I don't agree. Anyone who has studied history should know that the reason the Nazi party was able to gain power in Germany was because of the brutal conditions placed in the Treaty of Versailles after "WW I".
The war reparation payments was just one of the factors that caused the German public to suffer massive inflation to the point where I have heard from a person that lived through it that it "took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread." While most likely exaggerated, the Nazis were able to take advantage of the poor economy and general disdain in the treaty for Germany in its rise to power.
The "Aryan race" and anti-Semitism were ways of keeping the flames stoked and also stemmed from one of Hitler's personal agendas.
...Not as far as architecture of their chips. NetBurst comes to mind, as well as the Hypertransport vs. shared bus links between CPUs and main memory. In the current market, especially for a multiple-CPU system, I'd choose AMD Opterons every time. It simply scales much better.
With the recent renewel of the IBM chip manufacturing agreement, AMD stands to gain ground on fabrication processes - about the only area I can think of offhand where Intel is clearly "ahead".
Actually the math is a lot more complicated than that. What it amounts to is a sequence of letters in a 64512 (2^16 - 1024) letter alphabet. Therefore each "letter" would have a (1/64512) or about 1.55e-05 chance of getting it right.
Basically this comes down to permutations or combinations, depending if you can reuse the same "knocking port" twice and if the order matters. If you're using the strict "permutations" rule where order matters and you can't reuse the same port, then we get 64512_P_(5/6/7/8) which is:
64512! / (64512 - 5/6/7/8)!
Which is a nice huge-ass number. You then take that number, invert it, and that is the chance that you would have on the first try of getting the port-knocking sequence correct.
Naturally your chances get (slightly!) better on each try after that.
Not that I'm addicted to getting good karma or anything, but some stupid-ass moderator hasn't heard of Ethernet?! After all, all shared-medium endpoints have two options to speak to a specified group of one or more points on that medium: physical and logical addresses.
Physical addresses would be things like frequency discussed above. Each endpoint would have a tuner that isolates that frequency and thereby assumes that any messages on the frequency are addressed to itself.
Logical addresses are things like MAC and IP addresses, things that everyone except Slashdot moderators know have no guaranteed correlation to physical space or attributes. That's how Ethernet, Token Ring, satellite systems, and countless other technologies work. Therefore even on a "shared" medium such as a cable or a "single" frequency you can still *gasp* address individual units!!!
Of course, you could always assign each of the rovers its own address (say, like Ethernet) so that even in a shared medium like an atmosphere or space the intended recipient knows what messages to listen to.
Is "time" not just as real as "length" or "width" or "height"? Each of these really is just a measurement of change external to the system below it. For example, in the 2nd dimension, "height" isn't a 'real' or 'measureable' quantity, but can be used to desribe the change in any general 2-dimensional area. Similarly, the 1st dimension is simply a linear dimension governed by the 2nd dimensional measurement of width. Finally, don't forget the 0th dimension - a point, governed by length!
The fact that we measure the first 3 dimensions by a common unit (meter/foot/whatever) doesn't really mean that those dimensions are special and more "real" than time is. It's just easier for us to think about things in the reference frame we were taught to think in.
Of course this greatly simplified version of looking at things doesn't necessarily fit into string theory, which to my recollection has 11 or more dimensions. All I can say is that I haven't reviewed string theory - nor would I fully understand it most likely anyway...
Next there will be legislated monitors installed into screens to monitor the rate you blink during ads. A maximum rate of tolerance will be assigned otherwise you will be in violation. Covering up this device will also be illegal.
No more falling asleep on the sofa in front of the screen either! Same goes for the TV in the bedroom...
OK, so I know that not enough people bought the Amiga and also that it's long "dead", but I am still sometimes amazed by the compactness and flexibility that was provided by the Amiga OS. I programmed on it for 3 years for the Prevue Guide (actually Sneak Prevue, for those who ever saw that), and the OS seemed simple yet powerful. I haven't done too much programming on Linux, and only a small amount on Win32, but even the user features of the Amiga OS still had things that LInux is starting to get (thinking of modularized filesystems, for example), and that Windows never will have.
AutoConfig was something that worked great, and allowed drivers to be installed from the devices themselves at boottime instead of having a separate disk/CD for them. Of course you could do it the other way too...
Of course the preemptive multitasking was great, and you could have your system up and running multiple programs with the basic 512kB memory. I remember Microsoft was commissioned to write BASIC for the Amiga, but it was buggy, crashed often, and was dumped later for incompatibility reasons with the 68020 (go figure).
Naturally the AmigaOS wasn't perfect either. Its prototypes were developed in BCPL (did I remember this right? - I know it was some kind of off-base BASIC-like language), and had a kind of glue layer for C compatibility. And yes, I hated the.info files for "Workbench" cluttering up my file structure, but the idea of a compact, small yet flexible OS was adhered to rather well.
Many of the design philosophies from the Amiga team have made it into other OSs... the fact that it's survived so long in spite of terrible management and business gaffes proves that its ideas were founded on solid ground.
