> I am not sure how Solaris 1 releases synch up with SunOS numbering because I am too young (I started out with Solaris 2.5.1).
Officially, when "Solaris" was invented, Solaris 2 was the SunOS 5 based environment, and Solaris 1 was the SunOS 4 based environment. (Officially SunOS is the kernel/core and Solaris is the "distribution" (including desktop environment (OpenLOOK or CDE), roughly). SunOS 4 was more BSD based, whereas SunOS5 was more POSIX/SysV based.
But no-one ever used "Solaris 1", and lots of people used "SunOS" and "Solaris" to mean "SunOS4 based" and "SunOS5 based".
Every now and again there's a relatively long Jon Katz article, followed by a predicatable flood of responses complaining about the lack of real content in it (with some exceptions).
So we have a lot of words, with relatively little overt content. What's the _real_ content? And is the covert channel the articles, the repetitive flames, or both?
It's called a solar chimney, and they work with current technology, at least in pilot and demonstration systems. Large scale economics are another question, but it's possible. (Depending on efficiencies it may be worth covering the collector at the base with photovoltaics and just using the waste heat absorbed to drive a chimney.)
http://www.ccom.lk/energen/solrchmn.html
http://www.me.ufl.edu/SOLAR/chimney.html
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=So la r%20chimney
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/393069869 2/ qid%3D950759721/sr%3D1-35/bargainsolarcom/107-9764 317-8756526
At least they are planning to extend it to past alumni. http://cantab.net/faq.html
They are less likely to go under than some free forwarding services.
> On RocketGuy's website, he writes (in third person, no less) that his goal is "to set the altitude record for a private citizen". I don't want to shatter his dream, but Dennis Tito became the first space tourist this past week.
You don't think setting a record for "private citizen in his own privately built rocket" and for "private citizen going along as a passemger on a government funded mission" might be different dreams?
Whether an OODBMS or RDBMS is more appropriate depends on the situation, (and how good the particular database implementations are - you can read lots of stuff by Codd on how what most people think of as RDBMS's has more to do with implementations that what the relational model actually allows (for example, the One Data Model fits there - operations and behaviour should be part of the single model, they just aren't usually part of the database schema). As a general rule if your data structures are stringly tied to a particular application, you want an OODMBS, and if you want free form ad-hoc queries and flexibily changing applications, you want an RDMS.
But anyway, I just wanted to pick up on one point.
When you say "No Primary Keys: The user of an RDBMS has to worry about uniquely identifying tuples by their values and making sure that no two tuples have the same primary key values to avoid error conditions. In an OODBMS, the unique identification of objects is done behind the scenes via OIDs and is completely invisible to the user." that's just flat wrong (and dangerously so).
Object identity is important. If you rely on invisible Object IDs to wave a magic wand and handle it for you, you will almost certainly end up with a single real life object having multiple inconsistent representations in the database, so to avoid screwing it up you will need to do explicit defining of keys and checking for duplicates.
On the other hand, if you have a well defined keys in your Relational Database, there isn't a problem - the database won't _allow_ duplicates. In a worst case, you have to define artificial IDs in your RDBMS and you are back to the OID case except that you actually have control over them.
Of course lots of people do make a mess of choosing keys - but OIDs _don't_ solve the problem.
I was recently looking for stuff along the lines of http://www.house.co.uk
Have a look at http://www.panoguide.com/, especially http://www.panoguide.com/software/compare_world.ht ml
Those are non-free tools, but there is PanoTools http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/ "Software to View, Create, Edit and Remap Panoramic Images", which includes a GIMP plugin. --
>> Example: NASA spent millions of dollars creating an ink pen that can write in zero gravity without making a mess. The Russians took pencils.
> NASA didn't spend a dime. Fisher developed it independently at their own expense. NASA bought quite a few, and in fact so did the Russians. Turns out graphite particles floating around a spacecraft full of sensitive electronic equipment isn't such a hot idea.
He's right. I haven't got any mod points, so I'll at least make that visible at 1.
> You seem to be leaving out those of us that enjoy their work and take pride in it.
He said _can_ be, not _is_.
I've worked at a job in a startup (not a dot-com) where paychecks were sometimes uncertain and planned raises never happened, because I enjoyed it, took pride in what we'd done, and also because I knew that the next person to leave would be the end and I didn't want to end it for the others; and I still thought there was a chance we could make it, and then the shares would make it all financially worthwhile too.
