Woo woo. A Civic that can run a ~10 second quarter mile (btw, the time was a little over 10 seconds -- a "10 second car" should be 10 flat or slightly under, not slightly over). Still, it's just going straight. Big deal.
Whether speaking of dragracing, circle track or road course, it is customary to use integer time. If someone lapped a motorcycle at Willow Springs at 1:27.98, then they would have run a 27 lap. That is common informal racing phraseology.
If you race on the street, you're a fucking moron, end of story. Racing on the track is different, but I still find drag racing pretty boring. Whoopee! My car can go straight fast!
Street racing, I agree with you there. Too many unknown variables you can't account for. But, your comments about drag racing tell me that you have probably never driven or raced a fast car. Racing of all of the forms I have tried involved loads of adrenaline, road course or dragging. My educated guess is that you would probably have a difficult time getting that 10 second Civic within a second of it's best time. Racing at the top levels takes skill, nerve and realtime thought and evaluation. That holds true with cart racing up through F1. Heck, even Nascar where most races involve turning left several thousand times take skill.:)
Nope, my car is a 5-speed manual. It's no drag racer (nor would I want it to be), but I didn't buy it for that. As for being a "desk jockey", I disagree. I'm already signed up for afternoon lapping (I drive for fun, not competition) at my local track. The only problem is the season doesn't start until March, so I can't exactly get out there any sooner. And as for street racing, see my above comment.
Hmmm, so being "signed up" for track time in the future makes you qualified to bash forms of racing you have no experience with and say they are easy? I see a long and painful learning curve for you and hours of being skooled on the track by the real racers that will be running while you take your practice laps.
I just checked your website and see that you have a Porsche Boxster that you will be taking to the track. Don't be surprised to see many "lesser" cars passing you unless you are gonna run in the Boxster only races. If you are gonna take the high horse posture, you should have at least gotten the Boxster S. Buying a Porsche dosen't make one a racer, racing does that and judging from your attitude, real racers will enjoy spanking you on the track.
Actually, with ZDnet announcing this, that means the trend is at least 6 months old. I think Apple is already aware of the growing position Linux has on desktop and server installations.
I also think they are in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' position with OS X/x86. If they don't release it, then the price differential between PCs will just get larger and if they jump onto the PC platform and compete directly with MS, then Office and IE for the mac will go probably away. I will just continue to use Linux and Windows because they do what I need. If Apple ever gets the nads to come out with an OS that runs on my hardware, I'll buy a copy. That will be about their best bet for holding onto the #2 spot for desktop systems.
Hmmm.. On WinXP with J2SDK1.4.1, almabench ran in 80.13 seconds on a 1.4GHz AMD TBird. I'll have to boot back into Linux to compare jdk speed. That compares nicely to the P-IV 2.8GHz numbers for java.
It isn't that I don't understand your point, it is that I do not agree with your method and conclusion. You are hoping that someone that is too lazy to keep themselves informed and make qualified decisions will be attentive enough to make sure they pick proper 'random' input. I know about proving the lack of randomness and true random results being near impossible to prove. I remember most of my stastics and physics, I also know much of human character, nature and habit.
Why don't you just propose that people be allowed to register for voting in two different methods: the first is to actually have to cast a ballot and the second is to have a computer vote your ballot at random so you needn't even be bothered to stand in line. See, democracy gets even easier! You as a teacher are advocating randomness as a viable alternative to willful stupidity and laziness.
I still see your method as only worthy of inflating the voting turnout percentage as long as the uninformed voters can truly vote randomly and a tragic skewing of election results with the slightest flaw in the randomness of your data. When trying to produce random numbers, the sample size required usually determines which methods are and aren't suitable. Could you guarantee the production of billions of random numbers so all of the results can come from the same supposedly random source? Before you try to answer that for me, I already know the answer.
I don't disagree with your intent though, and I struggle to come up with a better alternative besides being an informed voter. That is the whole purpose of campaigns and elections.
They should vote even if they're uninformed -- provided that they truly vote randomly (if uninformed)... Many of the ills of American democracy follow from the pathetically low participation rate.