...just wanted to point out that other OSs should be given their due for what they brought to the table.
Slashdot Mirror
Try gnucash or kmymoney2. Both have OFX support and provide things like dual-entry accounting, account management, etc.
Actually, Ubuntu does have X.org packaged and it works very well. Check http://www.linux.org/news/2004/11/10/0001.htmlhere for details...
And, by golly, it put them on the map!
The war reparation payments was just one of the factors that caused the German public to suffer massive inflation to the point where I have heard from a person that lived through it that it "took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread." While most likely exaggerated, the Nazis were able to take advantage of the poor economy and general disdain in the treaty for Germany in its rise to power.
The "Aryan race" and anti-Semitism were ways of keeping the flames stoked and also stemmed from one of Hitler's personal agendas.
With the recent renewel of the IBM chip manufacturing agreement, AMD stands to gain ground on fabrication processes - about the only area I can think of offhand where Intel is clearly "ahead".
Using a sequence of 5 port knocks would give you:
chance of getting it right the first try.Basically this comes down to permutations or combinations, depending if you can reuse the same "knocking port" twice and if the order matters. If you're using the strict "permutations" rule where order matters and you can't reuse the same port, then we get 64512_P_(5/6/7/8) which is:
Which is a nice huge-ass number. You then take that number, invert it, and that is the chance that you would have on the first try of getting the port-knocking sequence correct.Naturally your chances get (slightly!) better on each try after that.
Physical addresses would be things like frequency discussed above. Each endpoint would have a tuner that isolates that frequency and thereby assumes that any messages on the frequency are addressed to itself.
Logical addresses are things like MAC and IP addresses, things that everyone except Slashdot moderators know have no guaranteed correlation to physical space or attributes. That's how Ethernet, Token Ring, satellite systems, and countless other technologies work. Therefore even on a "shared" medium such as a cable or a "single" frequency you can still *gasp* address individual units!!!
Of course, you could always assign each of the rovers its own address (say, like Ethernet) so that even in a shared medium like an atmosphere or space the intended recipient knows what messages to listen to.
I'm not sure either, but here's a link that talks about the same thing.
you could do a Pete Rose and admit your mistakes 14 years later without any remorse.
after all, look who invented the Internet!
You may want to use knoppix-installer instead. I believe it made its debut in 3.2, but I know it's in 3.3 (what I'm using now).
Is "time" not just as real as "length" or "width" or "height"? Each of these really is just a measurement of change external to the system below it. For example, in the 2nd dimension, "height" isn't a 'real' or 'measureable' quantity, but can be used to desribe the change in any general 2-dimensional area. Similarly, the 1st dimension is simply a linear dimension governed by the 2nd dimensional measurement of width. Finally, don't forget the 0th dimension - a point, governed by length! The fact that we measure the first 3 dimensions by a common unit (meter/foot/whatever) doesn't really mean that those dimensions are special and more "real" than time is. It's just easier for us to think about things in the reference frame we were taught to think in. Of course this greatly simplified version of looking at things doesn't necessarily fit into string theory, which to my recollection has 11 or more dimensions. All I can say is that I haven't reviewed string theory - nor would I fully understand it most likely anyway...
Next there will be legislated monitors installed into screens to monitor the rate you blink during ads. A maximum rate of tolerance will be assigned otherwise you will be in violation. Covering up this device will also be illegal.
No more falling asleep on the sofa in front of the screen either! Same goes for the TV in the bedroom...
OK, so I know that not enough people bought the Amiga and also that it's long "dead", but I am still sometimes amazed by the compactness and flexibility that was provided by the Amiga OS. I programmed on it for 3 years for the Prevue Guide (actually Sneak Prevue, for those who ever saw that), and the OS seemed simple yet powerful. I haven't done too much programming on Linux, and only a small amount on Win32, but even the user features of the Amiga OS still had things that LInux is starting to get (thinking of modularized filesystems, for example), and that Windows never will have.
.info files for "Workbench" cluttering up my file structure, but the idea of a compact, small yet flexible OS was adhered to rather well.
...just wanted to point out that other OSs should be given their due for what they brought to the table.
AutoConfig was something that worked great, and allowed drivers to be installed from the devices themselves at boottime instead of having a separate disk/CD for them. Of course you could do it the other way too...
Of course the preemptive multitasking was great, and you could have your system up and running multiple programs with the basic 512kB memory. I remember Microsoft was commissioned to write BASIC for the Amiga, but it was buggy, crashed often, and was dumped later for incompatibility reasons with the 68020 (go figure).
Naturally the AmigaOS wasn't perfect either. Its prototypes were developed in BCPL (did I remember this right? - I know it was some kind of off-base BASIC-like language), and had a kind of glue layer for C compatibility. And yes, I hated the
Many of the design philosophies from the Amiga team have made it into other OSs... the fact that it's survived so long in spite of terrible management and business gaffes proves that its ideas were founded on solid ground.