In what state was that? In every state I have lived in, you are required to have (at the age of 18), either a VALID and CURRENT driver's license, or a CURRENT state ID.
Kansas. I for one do not have either of those things, and I've been on this side of 18 for quite awhile. You certainly can get a state ID, but I've never heard that it's required, and for myself, I don't see the point. It's not like I own a car, or want one.
Do you honestly think anyone buying nitrate fertilizer for the purpose of blowing up a building will already have a criminal record or an open FBI investigation? Or do you believe it is OK to deny farmers the right to buy the supplies they need just because they belong to a particular organisation (read: "militia") viewed by the left as suspicious? In other words, do you really think that restrictions on buying the ingredients for an ANFO bomb would be either practical or effective?
You could go further, you know. Don't let anyone buy gasoline (a very popular substance for arson - not to mention the main ingredient in napalm!) without photo ID. Maybe have a five-day waiting period for buying gas, so they can check you out and make sure it's only for your car.
What's that, you say? That would put an obnoxious and unnecessary burden on ordinary law-abiding citizens such as yourself?
Oh, and I can't just stop paying them.
Unlike the former USSR, the US gives you the right to emigrate, pretty much no-questions-asked. [Now, the right to immigrate to another country without making the proper arrangements might be another thing altogether, but that's the other country's bailiwick.] Oddly enough, it seems that very few of the people who claim to have such serious grievances against our government take advantage of this amazing offer. Might you all be... *gasp*... bluffing?
Executive Orders, by Tom Clancy. I'm sure the plot has been used by others, but that one fits your description. The agent in question was a strain of Ebola which incubated for a few days.
As usual in Clancy, something goes wrong (the virus is not as contagious as the Persians had hoped) so disaster was averted by chance - there were "only" a few thousand victims.
Linus really, really, REALLY needs to start the 2.5.x branch.
Everyone is saying this, but there are issues involved. They were saying the same thing before 2.2 was even released - "give us a 2.3 so we can play". Linus doesn't work that way, because he believes (unlike, say, the Debian folks) that the resulting "brain drain" due to people hacking on the next unstable release unacceptibly hinders the bug-fixing effort in the current stable.
Sure, it's at least 80% psychological, but it does work, for all that. If you read his posts, you'll see that Linus has never been one to shy away from using psychology!
The unfortunate fact is, until recently, 2.4 did not have a usable VM. We can argue all day about whether Linus was too hasty in integrating Andrea's VM (I think he was, which is why I've switched to -ac kernels for now) but it is hard to argue that 2.5 should have forked before the 2.4 VM shaped up... at least given Linus's brain drain philosophy.
So, while the 2.4-only series has almost certainly gone on too long, there are valid reasons for it. Perhaps if you had contributed all your VM fixes six months ago, we could have had a 2.5 by now. (:
- Michael Warfield: computone driver update
Erm... dunno. What's a computone?
Multi-serial-port thing, I think. Useful for modem banks if you're a pre-broadband ISP.
- Trond Myklebust: make readdir xdr verify the reply packet
Since it's Trond, it's probably a RAID or VFS update...
No, Trond does NFS. xdr (External Data Representation) is the low-level NFS wire protocol.
- Jens Axboe: make cpqarray and cciss play nice with the request layer
Probably RAID stuff...
Yeah, two drivers for hardware RAID boards. We all know the saying: if you don't know whether or not you have one, you don't....
- Massimo Dal Zotto: SMM driver for Dell Inspiron 8000
Make the kernel work better on a particular type of laptop
Specifically, System Management Mode lets you control stuff like video output switching, volume control, etc (you know, those hot-key functions on most laptops). I think.
Hey - the surface of a sphere is very much a two-dimensional coordinate space. Therefore a polygon on a sphere is a two-dimensional object.
The fact that it can also be described using a 3-D (Euclidian) coordinate system is entirely beside the point. After all, a Euclidian planar object could be described using 3-D coordinates in some non-Euclidian system.
(I'm an expert. I live in Kansas, which for the most part is mind-numbingly flat, even though we are technically mapped on a spherical surface. A wheat field around here is definitely two-dimensional, as anyone can see.)