In the end it wasn't enough, and the company went under. With hindsight, it would have been much better for my family if I'd left earlier.
Now I'm somewhere where I still enjoy the work and take pride in it, but don't spend so many late evenings and weekends away from my wife and children, and the paychecks turn up on time, in full. The stock options aren't worth as much as I had hoped at the moment, but that will probably change, and it's not the end of the world if it doesn't (they're for a _vastly_ smaller proportion of the company than the startup, but it's a bigger company, and it's growing).
> I also don't know the name of the USCG-equivalent over there (if any).
Her Majesty's Coastguard (HMCG). But they aren't really an exact equivalent - the Navy has the "scare the shit out of drug smugglers" job, according to their TV ads.
Our police generally aren't armed. I very much doubt they have any cutters with anti-ship guns. --
> The pilot turns his head and the turret moves with him
More peacefully, you can get a similar system for search-and-rescue helicopters where an IR camera mounted under the helicopter follows someone's head movements and they get to see the picture in their helmet mounted display.
But that was tracking head movement, not eye-tracking - I don't know if the Apache system is the same or not (and I saw it nearly 20 years ago, so I'm sure things have advanced since then).
> The amount of useful content there is vanishingly small, and it takes far less time to just do a google search for the relevent information than it would to find the appropriate newsgroup and hope that there's someone else there with half a clue.
And now USENET content from 1995, when it didn't suck half as badly, even if it was always September by then[1], is part of that googleable content. This is a _good_ thing. I've certainly found useful stuff on Deja in the past.
(And there are still some usable bits).
Fiasco is another C++ implementation of L4.
"The original L4 -kernel for x86 has some shortcomings which we intend to fix with this new implementation. The Fiasco kernel:
can be studied and maintained better because it has been written in a high-level language (C++)
has better real-time properties than L4/x86 because it can be preempted at almost any time
is freely redistributable under the GPL
See also the L4Linux project:
"L4Linux is a port of the Linux kernel to the L4/x86 and Fiasco -kernels (microkernels), two kernels implementing the L4 -kernel API."
"L4Linux runs in user-mode on top of the -kernel, side-by-side with other -kernel applications such as real-time components. It is binary-compatible with the normal Linux/x86 kernel and can be used with any PC-based Linux distribution."
--
> Before, a bully would have to beat the crap out of you by himself, otherwise he'd be a coward.
Most (maybe all) bullies _are_ cowards. But yes, I was once picked on by three older children, and it was pointing out just how weak they would look having to gang up together that stopped much happening until an adult came along, when they ran off (this was out of school, but I was in school uniform - they were from a different school).
Being fairly large for my age and reasonably fit at the time and having done a bit of Judo helped too, but if all three of them had seriously decided they wanted to beat me up, instead of just finding that trying to scare me wasn't working, I'd have been in deep shit.
> make the evil twin pick up the name of his slain brother) to make it work, but that seems like an ugly kludge.
I know of at least one book where something similar is done _very_ well, but naming it would probably be too much of a spoiler for anyone who hasn't read it yet. I don't think the construction of that book could work for a movie though.
--
Re:So where does the information come from?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1
> When a man impregnates a woman, the Holy Spirit breathes life into the resulting embryo. At least, this is what we were told in school.
Speak for yourself. Some of us had Religious Education as a separate subject not to be confused with biology (or history).
> But really, the Church has known this for thousands of years
Oh bollocks. The Christian Church hasn't _existed_ in a recognizable form for two thousand years yet. Fruit flies, flatworms, and even bacteria are also complicated compared to the amount of genetic information they use. Since when has the Church taught that flatworms have souls breathed in when the eggs hatch? That bacteria have souls breatehd in when they divide?
Slashdot Mirror
> This is an old story, sorry to rehash...
It's an old story AND THE LINK IN THE POST TWO LEVELS UP POINTS TO IT!
--
> big spacecraft that rotates to provide gravity.
Or a smaller spaceship in two parts connected by a tether, rotating about the centre of the tether.
--
Looks like several ISPs, including http://www.sky.net/, and a courier service called Skynet already exist.
--
> I am not sure how Solaris 1 releases synch up with SunOS numbering because I am too young (I started out with Solaris 2.5.1).
