An OS is the lowest level abstraction to the system hardware.
No, that's a kernel. An operating system includes a kernel but other things too; again, see the POSIX (Portable Operating System) or Single Unix specs.
More realistically Linux is the kernel which is in the more technical sense the OS (OS is the software layer which manages the software, this line is not easy to draw in every OS, but with linux it is pretty clear).
An operating system is more than a kernel. Take a look at the Single Unix Specification and see what sort of things an operating system specification deals with.
If we consider terms like "Unix" and "POSIX" to be terms relating to operating systems (and we do), then the GNU system must also be considered an operating system.
GNU makes some nifty software that happens to be in the list of applications that Redhat distributes along with the Linux OS.
Incorrect. In 1984 - long before Linux was a gleam in Linus's eye - the GNU project set out to write a complete Unix-like free software system.
The *problem* is that the end user (and, yes, that includes advanced users) have to modify its contents directly to make changes - with no sanity checking or validation on their input.
You don't have to deal with it directly. The "abstration layer" is something like redhat-config-whatever, or webmin, or linuxconf.
Colic. Another one of those things that doesn't really exist.
The distress of the infant obviously exists. The fact that there isn't a single simple biomechanical cause doesn't make a state of illness any less real.
They were looking at placebo in disease state, and we know the basis of disease is almost never something can be wished away,even if you believe the placebo is working.
Of course it can't be wished away, but often it can be healed away, and psychological factors play a role in that healing.
I'm assuming that long-time users either mentally implode or develop better coping mechanisms than I have.
I find the best coping mechanism to be simply not reading stories that don't interest me:-).
Seems simple; but, judging from the number of people unable to apply it to books, TV, radio, and film (some even demanding instead that censors get involved) I guess it's pretty advanced...
Something you have (a key, a smartcard)
Something you know (a password, a PIN)
Something you are (a fingerprint, a voiceprint)
Except that "something you are" really reduces to "something you have". You have something that gives a positive result from the scanner - it may be your finger, it may be a piece of gelatin.
ever noticed flicker [ in periperal vision in my case] if you are looking off to one side of a monitor across the lab WHILE SOMETHING BUMPS YOUR HEAD?
No need to smack yourself in the head - put the end of a plastic fork between your teeth and pluck it. Vibration goes into your skull, and you can see all kinds of cool flicker on a CRT.
I'm pretty sure American laws can't be retroactive.
American laws also can't infringe on the freedom of speech, etcetera...that hasn't stopped the American legislature from passing such laws and the American executive branch from jailing people under them.
Tht fact that the state isn't legally authorized to do a thing, is no guarantee that they won't go and do that thing anyway.
The Taleban were the de facto government, but were not the recognized government.
They weren't formally recognized by the U.S., true, but the U.S. was willing to talk to them about controlling opium production and about building an oil pipeline. They were quite buddy-buddy for a while around 2000 when the Taliban clamped down on opium production.
You mean, what would happen if the Japanese captured American citizens on a foreign battlefield operating outside of the control of the US Government fighting for a regime that supported the terrorists who had just murdered 3,000 Japanese civilians?
The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, to some degree previously supported by the U.S. Before the U.S. declared them terrorist sympathizers for failing to produce Bin Laden at the U.S.'s request (certainly a cultural impossibility, quite probably a physical one as well) and backed the rebel Northern Alliance, people had a legitimate right to go there to support that government's fight against rebels - or to study Islam, or to engage in humanitarian actions.
We don't know the circumstances under which these people were captured, what they were doing there. If basic principles of law and justice were followed, those accused of being accessories to terrorist acts of murder would have fair trials at which facts could be determined.
Then twenty years later a new method of distribution comes along called Book 2.0
Actually, David Gerrold did just this with When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One (the book that introduced the term "virus" as applied to software, though that was a brief tangent to the story). The later version is indeed titled When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One, Version 2.0. I have copies of both editions, they are radically different.
IMHO, they're two different works and both should be in print.
You do know that NASA/Goddard is in Senator Mikulski backyard, right?
And, more to the point, StSCI - the fine folks who run the Hubble - are at Hopkins, in Baltimore. (My backyard also...actually interviewed at StSCI many years ago.)
No, if you're pregnant, it's a fetus, that's true by definition. Whether either babies or fetuses (or zygotes or pre-lingusistic toddlers) are persons may be arguable, but a fetus is not an infant; any more than a seed, even one ready to germinate, is a tree.
There may or many not be intellectual rigor to certain "pro-life" arguments; but mislabeling a fetus as a baby is a clear and blantant appeal to emotion, and does your cause no credit.