What you are encouraging your students to do is pseudo-participation at best. To truly participate, they would have to care and actually inform themselves on the issues. That is part of our civic duty - to be citizens and know what is going on as best we can and make the best informed decisions possible. What you suggest is about as bad as a parent that wants the TV to substitute for loving interaction with their children. As long as something is interacting, its called participation, right? Not.
The problem with your approach is that the randomness will be mostly effected by the amount of exposure they have had to a certain name or a catchy slogan. Advertising has a powerful influence.
Dude! Weren't you in the MadMax movies? You rocked! Well, until you died on the front of that truck, guess you won't be in the new movie being made now.:)
Normally I agree with Bruce, but not this time. You are suggesting that someone not related with the development of this application come up with their own documentation and choke the revenue stream of the company that does develop and give away the software. The whole mechanism of making a viable opensource business revolves around making money off the support of said package.
If you don't agree with their license terms for the documentation, then suggest an alternative method for the license that still allows them to keep a revenue stream. Don't just advocate the disruption by someone that most probably has nothing to do with development and makes no contribution to the maintenence of the source. That sounds completely hypocritical and goes against the most suggested opensource business model I have heard of over the last 8 years ( give away the source and make money on the support).
Sun is saying lots of things, that does not make them true.
Zeinfeld says a lot of things, that does not make them true.
Sun is the DEC of the 2000s. Its hardware business is stagnant and its software business has no real connection to the hardware....However they spend 65% of their time whining about Microsoft.
Sun is #1 in UNIX sales , Sun sells a huge array of software, all of which runs on their hardware. I have to say you are completely wrong on this point unless you can point us to something besides your statement. Where do you get the %65 figure?
I doubt that it will come to that as Microsoft will certainly appeal and the chances of blocking the temporary injunction are pretty good, they can win simply by spinning out the appeal.
So the more mature technology can be squashed just by just playing the waiting game? I agree with the judge: Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of.NET's superior qualities, not because Microsoft leveraged its PC monopoly to create market conditions in which it is unfairly advantaged."
Java on the client is a pretty wierd idea. Very few sites have ever used Java. I don't think we will suddenly see a rush to switch from flash to Java on the basis...
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the OS irrelevant thing you may have missed. Hmmm.. I have seen Java applets and full applications on many sites. Please point us to something supporting your 'very few sites' contention. If you think that Flash is the main competitor for Java, then, well, your opinion weighs very little.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly in Jude Jackson's findings of fact. MS appealed the judges decision for break up based upon those findings of fact, but the FoF stand as does the monopoly declaration. That means that MS has a different set of rules they must adhere to now because of their dominance in several different markets.
The point you are missing is that by refusing to accept relayed email, I would in no way be making unauthorized use of the senders system. I would be doing nothing illegal, immoral, perverse, snotty or devious.
By leaving a mail system open for relaying, the admins are leaving themselves open to abuse by spammers. If that abuse is compounded by my choosing not to accept their extension of abuse, then they are the ones with the complete control over correcting the situation.
Actually I am fascinated at how your mind must work to twist a refusal to accept email into some illegal act on my part. I know that in the US that citizens have a right to freedom of speech; do you also consider yourself to be harmed if I don't want to listen?
This is about as illegal as you not answering your phone when it rings. More correctly, it is like you listen to the first 3 seconds and hear a recorded 'offer' and hang up without listening to the entire telemarketing speach. Get a freaking clue.
Yes, the person is at fault for not knowing what is going on with an open relay. That is the job of an admin of a system exposed to the internet. This method is only preventing them from handing the email to you. They already accepted the email, that dosen't obligate me to take it from them if I know it is spam, now does it?
They are the ones that are allowing their resources to be misused, I just wouldn't them to pass along the misuse. Are you just dense or are you a spammer trying to defend the undefendable position?
This is mainly intended to prevent open ( poorly configured) email servers from being used as relays by spammers. The open server's disk space being gobbled up by causing them to spool the relayed email will certainly get the admins attention. This will shift the problem away from servers that recieve the email and onto the open relay which lets the spammers spam us with no easy way to trace the mail. The problem with tracing the email is that the poorly configured relay server is maintained by someone that usually ignores the emails asking them to close their smtp setup or to please examine their logs and let us know who was using them as a relay.
