
The information I am working on is from the Regan Administration, not the refried-beans regugitated by the Bush Jr. Administration. Specifically, my education in this area goes back to a presentation at the MIT Club of Washington DC by some Air Force General involved in the developement of SDI part I in 1987.
No SDI plan has ever been proposed that would satisfy my critereon: less than 10 warheads get thru. Any more than a dozen, and there wouldn't be a USA to bother with. We are talking 10+ megaton warheads. No piddling 14 kiloton crap that hit Hiroshima.
Further, your characterization of the opposition to SDI is what is truely flawed. Lauching more missles is a viable counter to SDI. Missles are the cheap parts, warheads are the expensive part of a Nuclear wepon. Further, lasars and particle beams were definitely the most talked about SDI wepons. Specifically, mini-nuclear explosions creating focused X-ray beams. The kenetic wepons "smart-pebbles" are more plausible but have tons of drawbacks.
Don't act so high and mighty when you are clearly just an ignorant of the fact that people of differing view points might be inteligent, informed, and well intentioned, yet still disagree with you.
Disclaimer: I support a diverse set of missle defence systems. They are workable against a dozen lauches rather than several thousand. Defence against several thousand missile implausible in the extreme, and it only takes a few dozen multi-megaton bombs to end the world that I want to live in.
However, there in NO EVIDENCE that the Regan Administrations increase in defence spending, or much less their spending on missile defence systems. Please, take a look at the CIA fact books. The military spending by the Soviet Union DECREASED from the late 70s on.
Further, the time frame for this theory to be operative is between the first Regan budget for 1981 and Gorbachev(sp?) coming to power in 1984. Gorbi ended the cold war, and Gorbi ended the defacto Soviet Empire. The timing doesn't work, and the facts (from the above CIA factbooks) don't support that theory.
BTW, the increase in US military spending began with that submarine captain's Presidentcy (James Carter for those of you weak in US history). Carter started the Seawolf submarine program and the B2 Bomber program and many other wepon systems attributed to the Regan Administration.
I agree that the commentary that the Strategic Defense Initiative was destabilizing is LAME. However, what is being refered to is that in Game Theory if you have a defense against a mutually shared wepon with the power to mutually annihilate both combatants, you are more likely to feel you can use your wepon. A percieved protection by Star Wars Defense Shield, could fool stressed out people to "Go for it". But just think about what the US would be like if we did have 100% effectivity against Soviet missles, and the US successfully detonated a few dozen or hundreds of 10 megaton bombs on the Soviet Union. There was no victory scenario between the US and Soviet Union in a Nuclear exchange.
It is not just republican control. The vote has filibuster(sp?) proof, there are enough Senators against the treaty that it has to be 60-40 (the vote required to shutdown a filibuster).
Further, votes have to come to the floor. The leadership of the controling party has to bring it to the floor. They schedule votes, hence they determine if somethings are even concidered.
I am a "pro-environment" democrat, but even I am not so sure the Kyoto Treaty is the effective tool for CO2 reduction that is is advertized as. Feel free to convince me.
my bad. I didn't notice that.
I hole heartedly aggree with you. I have been advocating the need for a Redhat sponsered version of Debian packages and/or *BSD ports.
Further, your point about a GPL'ed base distro is right on. If SuSE, Caldera, Turbo Linux, and Connectiva are after RedHat's buisness they might want to notice that RedHat is makeing money because it has a GPL base distro out there, NOT inspite of that fact.
RedHat user since 3.03.
By the way. I noticed your low slashdot user id. I thing it would be great if I could filter messages, not only based on score but also user id.
I must contradict you on this point. RPM most certainly predates DPKG. More importantly RPM was deployed in a distro before DPKG. You may not remember the intolerably long delay till the release of Debian 1.0 but it haunts me to this day.
I beg to differ. You are not cognizant of history. Slackware beatout SLS, because of better support and packaging. Then came RedHat and RedHat dethroned Slackware with RPMs. RedHat also built a large buisness around it's linux distro. Slackware didn't put as much emphisis on building a biz.
RedHat became the dominant distro long before business support contracts became a significant revenue stream to linux vendors. Companies choose RedHat primarily because it is the largest vendor; RedHat is not the largest vendor because Companies choose their product. However, RedHat is striving to make a lot of revenue based on support contracts. But that is the revenue model of the GPL, so it has be revealed to the people by Saint Ignacious.
Joe Linux User built linux, and determined the fate of the distros, long before corperations got in on the game.
Caldera, Turbo Linux, and Connectiva ALL forked from RedHat. Suse adopted RedHats RPM format early on, but I haven't the foggiest idea whether they are Yet Another RedHat Fork (YARF).
[below flame is not directed at the parent of this posting]
This is one of the things annoying me with the large population of lamers on slashdot. RedHat got big because they made installs and maintainence easy with RPM. RedHat beat Slackware because, RedHat made a self-sustaining company off of Linux. And RedHat has done all this with a FULLY GPL'ed DISTRIBUTION.
They build a solid conservative distribution. They have become successfull thru competence. Big fsking deal.
In case you didn't get it that was a joke. The "dancing hotdogs" is an old advertizement from Movie houses. Several independent cinemas in my area play that clip before their movies. It is a sentimental throw-back to bygone years kinda thing. Hence, it is a play on the simmilarity to you watching all those pseudo commercials during the install, and the commercials before a movie.
Let's all go to the lobby
Let's all go to the lobby
And get our selves a drink
Normal keyboards force your forearms to be parallel. That is a position that required muscle exertion and an awkward "twisting" of joints. It is the twisting that forces your tendons to rub against other tissues. Also the twisting can narrow the passages tendons move back and forth in. The bottom line is that tendons rubbing on other tissue cause inflamation and damage.
My forarms and wrists were getting painfull after exclusively using my laptop for several months. I was worried so I looked into RSI and solutions. I didn't go overboard, but I did buy an excellent (re: $$) "broken" keyboard. It is a Maxim(tm). I also paid more attention to my posture. These two precautions helped alleviate the pain after a few more months.
Let me turn that around one more time. Spying...why is it bad? I would love to have the EU spying on the US.
Spying reassures each country that the others are doing what each say they are doing. Spying evens out technological developements. Without spying your fears are fed with ignorance, and in the end your enemy may be hiding a Nuke behind his back.
Spying between nations is good. I think it sucks when it goes from national security (ie war, death, territorial gain, etc), to enomomic security. That is were the it changes from self preservation to a crime.