I don't think much will come of this. Cringley is an idiot. His comments that as long as there's one server with a broken clock the worm will always be with us is stupid. There are loads of viruses in the wild that continually spread but are harmless because the software they infect has been patched and/or anti-virus software continues to keep them at bay.
I have been getting calls from people all day asking why I haven't sent out a warning about this worm. The problem here is that the media has hyped this up and the average joe doesn't understand that it can't infect their Win9x desktop so everyone is freaking out.
I doubt that much will happen. I lived through Y2K and the Internet gold-rush. Things online are rarely what they seem. ----------------------------
Apple's really pushing the whole 'megahertz myth' concept as a way to reassure Mac buyers that an 800Mhz G4 is just as good as these 1.xGhz monsters from AMD/Intel. They had the full dog-and-pony-show including animated slides at MacWorld a couple of weeks back.
What's the consensus around here about such things? I get the impression that the AMD/Intel competition keeps the x86 arch on the cheaper end that PPC for obvious reasons.
It's kind of annoying that it is hard to know what to trust and how to benchmark different chips. Overall, the CPU only makes up a portion of the package when you buy a PC (RAM, HDD, Optical disk, video, etc being others), but it has traditionally had mindshare of being important beyond such other things. And people tend to only look at clockspeed.
What's the best way to compare these things? ----------------------------
From the look of some posts here other people are interested in this for the same reason I am: to find public access networks in cities without carrying their laptops around.
I did a search for just such a device earlier in the week and came up blank.
Does anyone know of any other ways of finding 802.11 networks? Even without security scanning features? Can it be done with a Rat Shack frequency scanner? ----------------------------
I hear a lot of people here complaining about the combo price of a cube and LCD display. I think these assesments are correct. I think Apple has heard the complaints and is fixing them.
From the sounds of the rumors, we'll see an LCD iMac announced this month. It'll be a G4, 128MB RAM etc. Essentially a Cube stuck to an LCD. And the pricing should be in line with the current iMac product line.
Reasons being:
1) No more CRTs at Apple. Therefore, iMac must move to LCD.
2) Apple has invested a great deal in LCD tech, as show by launching a 17" LCD and getting amazing pixel resolution from the new iBook LCD.
3) You can't really glue a desktop to an LCD unless you can get the components to fit into a tight space and make it look any good. The Cube showed Apple could stuff a desktop into a kleenex box. Proof of concept for this requirement.
4) Pricing has to be within the bounds of the current iMac line b/c Apple won't want to risk losing their low-end customers who want to buy Mac
5) It must be G4 b/c OS X runs like crap on a G3. This upgrade will leave the iBook as the only G3 in the fleet. Expect this to be revved to G4 by MW Tokyo at the latest. Sorry to the early adopters on this one, but I don't think Apple will stand idly by and try to flog a product line that can't really run their new OS.
6) My money is on three configs w/ speeds from the 750Mhz through the 866Mhz. Lowend will be CD-RW, middle DVD, highend will be a combo drive ala the iBooks.
So long live the Cube in its new form. These are my bets. No doubt everyone here is guessing something similar.
----------------------------
I had an experience recently with a Cisco firewall and due to the nature of the problem I would have to wait-and-see days at a time to see if the problem was reoccurring or had been fixed as we tried different things. The tech I was assigned to called me several times a day, was willing to stay on the phone with me for hours at a time educating me on the issues, the technology and walking me through the solution. I couldn't believe it. He emailed several times a day too, as did the Cisco dispatch system that kept track of the issue.
Congratulations to Cisco. They are huge and have a massive install base but provide the best tech support I have ever seen.
I don't even want to talk about my bad experiences with Microsoft's premier technical support. ----------------------------
Microsoft hasn't gone out of business yet b/c Bill Gates is really smart. Boy is he scary.
Remember old horror movies. Bill Gates is like the scary guys in those movies.
"Are you scared?"
"I didn't think I needed to be. Didn't Linux kill Microsoft?"
"No you fool. Be scared!"
Repeat paragraph one. Bill Gates is really scary.
Soon Microsoft will control everything, and the DOJ isn't even going to break them up. Aww. C'mon!
C'mon break them up! Their competitors say they're no good.
No one is listening. I said, "their competitors say they're no good!"
Microsoft makes too much money. My Linux stocks are all worthless but Bill Gates is still rich. No fair! Just 'cause he has a lousy revenue stream and profitable business model. That snake!