I think your sympathy is misplaced due to a lack of understanding of what allows the spammers to keep sending us all of those wonderful offers. If they don't have access to open relays, then they either have to keep moving their spamming servers when accounts are terminated or buy bandwidth off the backbones directly from qwest, AT&T, worldcom, etc... Either way, the spammers costs go up.
Do you feel bad for the people you hear about in the news that get charged with maintaining a dwelling for criminal purposes when they leave an empty house to be over run with drug users? Same principle is involved here.
Not a very effective news reporting strategy if the users have to go do all the research themselves. Heh.
I was alluding to you making sure you know something about what you are talking about or ( like most reasonable folks) curbing your tongue until you do know. That is the way that people who do not wish to appear foolish conduct themselves.
Mozilla is a fairly frequent article subject on/. and on the web in general. A quick search turns up many relevant articles. It would be difficult for the editors to summarize 5 years of Mozilla development in each story header.
Piece of advice for story submitters out there: Not every single person on Slashdot gives a rootin toot about Mozilla. Consider putting a little background in your posts. A little blurb like "This is significant because 1.2 was pulled due to a bug that 1.2.1 now fixes." would prevent people like me from making sarcastic comments (like the one above) about the importance of the news.
Translation:
Anything that you are not completely familiar with or disagree with is subject to ridicule. Any flaws in your ridicule are the responsibility of those that only partially informed you, therefore maintaining your perfection and absolute right to ridicule....End Translation...
Damn, sorry we all forgot to fully inform you. We must have been mistaken when we assumed that you had the responsibility to inform yourself before engaging your sarcastic wit. This release of Mozilla clears up all of the problems I have had with 1.2b, now that you know what it is, try it and enjoy. Don't forget to check out tabbed browsing.
Now I understand! Its like not expecting the./ editors to have actual editing and research skills or like expecting the story submitters to actually read the story they are submitting. I bet that Anonymous Cowdog spent more time researching how he could blame Prez Bush with something than he did reading the story. His title and submission really suggest he didn't read much of the story.
If you want people that could have no possible conflict of interest involved in making the core decisions about how things are done, ( energy, agriculture, health and environmental policies), then they won't really be familiar with the subject. By familiar, I mean an intimate understanding of implementation from beginning to end ( delivery of service/product). Giving me the task of defining health care policy would be disasterous. It is very easy for someone to proclaim their understanding of a better way, but the decisions usually get handed to people that have proven they can follow through while the people that are mostly talk get left behind.
A truely great movie, I've watched it about ten times over the last few years. It has a great Bobby Fischer narrative woven into the story of Josh Waitzkin that prompted me to read more about Mr. Fischer. I have gotten the impression that he and his family were hounded enough by the FBI to drive them towards the mindset that they were being investigated for in the first place.
Bobby Fischer seemed to drop his interaction with most people when the FBI would investigate the people he came into contact with. It would be enough to make me very paranoid at a minimum. When I try to emulate his perspective based on his approach to chess, it gets more interesting.
Look at a chess board and see a massive parallel and deep attack. The pieces only represent positions, the real battle is mental between two powers. Victory comes from overpowering and outlasting your opponent. If you loose concentration and perspective, it is easy for your opponent to start using your own pieces against you by limiting your movments with your pieces. That seems to explain his withdrawal from public interaction, he limited the liability of having others around that would be a liability. He would have seen the FBI as an opponent with thousands of pieces that had to be controlled. If most of those that would be considered his opponents could only focus on him, then they became the ones that had limited movment and got in each others way.
It is late and I may be rambling a bit, but for a perspective on the different level of mental capability Bobby Fischer has over the average person, read this google cached page about Josh Waitzkin and try to relate. Josh has studied Bobby Fischer in great depth and can see many of the flaws in Bobby's game/life. From what I can see from Bobby Fischers perspective, I would have become a paraniod freak from the pressures that he and his family endured.
Then provide your security classification and reason for needing the information and it will be provided via secure channels if approved.
I can say that I know people that work for several organisations that produce and grow huge amounts of food and the larger companies do keep different government departments informed about production and supply chain problems. That said, I really assume if you needed to know the information you challenged the AC to provide for you, then you would already have it.