All it means is that black babies are killed at a higher rate than others.
No, since a fetus is not a baby.
And since fertility rates for blacks are in fact higher than those of whites, if there were some sort of conspiracy to reduce the proportion of black persons in the population by reducing births, it would be failing badly.
(Of course, under your reasoning, giving out free condoms to black men and women to help prevent unplanned pregnancies would also be some sort of eugenics program...)
And if the one doing the threatening isn't in fact a hradenend criminal but just a guy with an alcohol problem or a short temper, then it IS a good thing for him not to have a gun.
People with drug addictions are forbidden from getting CCW permits; people who don't have the emotional maturity to handle firearms will likely have commited other acts that will disqualify them.
And if someone is threatening my life, at that moment I don't much care what his background is, I care about stopping the threat. (Yes, in the big picture these things must be considered; but the time to feel sympathy for the abused child who grows up to be a violent criminal is not when he's coming toward me with a knife.)
what about the much lower violent crime rates in some other countries with much stricter gun control laws?
Some countries have laxer gun control laws and lower crime rates. Our problem isn't our guns, it's socioeconomic: a culture that glorifies violence, stark economic divisions, the violent black market caused by the "war on drugs", and so on.
And even where correlation exist and is not illusory, it does not equal causation.
Of course. But it's awfully hard to argue for causation in the face of reverse correlation, now isn't it?
I know that most of those who argue for stronger gun controls are well-meaning; I used to be one of them myself. But they don't work.
Democrat-backed abortion and gun policies have disproportionately harmed blacks.
Since black women are more likely to seek abortion (perhaps due to lower availability and use of birth control), keeping it safe and legal is certainly of great benefit to blacks.
And as I pointed out, the Mumford act was signed by Republican icon Ronald Regan.
So when are the US people going to depose their government?...The only people who need guns are the army and (in exceptional cases) the police.
Firearms in private hands played an essential role in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There was another side to it from MLK's non-violent strategy, you know; there was the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense: armed black men who (among other things) directly confronted racist police.
(BTW, for those who view gun control as a left/right issue: the Panthers were socialists, and a strong California gun control law aimed at them was signed by a right-wing icon, then-governor Ronald Regan.)
There will be less guns on the street. That is always a good thing.
When your life (or the life of another innocent) is being threatened, and you are capable and willing to use a weapon to protect yourself (or that other innocent), but don't have one or have an inferior one, that is not a good thing.
Fewer guns in the hands of bad guys would be a good thing, yes, but gun laws keep guns away from violent criminals about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies. (And gun laws keep valuable tools of self-defense out of the hands of good guys, just like drug laws keep good and useful medicines out of the hands of sick and suffering people.)
Here in the U.S., gun laws vary widely by state. There is a strong correlaton between gun laws and crime: those states with strong gun control laws have higher violent crime rates, while those where law abiding citizens have access to the best available tools of self-defense have lower violent crime rates.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's a kernel. An operating system includes a kernel but other things too; again, see the POSIX (Portable Operating System) or Single Unix specs.
An operating system is more than a kernel. Take a look at the Single Unix Specification and see what sort of things an operating system specification deals with.
If we consider terms like "Unix" and "POSIX" to be terms relating to operating systems (and we do), then the GNU system must also be considered an operating system.
Incorrect. In 1984 - long before Linux was a gleam in Linus's eye - the GNU project set out to write a complete Unix-like free software system.
By the early 90s, every piece of this operating system was in place except the kernel. People started droping Linux into the center of the system and bam!, GNU/Linux
You don't have to deal with it directly. The "abstration layer" is something like redhat-config-whatever, or webmin, or linuxconf.
The distress of the infant obviously exists. The fact that there isn't a single simple biomechanical cause doesn't make a state of illness any less real.
Of course it can't be wished away, but often it can be healed away, and psychological factors play a role in that healing.
I'm pretty sure that my cousin doesn't ride her motorcycle around as some kind of penis extender. (Even if she does have a Harley.)
I find the best coping mechanism to be simply not reading stories that don't interest me :-).
Seems simple; but, judging from the number of people unable to apply it to books, TV, radio, and film (some even demanding instead that censors get involved) I guess it's pretty advanced...
Except that "something you are" really reduces to "something you have". You have something that gives a positive result from the scanner - it may be your finger, it may be a piece of gelatin.
Uh...everyone?
Without data integrity, that just means you can get a wrong answer very quickly.
No need to smack yourself in the head - put the end of a plastic fork between your teeth and pluck it. Vibration goes into your skull, and you can see all kinds of cool flicker on a CRT.