It's the media's fault. Everyone except me. Don't look at me. It was that guy.
Oh, and while we're at it, there are other big successful rich companies out there. Break them up too!
Everyone saw Bill Gates was a cry baby at the hearings. He deserves this. Give him a spanking!
We all saw it coming. But we're so dumb. Hang on...I'm feeling dumb now...must make myself sounds smart too. Yay Open Source! Open Source is stronger than ever too. Nah nah nah nah nah!
Did you know 8 percent of people can make up statistics off the top of their heads? Neither did I!
Boxing is scary. A year is a long time. Bill Gates is scary. I'm scary. Yay Open Source!
....
What gets me about this is that Katz just read the Business Week cover story from the latest issue and then paraphrased (very poorly) some of the reasonable things they had to say. This is pure drivel designed to provoke mobbish reaction. It is childish and a disgrace to Slashdot. ----------------------------
There was a time when netscape.com was the most popular destination on the Internet b/c it was the default start page for almost every browser. This was back in the days when a lot of people didn't understand how the Net worked and were willing to be guided by the hand. Amazingly Netscape did absolutely nothing to capitalize on the opportunity to become the critical portal on the web. Yahoo etc wouldn't have stood a chance.
I guess they can try to play catch up, but I'm beginning to think that whatever brand-equity is left will quickly be transformed into a negative image. If they can't make this reorganization work, the name will become synonymous with Betamax (if it isn't already).
For my money 'though, I'm glad that Netscape missed the boat on the web portal opportunity. I don't think the web would be half as interesting a place if everyone had to go there to do anything. The competition and innovation inspired by leaving room for this to be done by others has produced countless successes and failures over the past few years. ----------------------------
Why not use a system like gnutella or freenet for the key repository. Something totally decentralized that nobody could control by which everybody supports through use. A concept like that is not far different from other Internet technologies like DNS when you think about it. ----------------------------
If they include www.msn.com since that is the default homepage for Internet Explorer. Mine goes there all the time b/c I can't be bothered to change it on a new system, but I never read it & never click on anything on it. It's not a destination I decide to goto. ----------------------------
i've always wanted to use a left hand only keyboard so I could keep my right hand on the mouse. thing is that I use a lot of different computers and am scared that if I learned to type on a keyboard like this I would lose my typing ability on a regular keyboard. that didn't happen when I moved to the MS natural, but it's not really the same thing.
Anyone know if trying something like this will screw up your old dexterity? ----------------------------
I suspect this is being done for the sake of time travel. It is well known that if machines want to travel back in time they need to be hidden inside a biological organism like a human body. These machines are working on cyborg research so that someday they will be able to travel through time to steal motor cycles, wear black leather jackets and kill their enemies.
You will be able to tell who they are by their thick Austrian accents and their slow monosylabic speech patterns. ----------------------------
I was quite impressed with the article. It is very brave to advocate a system for achieving such goals without requiring the imposition of standards and review in order to verify that the information is of value.
My question would be: how would this semantic web deal with the problem of garbage in/garbage out? If anyone can author anything, what's to help the agent distinguish a real person, place or thing from any fictitious counterparts?
I would liken this problem to that faced in the use of digital certificates. Certificate Associations (like Verisign) needed to be created so that people could have a common point of reference that they could trust as reliable. I can set up a computer as a CA (easy to do with Win2K for example), but there is no good reason why you would trust my CA to issue certificates to verify the identity of some third party that you want to trust. Afterall, who the heck am I?
Similarly, the garbage in/garbage out problem seems to beg for some commonly trusted authorities. I don't read the National Enquirer for news because I don't believe it to be credible. But I will trust what I read in the New York Times. How could an agent under this semantic web scheme make similar distinctions? ----------------------------
I'm assuming I'll get flamed for suggesting non-x86 arch, but if you can run your games on Mac hardware, they have very portable systems. ----------------------------
Couldn't Mac OS X be the 'miracle' you say is required to save *BSD? As long as there is a commercial version of *BSD (and a prominent one from Apple at that), there will be people willing to support the free *BSD versions. If nothing else, Darwin will be the free *BSD version to survive. ----------------------------
I like the idea of theming in *nix GUIs thesedays. I'm using a NeXT theme on my Window Maker WM today by coincidence. I really can't see the need to go any further 'though.
Clearly Hemos didn't get the article. He probably didn't even read it.