I didn't say that BSD was emulated, re-read my comments. I did question the validity of calling MacOS X a *BSD in the same manner that an installation of OpenBSD is called a *BSD.
And since the first Mac was released in 1984, the architecture that existed for sixteen years before OS X was released, it is 'recent' by comparison and is absolutely *not* the horse they rode while building the Mac following. Please don't feel like I am slighting any of the *BSD family, its not my intention. It will take a while for Apple to ween their faithful over to something that is a more complete ( read lack of emulationlayers ) foundation. If their was a cheap PPC generic board or an X86 port of Mac OS X, I would be running it as at least one of my workstations. Until then, Linux and OpenBSD are my choice for stable platforms.
IIRC, that is about what RMS was running the last time I saw him in person at Linux expo '99 in Raleigh. Surely some kind benefactor could buy some up to date hardware for such a talented contributor to the world of software.
Maybe we could start a (non-PayPal) fund to help him get some ( hardware).
added Stallman. "I don't think it was realized how bad it is practically speaking not to be able to use whatever your disk partitioning is. Clearly most people are not going to repartition their disks to be able to try out our Hurd based system."
What kind of systems are they using for development that they just noticed the inability to read current large partitioning schemes and interact with them? This dosen't do much to encourage me to try HURD and hope it will support much of my newfangled hardware.
Incorrect. Mac OS X counts as a BSD and it thoroughly has GNU/Linux whipped when it comes to user acceptance.
Mac OS could be counted as a *BSD, but that is a very recent trend. The Mac following wasn't built because of the new *BSD foundation. OTOH, I know of no one that is using Linux, FreeBSD or OpenBSD that is using it because it the foundation of another semi-emulated OS environment. As an example, I haven't seen anyone that is using Linux and wine/winex/vmware/win4lin/basilisk/etc... as their main operating environment ( sans Linux apps).
Still, if Apple were to release an X86 version of MacOS 10.2, I would buy a copy to try as my main desktop. It would be to try Mac apps, not run FreeBSD specific apps, I would just use FreeBSD if that was my only goal and I assume the goal of most Mac users is to run Mac apps, not FreeBSD stuff. That makes for some stretching to count MacOS 10.x as FreeBSD. Do Mac people run two OSes? If they have to pick between describing their computer as running MacOS or FreeBSD, which would most of them pick?
I have been running *NIX type OSes for 17years starting with VMS on a microvax, basically because I like things that work. Linux seems to like the followthe same combination of requirements. *BSDs tend to have less support for the hardware in my systems than Linux and they both pale to Windows. Sheer support numbers don't mean as much to me and Linux is the happy medium.
Linus and crew have found a formula for developing a *NIX type kernel that many others have decided makes a good foundation for their OS distribution.
...so far. Linus and the other developers have created something with a much greater user acceptance than *BSD. I am not flaming or trolling here, just pointing out the differences in user base.
That said, I still like FreeBSD and OpenBSD very much. I have purchased OpenBSD disc sets and really like the ports arrangement.
If you are going back to being a 'smug BSD user', is that because it makes you feel good? Smugness heavily implies that is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether speaking of dragracing, circle track or road course, it is customary to use integer time. If someone lapped a motorcycle at Willow Springs at 1:27.98, then they would have run a 27 lap. That is common informal racing phraseology.
Street racing, I agree with you there. Too many unknown variables you can't account for. But, your comments about drag racing tell me that you have probably never driven or raced a fast car. Racing of all of the forms I have tried involved loads of adrenaline, road course or dragging. My educated guess is that you would probably have a difficult time getting that 10 second Civic within a second of it's best time. Racing at the top levels takes skill, nerve and realtime thought and evaluation. That holds true with cart racing up through F1. Heck, even Nascar where most races involve turning left several thousand times take skill.
Hmmm, so being "signed up" for track time in the future makes you qualified to bash forms of racing you have no experience with and say they are easy? I see a long and painful learning curve for you and hours of being skooled on the track by the real racers that will be running while you take your practice laps.
I just checked your website and see that you have a Porsche Boxster that you will be taking to the track. Don't be surprised to see many "lesser" cars passing you unless you are gonna run in the Boxster only races. If you are gonna take the high horse posture, you should have at least gotten the Boxster S. Buying a Porsche dosen't make one a racer, racing does that and judging from your attitude, real racers will enjoy spanking you on the track.