Officially, when "Solaris" was invented, Solaris 2 was the SunOS 5 based environment, and Solaris 1 was the SunOS 4 based environment. (Officially SunOS is the kernel/core and Solaris is the "distribution" (including desktop environment (OpenLOOK or CDE), roughly). SunOS 4 was more BSD based, whereas SunOS5 was more POSIX/SysV based.
But no-one ever used "Solaris 1", and lots of people used "SunOS" and "Solaris" to mean "SunOS4 based" and "SunOS5 based".
--
Every now and again there's a relatively long Jon Katz article, followed by a predicatable flood of responses complaining about the lack of real content in it (with some exceptions).
So we have a lot of words, with relatively little overt content. What's the _real_ content? And is the covert channel the articles, the repetitive flames, or both?
--
It's called a solar chimney, and they work with current technology, at least in pilot and demonstration systems. Large scale economics are another question, but it's possible. (Depending on efficiencies it may be worth covering the collector at the base with photovoltaics and just using the waste heat absorbed to drive a chimney.)
o la r%20chimney
9 2/ qid%3D950759721/sr%3D1-35/bargainsolarcom/107-9764 317-8756526
http://www.ccom.lk/energen/solrchmn.html
http://www.me.ufl.edu/SOLAR/chimney.html
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=S
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/39306986
--
At least they are planning to extend it to past alumni. http://cantab.net/faq.html
They are less likely to go under than some free forwarding services.
--
> On RocketGuy's website, he writes (in third person, no less) that his goal is "to set the altitude record for a private citizen". I don't want to shatter his dream, but Dennis Tito became the first space tourist this past week.
You don't think setting a record for "private citizen in his own privately built rocket" and for "private citizen going along as a passemger on a government funded mission" might be different dreams?
--
Whether an OODBMS or RDBMS is more appropriate depends on the situation, (and how good the particular database implementations are - you can read lots of stuff by Codd on how what most people think of as RDBMS's has more to do with implementations that what the relational model actually allows (for example, the One Data Model fits there - operations and behaviour should be part of the single model, they just aren't usually part of the database schema). As a general rule if your data structures are stringly tied to a particular application, you want an OODMBS, and if you want free form ad-hoc queries and flexibily changing applications, you want an RDMS.
But anyway, I just wanted to pick up on one point.
When you say "No Primary Keys: The user of an RDBMS has to worry about uniquely identifying tuples by their values and making sure that no two tuples have the same primary key values to avoid error conditions. In an OODBMS, the unique identification of objects is done behind the scenes via OIDs and is completely invisible to the user." that's just flat wrong (and dangerously so).
Object identity is important. If you rely on invisible Object IDs to wave a magic wand and handle it for you, you will almost certainly end up with a single real life object having multiple inconsistent representations in the database, so to avoid screwing it up you will need to do explicit defining of keys and checking for duplicates.
On the other hand, if you have a well defined keys in your Relational Database, there isn't a problem - the database won't _allow_ duplicates. In a worst case, you have to define artificial IDs in your RDBMS and you are back to the OID case except that you actually have control over them.
Of course lots of people do make a mess of choosing keys - but OIDs _don't_ solve the problem.
--
> lines of http://www.house.co.uk
Damn, that should have been http://www.ehouse.co.uk
--
I was recently looking for stuff along the lines of http://www.house.co.ukt ml
Have a look at http://www.panoguide.com/, especially http://www.panoguide.com/software/compare_world.h
Those are non-free tools, but there is PanoTools http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/ "Software to View, Create, Edit and Remap Panoramic Images", which includes a GIMP plugin.
--
No, CSS has already been legally reverse engineered by someone else. No need to duplicate that work, especially if you are somewhere it is illegal.
--
>> Example: NASA spent millions of dollars creating an ink pen that can write in zero gravity without making a mess. The Russians took pencils.
> NASA didn't spend a dime. Fisher developed it independently at their own expense. NASA bought quite a few, and in fact so did the Russians. Turns out graphite particles floating around a spacecraft full of sensitive electronic equipment isn't such a hot idea.
He's right. I haven't got any mod points, so I'll at least make that visible at 1.
--
> You seem to be leaving out those of us that enjoy their work and take pride in it.
He said _can_ be, not _is_.