Clearly the author of the article doesn't really understand the differences and similarities between NeXT, OSX or even a Window Manager.
I was very excited when I saw the link and story on./ I went and read it and came away wondering why anyone even went to the trouble of porting the application development stuff to Linux and BSD just so you could use a package that kind of resembles something that was revolutionary in the 80s. There are lots of GUI IDEs around for *nix thesedays. What makes this important?
Having read the article, I really don't understand what GnuStep is for and why anyone should care.
As a lark I can see it is a neat thing to do, but wouldn't you be better off just running OpenStep for Intel under VMware? ----------------------------
First there's the argument that PHP makes ASP unnecessary. While I agree in principle (and use PHP as my primary server side scripting solution), there's no question that ASP is here to stay because it is the cornerstone of the Microsoft Internet strategy. I would, therefore, urge people to consider that ASP for non-MS platforms is analagous to StarOffice being capable of using MS Office file formats: this is a great thing to help people migrate to *BSD if they want to, or to use *BSD as a backup to their Windows environment. For that reason alone, I'm very excited about this latest development. I don't expect there'll be any PHP people switching to ASP now 'though.
My second (and larger) concern is with Chili!Soft. Specifically I worry about the exclamation mark between the 'Chili' and the 'Soft. What's it doing there? Is it lost? Someone may want to ask Chili!Soft why they don't see other companies with similar punctuational conventions. Where are the Slash?Dots, or the Mac@Words, or the Linux&Cares? Nowhere. Why? Because it's stupid and impossible to pronounce punctuation as a conjunction between two words. Are we to understand that the Chili is vigorous and exciting, the the soft is ah, just soft? Could be Chili!Hard, or Chili!Bowl, they don't care.
Truth be told, I don't really care. I just think it's amazing the lengths people will go to generate a distinct brand (either that or the lengths they will go to avoid admitting to a typo). ----------------------------
I started The Codebreakers yesterday and have made it 150 pages in. It is slow going but I'm finding it pretty rewarding. It's an issue of being overwhelmed with minutiae. I understand that you need that sort of thing if you are writing the 'definitive' anything, but Khan seems to extend it down to the narrative as well. It's kind of unnecessary to know the exact details of how the US and Japanese governments worked prior to Pearl Harbor when the point of the story is to discuss the code making and breaking efforts surrounding the event.
I expect to be finished by the end of next month (if I'm lucky). ----------------------------
If they aren't willing to pay programmers to debug and audit their source, they must not be able to afford it.
I can't believe they would consider asking for people to do this work for free, or ostensibly in exchange for getting an insider's look at the source code. I think this smacks of arrogance and is completely contrary to any kind of community fostering spirit.
I have an idea for what to do with the source they are revealing. I think it should be uploaded to file swapping services, web sites, newsgroups, chat rooms and anywhere else people can think to put it. Conisidering the 'saftey in numbers' lesson of Napster, we can expect that MS will be unable to go after anyone for this illegal distribution of their IP. That might make them think twice about such a self serving program in the future. ----------------------------
I have a question relating to the 'saving' of these satellites. It also relates to the impending scuttling of Mir.
Why do space people even bother bringing old stations and satellites back to burn up in the atmosphere?
I understand it is very expensive to put stuff up into space, so would it not make sense to leave it up there? Could we not use the parts at some time in the future if they were left behind.
And in the case of the space fungi growing on Mir etc, is it not of interest to have man made stuff left up in space for us to study how it interacts with cosmic rays, prolonged exposure to space environment and whatever else happens up there?
Why can't we set this stuff adrift to float toward the moon or something?
I'm sure there's a reason for this. I just don't know what it is. Does anyone? ----------------------------
I have a Mac Color Classic with a 9" screen built in. I don't even need an external monitor with this system because, as I said, the screen is built in.
Somebody let me know when they figure out how to make one of these with a built in computer. ----------------------------
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think much will come of this. Cringley is an idiot. His comments that as long as there's one server with a broken clock the worm will always be with us is stupid. There are loads of viruses in the wild that continually spread but are harmless because the software they infect has been patched and/or anti-virus software continues to keep them at bay.
I have been getting calls from people all day asking why I haven't sent out a warning about this worm. The problem here is that the media has hyped this up and the average joe doesn't understand that it can't infect their Win9x desktop so everyone is freaking out.