Yes, aparantly blown chips are much happier than burned chips and give better perfornamce..
Actually, with ZDnet announcing this, that means the trend is at least 6 months old. I think Apple is already aware of the growing position Linux has on desktop and server installations.
I also think they are in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' position with OS X/x86. If they don't release it, then the price differential between PCs will just get larger and if they jump onto the PC platform and compete directly with MS, then Office and IE for the mac will go probably away. I will just continue to use Linux and Windows because they do what I need. If Apple ever gets the nads to come out with an OS that runs on my hardware, I'll buy a copy. That will be about their best bet for holding onto the #2 spot for desktop systems.
Hmmm.. On WinXP with J2SDK1.4.1, almabench ran in 80.13 seconds on a 1.4GHz AMD TBird. I'll have to boot back into Linux to compare jdk speed. That compares nicely to the P-IV 2.8GHz numbers for java.
It isn't that I don't understand your point, it is that I do not agree with your method and conclusion. You are hoping that someone that is too lazy to keep themselves informed and make qualified decisions will be attentive enough to make sure they pick proper 'random' input. I know about proving the lack of randomness and true random results being near impossible to prove. I remember most of my stastics and physics, I also know much of human character, nature and habit.
Why don't you just propose that people be allowed to register for voting in two different methods: the first is to actually have to cast a ballot and the second is to have a computer vote your ballot at random so you needn't even be bothered to stand in line. See, democracy gets even easier! You as a teacher are advocating randomness as a viable alternative to willful stupidity and laziness.
I still see your method as only worthy of inflating the voting turnout percentage as long as the uninformed voters can truly vote randomly and a tragic skewing of election results with the slightest flaw in the randomness of your data. When trying to produce random numbers, the sample size required usually determines which methods are and aren't suitable. Could you guarantee the production of billions of random numbers so all of the results can come from the same supposedly random source? Before you try to answer that for me, I already know the answer.
I don't disagree with your intent though, and I struggle to come up with a better alternative besides being an informed voter. That is the whole purpose of campaigns and elections.
What you are encouraging your students to do is pseudo-participation at best. To truly participate, they would have to care and actually inform themselves on the issues. That is part of our civic duty - to be citizens and know what is going on as best we can and make the best informed decisions possible. What you suggest is about as bad as a parent that wants the TV to substitute for loving interaction with their children. As long as something is interacting, its called participation, right? Not.
The problem with your approach is that the randomness will be mostly effected by the amount of exposure they have had to a certain name or a catchy slogan. Advertising has a powerful influence.
Dude! Weren't you in the MadMax movies? You rocked! Well, until you died on the front of that truck, guess you won't be in the new movie being made now. :)
Normally I agree with Bruce, but not this time. You are suggesting that someone not related with the development of this application come up with their own documentation and choke the revenue stream of the company that does develop and give away the software. The whole mechanism of making a viable opensource business revolves around making money off the support of said package.
If you don't agree with their license terms for the documentation, then suggest an alternative method for the license that still allows them to keep a revenue stream. Don't just advocate the disruption by someone that most probably has nothing to do with development and makes no contribution to the maintenence of the source. That sounds completely hypocritical and goes against the most suggested opensource business model I have heard of over the last 8 years ( give away the source and make money on the support).
Sun is #1 in UNIX sales , Sun sells a huge array of software, all of which runs on their hardware. I have to say you are completely wrong on this point unless you can point us to something besides your statement. Where do you get the %65 figure?
So the more mature technology can be squashed just by just playing the waiting game? I agree with the judge: Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the OS irrelevant thing you may have missed. Hmmm.. I have seen Java applets and full applications on many sites. Please point us to something supporting your 'very few sites' contention. If you think that Flash is the main competitor for Java, then, well, your opinion weighs very little.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly in Jude Jackson's findings of fact. MS appealed the judges decision for break up based upon those findings of fact, but the FoF stand as does the monopoly declaration. That means that MS has a different set of rules they must adhere to now because of their dominance in several different markets.
The point you are missing is that by refusing to accept relayed email, I would in no way be making unauthorized use of the senders system. I would be doing nothing illegal, immoral, perverse, snotty or devious.