American laws also can't infringe on the freedom of speech, etcetera...that hasn't stopped the American legislature from passing such laws and the American executive branch from jailing people under them.
Tht fact that the state isn't legally authorized to do a thing, is no guarantee that they won't go and do that thing anyway.
They weren't formally recognized by the U.S., true, but the U.S. was willing to talk to them about controlling opium production and about building an oil pipeline. They were quite buddy-buddy for a while around 2000 when the Taliban clamped down on opium production.
The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, to some degree previously supported by the U.S. Before the U.S. declared them terrorist sympathizers for failing to produce Bin Laden at the U.S.'s request (certainly a cultural impossibility, quite probably a physical one as well) and backed the rebel Northern Alliance, people had a legitimate right to go there to support that government's fight against rebels - or to study Islam, or to engage in humanitarian actions.
We don't know the circumstances under which these people were captured, what they were doing there. If basic principles of law and justice were followed, those accused of being accessories to terrorist acts of murder would have fair trials at which facts could be determined.
Depending on the model of PocketPC - yes.
Actually, David Gerrold did just this with When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One (the book that introduced the term "virus" as applied to software, though that was a brief tangent to the story). The later version is indeed titled When H.A.R.L.I.E. Was One, Version 2.0. I have copies of both editions, they are radically different.
IMHO, they're two different works and both should be in print.
And, more to the point, StSCI - the fine folks who run the Hubble - are at Hopkins, in Baltimore. (My backyard also...actually interviewed at StSCI many years ago.)
There is PubMed, which includes MEDLINE citations and is free.
No, if you're pregnant, it's a fetus, that's true by definition. Whether either babies or fetuses (or zygotes or pre-lingusistic toddlers) are persons may be arguable, but a fetus is not an infant; any more than a seed, even one ready to germinate, is a tree.
There may or many not be intellectual rigor to certain "pro-life" arguments; but mislabeling a fetus as a baby is a clear and blantant appeal to emotion, and does your cause no credit.
No, since a fetus is not a baby.
And since fertility rates for blacks are in fact higher than those of whites, if there were some sort of conspiracy to reduce the proportion of black persons in the population by reducing births, it would be failing badly.
(Of course, under your reasoning, giving out free condoms to black men and women to help prevent unplanned pregnancies would also be some sort of eugenics program...)
People with drug addictions are forbidden from getting CCW permits; people who don't have the emotional maturity to handle firearms will likely have commited other acts that will disqualify them.
And if someone is threatening my life, at that moment I don't much care what his background is, I care about stopping the threat. (Yes, in the big picture these things must be considered; but the time to feel sympathy for the abused child who grows up to be a violent criminal is not when he's coming toward me with a knife.)
Some countries have laxer gun control laws and lower crime rates. Our problem isn't our guns, it's socioeconomic: a culture that glorifies violence, stark economic divisions, the violent black market caused by the "war on drugs", and so on.
Of course. But it's awfully hard to argue for causation in the face of reverse correlation, now isn't it?
I know that most of those who argue for stronger gun controls are well-meaning; I used to be one of them myself. But they don't work.
Since black women are more likely to seek abortion (perhaps due to lower availability and use of birth control), keeping it safe and legal is certainly of great benefit to blacks.
And as I pointed out, the Mumford act was signed by Republican icon Ronald Regan.
Firearms in private hands played an essential role in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. There was another side to it from MLK's non-violent strategy, you know; there was the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense: armed black men who (among other things) directly confronted racist police.
(BTW, for those who view gun control as a left/right issue: the Panthers were socialists, and a strong California gun control law aimed at them was signed by a right-wing icon, then-governor Ronald Regan.)
When your life (or the life of another innocent) is being threatened, and you are capable and willing to use a weapon to protect yourself (or that other innocent), but don't have one or have an inferior one, that is not a good thing.
Fewer guns in the hands of bad guys would be a good thing, yes, but gun laws keep guns away from violent criminals about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies. (And gun laws keep valuable tools of self-defense out of the hands of good guys, just like drug laws keep good and useful medicines out of the hands of sick and suffering people.)
Here in the U.S., gun laws vary widely by state. There is a strong correlaton between gun laws and crime: those states with strong gun control laws have higher violent crime rates, while those where law abiding citizens have access to the best available tools of self-defense have lower violent crime rates.
It's not legal, but it is dealt with under the concept of "harm reduction".
The thing is, it's plenty safe. This is a solved problem - the solution is cryptographically signed e-mail. The problem is, no one uses the solution.