I doubt that much will happen. I lived through Y2K and the Internet gold-rush. Things online are rarely what they seem.
----------------------------
Apple's really pushing the whole 'megahertz myth' concept as a way to reassure Mac buyers that an 800Mhz G4 is just as good as these 1.xGhz monsters from AMD/Intel. They had the full dog-and-pony-show including animated slides at MacWorld a couple of weeks back.
What's the consensus around here about such things? I get the impression that the AMD/Intel competition keeps the x86 arch on the cheaper end that PPC for obvious reasons.
It's kind of annoying that it is hard to know what to trust and how to benchmark different chips. Overall, the CPU only makes up a portion of the package when you buy a PC (RAM, HDD, Optical disk, video, etc being others), but it has traditionally had mindshare of being important beyond such other things. And people tend to only look at clockspeed.
What's the best way to compare these things?
----------------------------
From the look of some posts here other people are interested in this for the same reason I am: to find public access networks in cities without carrying their laptops around.
I did a search for just such a device earlier in the week and came up blank.
Does anyone know of any other ways of finding 802.11 networks? Even without security scanning features? Can it be done with a Rat Shack frequency scanner?
----------------------------
I posted this comment on Macslash yesterday:
I hear a lot of people here complaining about the combo price of a cube and LCD display. I think these assesments are correct. I think Apple has heard the complaints and is fixing them.
From the sounds of the rumors, we'll see an LCD iMac announced this month. It'll be a G4, 128MB RAM etc. Essentially a Cube stuck to an LCD. And the pricing should be in line with the current iMac product line.
Reasons being:
1) No more CRTs at Apple. Therefore, iMac must move to LCD.
2) Apple has invested a great deal in LCD tech, as show by launching a 17" LCD and getting amazing pixel resolution from the new iBook LCD.
3) You can't really glue a desktop to an LCD unless you can get the components to fit into a tight space and make it look any good. The Cube showed Apple could stuff a desktop into a kleenex box. Proof of concept for this requirement.
4) Pricing has to be within the bounds of the current iMac line b/c Apple won't want to risk losing their low-end customers who want to buy Mac
5) It must be G4 b/c OS X runs like crap on a G3. This upgrade will leave the iBook as the only G3 in the fleet. Expect this to be revved to G4 by MW Tokyo at the latest. Sorry to the early adopters on this one, but I don't think Apple will stand idly by and try to flog a product line that can't really run their new OS.
6) My money is on three configs w/ speeds from the 750Mhz through the 866Mhz. Lowend will be CD-RW, middle DVD, highend will be a combo drive ala the iBooks.
So long live the Cube in its new form. These are my bets. No doubt everyone here is guessing something similar.
----------------------------
Here's an argument to tell those bozos at Adobe.
The product name is 'Kill'-'ustrator', not 'K'-'illustrator'.
By the Adobe argument, the product 'Microsoft Excel' could be confused with the programming language 'C' because the letter 'C' appears in the name.
These guys are morons.
Should 'Word Perfect' be sued by Microsoft because their product name contains the word 'Word'?
----------------------------
I had an experience recently with a Cisco firewall and due to the nature of the problem I would have to wait-and-see days at a time to see if the problem was reoccurring or had been fixed as we tried different things. The tech I was assigned to called me several times a day, was willing to stay on the phone with me for hours at a time educating me on the issues, the technology and walking me through the solution. I couldn't believe it. He emailed several times a day too, as did the Cisco dispatch system that kept track of the issue.
Congratulations to Cisco. They are huge and have a massive install base but provide the best tech support I have ever seen.
I don't even want to talk about my bad experiences with Microsoft's premier technical support.
----------------------------
Microsoft hasn't gone out of business yet b/c Bill Gates is really smart. Boy is he scary.
Remember old horror movies. Bill Gates is like the scary guys in those movies.
"Are you scared?"
"I didn't think I needed to be. Didn't Linux kill Microsoft?"
"No you fool. Be scared!"
Repeat paragraph one. Bill Gates is really scary.
Soon Microsoft will control everything, and the DOJ isn't even going to break them up. Aww. C'mon!
C'mon break them up! Their competitors say they're no good.
No one is listening. I said, "their competitors say they're no good!"
Microsoft makes too much money. My Linux stocks are all worthless but Bill Gates is still rich. No fair! Just 'cause he has a lousy revenue stream and profitable business model. That snake!
It's the media's fault. Everyone except me. Don't look at me. It was that guy.