By leaving a mail system open for relaying, the admins are leaving themselves open to abuse by spammers. If that abuse is compounded by my choosing not to accept their extension of abuse, then they are the ones with the complete control over correcting the situation.
Actually I am fascinated at how your mind must work to twist a refusal to accept email into some illegal act on my part. I know that in the US that citizens have a right to freedom of speech; do you also consider yourself to be harmed if I don't want to listen?
This is about as illegal as you not answering your phone when it rings. More correctly, it is like you listen to the first 3 seconds and hear a recorded 'offer' and hang up without listening to the entire telemarketing speach. Get a freaking clue.
Yes, the person is at fault for not knowing what is going on with an open relay. That is the job of an admin of a system exposed to the internet. This method is only preventing them from handing the email to you. They already accepted the email, that dosen't obligate me to take it from them if I know it is spam, now does it?
They are the ones that are allowing their resources to be misused, I just wouldn't them to pass along the misuse. Are you just dense or are you a spammer trying to defend the undefendable position?
This is mainly intended to prevent open ( poorly configured) email servers from being used as relays by spammers. The open server's disk space being gobbled up by causing them to spool the relayed email will certainly get the admins attention. This will shift the problem away from servers that recieve the email and onto the open relay which lets the spammers spam us with no easy way to trace the mail. The problem with tracing the email is that the poorly configured relay server is maintained by someone that usually ignores the emails asking them to close their smtp setup or to please examine their logs and let us know who was using them as a relay.
I think your sympathy is misplaced due to a lack of understanding of what allows the spammers to keep sending us all of those wonderful offers. If they don't have access to open relays, then they either have to keep moving their spamming servers when accounts are terminated or buy bandwidth off the backbones directly from qwest, AT&T, worldcom, etc... Either way, the spammers costs go up.
Do you feel bad for the people you hear about in the news that get charged with maintaining a dwelling for criminal purposes when they leave an empty house to be over run with drug users? Same principle is involved here.
Wow, you have P4 Xeons that are 64-bit processors and can support 20gigs+ of memory? No? Then how can you call them more powerful than an EV6 Alpha?
I will miss the Alphas, they were doomed the moment that Intel got control of them.
I was alluding to you making sure you know something about what you are talking about or ( like most reasonable folks) curbing your tongue until you do know. That is the way that people who do not wish to appear foolish conduct themselves.
Mozilla is a fairly frequent article subject on
Translation:
Anything that you are not completely familiar with or disagree with is subject to ridicule. Any flaws in your ridicule are the responsibility of those that only partially informed you, therefore maintaining your perfection and absolute right to ridicule.
Damn, sorry we all forgot to fully inform you. We must have been mistaken when we assumed that you had the responsibility to inform yourself before engaging your sarcastic wit. This release of Mozilla clears up all of the problems I have had with 1.2b, now that you know what it is, try it and enjoy. Don't forget to check out tabbed browsing.
Now I understand! Its like not expecting the ./ editors to have actual editing and research skills or like expecting the story submitters to actually read the story they are submitting. I bet that Anonymous Cowdog spent more time researching how he could blame Prez Bush with something than he did reading the story. His title and submission really suggest he didn't read much of the story.
If you want people that could have no possible conflict of interest involved in making the core decisions about how things are done, ( energy, agriculture, health and environmental policies), then they won't really be familiar with the subject. By familiar, I mean an intimate understanding of implementation from beginning to end ( delivery of service/product). Giving me the task of defining health care policy would be disasterous. It is very easy for someone to proclaim their understanding of a better way, but the decisions usually get handed to people that have proven they can follow through while the people that are mostly talk get left behind.
A truely great movie, I've watched it about ten times over the last few years. It has a great Bobby Fischer narrative woven into the story of Josh Waitzkin that prompted me to read more about Mr. Fischer. I have gotten the impression that he and his family were hounded enough by the FBI to drive them towards the mindset that they were being investigated for in the first place.
Bobby Fischer seemed to drop his interaction with most people when the FBI would investigate the people he came into contact with. It would be enough to make me very paranoid at a minimum. When I try to emulate his perspective based on his approach to chess, it gets more interesting.