I've worked at a job in a startup (not a dot-com) where paychecks were sometimes uncertain and planned raises never happened, because I enjoyed it, took pride in what we'd done, and also because I knew that the next person to leave would be the end and I didn't want to end it for the others; and I still thought there was a chance we could make it, and then the shares would make it all financially worthwhile too.
In the end it wasn't enough, and the company went under. With hindsight, it would have been much better for my family if I'd left earlier.
Now I'm somewhere where I still enjoy the work and take pride in it, but don't spend so many late evenings and weekends away from my wife and children, and the paychecks turn up on time, in full. The stock options aren't worth as much as I had hoped at the moment, but that will probably change, and it's not the end of the world if it doesn't (they're for a _vastly_ smaller proportion of the company than the startup, but it's a bigger company, and it's growing).
--
> I also don't know the name of the USCG-equivalent over there (if any).
Her Majesty's Coastguard (HMCG). But they aren't really an exact equivalent - the Navy has the "scare the shit out of drug smugglers" job, according to their TV ads.
Our police generally aren't armed. I very much doubt they have any cutters with anti-ship guns.
--
> The pilot turns his head and the turret moves with him
More peacefully, you can get a similar system for search-and-rescue helicopters where an IR camera mounted under the helicopter follows someone's head movements and they get to see the picture in their helmet mounted display.
But that was tracking head movement, not eye-tracking - I don't know if the Apache system is the same or not (and I saw it nearly 20 years ago, so I'm sure things have advanced since then).
--
> The amount of useful content there is vanishingly small, and it takes far less time to just do a google search for the relevent information than it would to find the appropriate newsgroup and hope that there's someone else there with half a clue.
t hat_never_ended.html
And now USENET content from 1995, when it didn't suck half as badly, even if it was always September by then[1], is part of that googleable content. This is a _good_ thing. I've certainly found useful stuff on Deja in the past.
(And there are still some usable bits).
[1] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/s/September_
--
"The original L4 -kernel for x86 has some shortcomings which we intend to fix with this new implementation. The Fiasco kernel:
See also the L4Linux project:
"L4Linux is a port of the Linux kernel to the L4/x86 and Fiasco -kernels (microkernels), two kernels implementing the L4 -kernel API."
"L4Linux runs in user-mode on top of the -kernel, side-by-side with other -kernel applications such as real-time components. It is binary-compatible with the normal Linux/x86 kernel and can be used with any PC-based Linux distribution."
--
So am I, and it's not entirely true, though in this case it probably is American billions.
If more people used milliard, we could help keep billion with its original English meaning.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?milliard
--
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn=US06219818__
Ok, there's a little bit more to it than just storing checksums, but is this really non-obvious and original?
--
Yes, but Banks, unlike the previous poster, explicitly says he made all that stuff up to sound cool for his space opera.
--
> Before, a bully would have to beat the crap out of you by himself, otherwise he'd be a coward.
Most (maybe all) bullies _are_ cowards. But yes, I was once picked on by three older children, and it was pointing out just how weak they would look having to gang up together that stopped much happening until an adult came along, when they ran off (this was out of school, but I was in school uniform - they were from a different school).
Being fairly large for my age and reasonably fit at the time and having done a bit of Judo helped too, but if all three of them had seriously decided they wanted to beat me up, instead of just finding that trying to scare me wasn't working, I'd have been in deep shit.
--
> make the evil twin pick up the name of his slain brother) to make it work, but that seems like an ugly kludge.
I know of at least one book where something similar is done _very_ well, but naming it would probably be too much of a spoiler for anyone who hasn't read it yet. I don't think the construction of that book could work for a movie though.
--
> When a man impregnates a woman, the Holy Spirit breathes life into the resulting embryo. At least, this is what we were told in school.
Speak for yourself. Some of us had Religious Education as a separate subject not to be confused with biology (or history).
> But really, the Church has known this for thousands of years
Oh bollocks. The Christian Church hasn't _existed_ in a recognizable form for two thousand years yet. Fruit flies, flatworms, and even bacteria are also complicated compared to the amount of genetic information they use. Since when has the Church taught that flatworms have souls breathed in when the eggs hatch? That bacteria have souls breatehd in when they divide?
--
Most decent TV doesn't have ads in when it's first broadcast here in the UK anyway, that's what we pay a licence fee for....
--