Oh, and while we're at it, there are other big successful rich companies out there. Break them up too!
Everyone saw Bill Gates was a cry baby at the hearings. He deserves this. Give him a spanking!
We all saw it coming. But we're so dumb. Hang on...I'm feeling dumb now...must make myself sounds smart too. Yay Open Source! Open Source is stronger than ever too. Nah nah nah nah nah!
Did you know 8 percent of people can make up statistics off the top of their heads? Neither did I!
Boxing is scary. A year is a long time. Bill Gates is scary. I'm scary. Yay Open Source!
....
What gets me about this is that Katz just read the Business Week cover story from the latest issue and then paraphrased (very poorly) some of the reasonable things they had to say. This is pure drivel designed to provoke mobbish reaction. It is childish and a disgrace to Slashdot.
----------------------------
There was a time when netscape.com was the most popular destination on the Internet b/c it was the default start page for almost every browser. This was back in the days when a lot of people didn't understand how the Net worked and were willing to be guided by the hand. Amazingly Netscape did absolutely nothing to capitalize on the opportunity to become the critical portal on the web. Yahoo etc wouldn't have stood a chance.
I guess they can try to play catch up, but I'm beginning to think that whatever brand-equity is left will quickly be transformed into a negative image. If they can't make this reorganization work, the name will become synonymous with Betamax (if it isn't already).
For my money 'though, I'm glad that Netscape missed the boat on the web portal opportunity. I don't think the web would be half as interesting a place if everyone had to go there to do anything. The competition and innovation inspired by leaving room for this to be done by others has produced countless successes and failures over the past few years.
----------------------------
Why not use a system like gnutella or freenet for the key repository. Something totally decentralized that nobody could control by which everybody supports through use. A concept like that is not far different from other Internet technologies like DNS when you think about it.
----------------------------
If they include www.msn.com since that is the default homepage for Internet Explorer. Mine goes there all the time b/c I can't be bothered to change it on a new system, but I never read it & never click on anything on it. It's not a destination I decide to goto.
----------------------------
i've always wanted to use a left hand only keyboard so I could keep my right hand on the mouse. thing is that I use a lot of different computers and am scared that if I learned to type on a keyboard like this I would lose my typing ability on a regular keyboard. that didn't happen when I moved to the MS natural, but it's not really the same thing.
Anyone know if trying something like this will screw up your old dexterity?
----------------------------
"a series of intriguing codewords (or name+code release date), so this point-oh anxiety never had to surface."
oh. you mean like 'windows 95' or 'office 2000'?
sorry, for a second there I thought this was slashdot...hey wait a minute...
----------------------------
I suspect this is being done for the sake of time travel. It is well known that if machines want to travel back in time they need to be hidden inside a biological organism like a human body. These machines are working on cyborg research so that someday they will be able to travel through time to steal motor cycles, wear black leather jackets and kill their enemies.
You will be able to tell who they are by their thick Austrian accents and their slow monosylabic speech patterns.
----------------------------
I was quite impressed with the article. It is very brave to advocate a system for achieving such goals without requiring the imposition of standards and review in order to verify that the information is of value.
My question would be: how would this semantic web deal with the problem of garbage in/garbage out? If anyone can author anything, what's to help the agent distinguish a real person, place or thing from any fictitious counterparts?
I would liken this problem to that faced in the use of digital certificates. Certificate Associations (like Verisign) needed to be created so that people could have a common point of reference that they could trust as reliable. I can set up a computer as a CA (easy to do with Win2K for example), but there is no good reason why you would trust my CA to issue certificates to verify the identity of some third party that you want to trust. Afterall, who the heck am I?
Similarly, the garbage in/garbage out problem seems to beg for some commonly trusted authorities. I don't read the National Enquirer for news because I don't believe it to be credible. But I will trust what I read in the New York Times. How could an agent under this semantic web scheme make similar distinctions?
----------------------------
I'm assuming I'll get flamed for suggesting non-x86 arch, but if you can run your games on Mac hardware, they have very portable systems.
----------------------------
Couldn't Mac OS X be the 'miracle' you say is required to save *BSD? As long as there is a commercial version of *BSD (and a prominent one from Apple at that), there will be people willing to support the free *BSD versions. If nothing else, Darwin will be the free *BSD version to survive.
----------------------------
If the recent Wired article is correct, there may already be human clones. What about them?