Look at a chess board and see a massive parallel and deep attack. The pieces only represent positions, the real battle is mental between two powers. Victory comes from overpowering and outlasting your opponent. If you loose concentration and perspective, it is easy for your opponent to start using your own pieces against you by limiting your movments with your pieces. That seems to explain his withdrawal from public interaction, he limited the liability of having others around that would be a liability. He would have seen the FBI as an opponent with thousands of pieces that had to be controlled. If most of those that would be considered his opponents could only focus on him, then they became the ones that had limited movment and got in each others way.
It is late and I may be rambling a bit, but for a perspective on the different level of mental capability Bobby Fischer has over the average person,
read this google cached page about Josh Waitzkin and try to relate. Josh has studied Bobby Fischer in great depth and can see many of the flaws in Bobby's game/life. From what I can see from Bobby Fischers perspective, I would have become a paraniod freak from the pressures that he and his family endured.
Does that mean it will be up to poor Martin J. Bligh to bathe RMS? Oh the horror! :)
Laugh! It's a joke.
First fill out forms:
4 T
GSA-1132-4
GOV-3321-11-23
MI-33241-A
FL-31-S
Then provide your security classification and reason for needing the information and it will be provided via secure channels if approved.
I can say that I know people that work for several organisations that produce and grow huge amounts of food and the larger companies do keep different government departments informed about production and supply chain problems. That said, I really assume if you needed to know the information you challenged the AC to provide for you, then you would already have it.
I didn't say that BSD was emulated, re-read my comments. I did question the validity of calling MacOS X a *BSD in the same manner that an installation of OpenBSD is called a *BSD.
And since the first Mac was released in 1984, the architecture that existed for sixteen years before OS X was released, it is 'recent' by comparison and is absolutely *not* the horse they rode while building the Mac following. Please don't feel like I am slighting any of the *BSD family, its not my intention. It will take a while for Apple to ween their faithful over to something that is a more complete ( read lack of emulation layers ) foundation. If their was a cheap PPC generic board or an X86 port of Mac OS X, I would be running it as at least one of my workstations. Until then, Linux and OpenBSD are my choice for stable platforms.
IIRC, that is about what RMS was running the last time I saw him in person at Linux expo '99 in Raleigh. Surely some kind benefactor could buy some up to date hardware for such a talented contributor to the world of software.
Maybe we could start a (non-PayPal) fund to help him get some ( hardware).
What kind of systems are they using for development that they just noticed the inability to read current large partitioning schemes and interact with them? This dosen't do much to encourage me to try HURD and hope it will support much of my newfangled hardware.
Mac OS could be counted as a *BSD, but that is a very recent trend. The Mac following wasn't built because of the new *BSD foundation. OTOH, I know of no one that is using Linux, FreeBSD or OpenBSD that is using it because it the foundation of another semi-emulated OS environment. As an example, I haven't seen anyone that is using Linux and wine/winex/vmware/win4lin/basilisk/etc... as their main operating environment ( sans Linux apps).
Still, if Apple were to release an X86 version of MacOS 10.2, I would buy a copy to try as my main desktop. It would be to try Mac apps, not run FreeBSD specific apps, I would just use FreeBSD if that was my only goal and I assume the goal of most Mac users is to run Mac apps, not FreeBSD stuff. That makes for some stretching to count MacOS 10.x as FreeBSD. Do Mac people run two OSes? If they have to pick between describing their computer as running MacOS or FreeBSD, which would most of them pick?
I have been running *NIX type OSes for 17years starting with VMS on a microvax, basically because I like things that work. Linux seems to like the followthe same combination of requirements. *BSDs tend to have less support for the hardware in my systems than Linux and they both pale to Windows. Sheer support numbers don't mean as much to me and Linux is the happy medium.
Linus and crew have found a formula for developing a *NIX type kernel that many others have decided makes a good foundation for their OS distribution.
...so far. Linus and the other developers have created something with a much greater user acceptance than *BSD. I am not flaming or trolling here, just pointing out the differences in user base.
That said, I still like FreeBSD and OpenBSD very much. I have purchased OpenBSD disc sets and really like the ports arrangement.
If you are going back to being a 'smug BSD user', is that because it makes you feel good? Smugness heavily implies that is the case.