----------------------------
Wow. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. That was much clearer than the article Hemos posted.
I think I can see why this is worth thinking about now.
----------------------------
I like the idea of theming in *nix GUIs thesedays. I'm using a NeXT theme on my Window Maker WM today by coincidence. I really can't see the need to go any further 'though.
./ I went and read it and came away wondering why anyone even went to the trouble of porting the application development stuff to Linux and BSD just so you could use a package that kind of resembles something that was revolutionary in the 80s. There are lots of GUI IDEs around for *nix thesedays. What makes this important?
Clearly Hemos didn't get the article. He probably didn't even read it.
Clearly the author of the article doesn't really understand the differences and similarities between NeXT, OSX or even a Window Manager.
I was very excited when I saw the link and story on
Having read the article, I really don't understand what GnuStep is for and why anyone should care.
As a lark I can see it is a neat thing to do, but wouldn't you be better off just running OpenStep for Intel under VMware?
----------------------------
First there's the argument that PHP makes ASP unnecessary. While I agree in principle (and use PHP as my primary server side scripting solution), there's no question that ASP is here to stay because it is the cornerstone of the Microsoft Internet strategy. I would, therefore, urge people to consider that ASP for non-MS platforms is analagous to StarOffice being capable of using MS Office file formats: this is a great thing to help people migrate to *BSD if they want to, or to use *BSD as a backup to their Windows environment. For that reason alone, I'm very excited about this latest development. I don't expect there'll be any PHP people switching to ASP now 'though.
My second (and larger) concern is with Chili!Soft. Specifically I worry about the exclamation mark between the 'Chili' and the 'Soft. What's it doing there? Is it lost? Someone may want to ask Chili!Soft why they don't see other companies with similar punctuational conventions. Where are the Slash?Dots, or the Mac@Words, or the Linux&Cares? Nowhere. Why? Because it's stupid and impossible to pronounce punctuation as a conjunction between two words. Are we to understand that the Chili is vigorous and exciting, the the soft is ah, just soft? Could be Chili!Hard, or Chili!Bowl, they don't care.
Truth be told, I don't really care. I just think it's amazing the lengths people will go to generate a distinct brand (either that or the lengths they will go to avoid admitting to a typo).
----------------------------
I started The Codebreakers yesterday and have made it 150 pages in. It is slow going but I'm finding it pretty rewarding. It's an issue of being overwhelmed with minutiae. I understand that you need that sort of thing if you are writing the 'definitive' anything, but Khan seems to extend it down to the narrative as well. It's kind of unnecessary to know the exact details of how the US and Japanese governments worked prior to Pearl Harbor when the point of the story is to discuss the code making and breaking efforts surrounding the event.
I expect to be finished by the end of next month (if I'm lucky).
----------------------------
I did mean Phil. And stand corrected. When I proof read my review I missed that...I was too busy concentrating on how to spell his last name.
Thanks.
Elliot.
----------------------------
If they aren't willing to pay programmers to debug and audit their source, they must not be able to afford it.
I can't believe they would consider asking for people to do this work for free, or ostensibly in exchange for getting an insider's look at the source code. I think this smacks of arrogance and is completely contrary to any kind of community fostering spirit.
I have an idea for what to do with the source they are revealing. I think it should be uploaded to file swapping services, web sites, newsgroups, chat rooms and anywhere else people can think to put it. Conisidering the 'saftey in numbers' lesson of Napster, we can expect that MS will be unable to go after anyone for this illegal distribution of their IP. That might make them think twice about such a self serving program in the future.
----------------------------
I have a question relating to the 'saving' of these satellites. It also relates to the impending scuttling of Mir.
Why do space people even bother bringing old stations and satellites back to burn up in the atmosphere?
I understand it is very expensive to put stuff up into space, so would it not make sense to leave it up there? Could we not use the parts at some time in the future if they were left behind.
And in the case of the space fungi growing on Mir etc, is it not of interest to have man made stuff left up in space for us to study how it interacts with cosmic rays, prolonged exposure to space environment and whatever else happens up there?
Why can't we set this stuff adrift to float toward the moon or something?
I'm sure there's a reason for this. I just don't know what it is. Does anyone?
----------------------------
I have a Mac Color Classic with a 9" screen built in. I don't even need an external monitor with this system because, as I said, the screen is built in.
Somebody let me know when they figure out how to make one of these with a built in computer.
----------------------------