Just because 3D programmers and artists get lazy and refer to triangles as "poly's" doesn't make it true.
Yes it is true, a triangle is a polygon. Obviously the converse is not true (the point you were apparently trying to make) but if you can take people to task for verbal pedantry, I can too.
I doubt there are auto engineering apps that allow easy Internet collaboration on development.
Not so. Ask IBM's consulting arm about PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) sometime. In certain sectors, including automotive, it seems to be one of this year's buzzwords. PLM is hard to pin down, like any good buzzword, but it seems to enable lots of nifty B2B type stuff.
Whether or not deploying SmarTeam, WebSphere, etc so you can have shared whiteboards, parts lists, design specs, CAD databases, etc. actually helps engineers collaborate over distance remains, IMHO, to be proven.
Look what happened to Martin Luther when he dared to think "outside of the lines".
Enlighten me. My history is a bit weak. What exactly did happen to Martin Luther? My impression was that although he pissed off a lot of people, he didn't suffer any physical consequences (imprisonment, torture, execution, etc) due to his stand.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, I could always use a bit of that.
I'd call having one of the most corrupt legal and political systems in the world pretty irresponsible.
You mean one of the most corrupt in the western world, right?
A lot of people like you say stuff like this, but when challenged, it generally turns out that they've never lived in the so-called Third World. Have you? I have. The levels of corruption between some (most?) Third-World governments and any Western regime -- even ours in the US... there is simply no basis for comparison.
Believe me, I am truly upset at the bill that was passed, but "most corrupt in the world" is blatant hyperbole. Now, if you mean "in the Western world" -- well, I only lived in Europe for one year, 20 years ago, so I am not really qualified to comment.
That's becaue Islam is, at its core, a very tolerant religion. So I've been informed.
I've heard exactly the opposite. You've heard of jihad, right? It amounts to conquering the infidel nations by force in order to transform them into Muslim societies. No, this is not a recent mutation or fanaticism - Muhammad himself promoted jihad.
The thing about Islam - and this is a crucial point - it is fundamentally opposed to the concept of "separation of church and state". In the ideal Islamic society, the church completely permeates society - the Qu'ran is basically the law of the land. I think it is fair to say, in modern parlance, that pure orthodox Islam is the epitome of religious intolerance.
(Note: many modern Muslim nations do not reach this ideal, having become secularized and westernized over the years. I'm talking about the type of society Muhammad promoted in the Qu'ran.)
My theory is that this is why the Arab nations hate us (the US) so much. It is not just about Israel. They hate our society for being so secular, because our government so strongly stands for the separation of church and state, for individual freedom of religion. This is a threat to the Muhammaden way of life.
If you don't believe me, go live in a country with an Islamic government. Stop people on the street and talk loudly with them about your non-Muslim beliefs. See how long it takes before you are confronted in one way or another. Obviously the exact consequences would depend on which government - in this dimplomatic and civilized day and age I bet most would merely deport you, but even so....
So you're saying the British government does fund this sort of thing? And that they fund it sufficiently to make it worthwhile to emigrate so you can get more money?
That is what is being debated -- whether or not it is possible to get federal grant money for certain purposes.
I don't have any references for you, but I have heard the same thing.
My theory on this (not original) is that fetal stem cell research is not actually justifiable in terms of past or expected results. It is justifiable in terms of creating an excuse to abort more fetuses (aka "frozen embryos").
That is what makes embryonic stem cell research interesting: providing a perceived "moral good" to the abortion industry / apologists. Pointing out the lack of success with such stem cells so far would only elicit the response "well, obviously science can never guarantee future results, but I'm sure we'll do something exciting RSN."
Without knowing anything about them, I'm guessing probably not. Because they were probably engineered with the CPU power to decode MP3s. (Overengineering is a huge no-no for embedded.)
I use vorbis format myself, out of principle, but decoding vorbis takes a couple orders of magnitude more CPU than decoding MP3.
You are trying to make the point that global
warming is not just hype created by people who
have no idea what they're talking about... but
then you go and confuse global warming with ozone
depletion! Am I the only one who finds this a
wee bit ironic?
I think you made the original poster's point
for him........
I'm so fed up with the power of the mass-media conglomerates, I'm considering taking up full time piracy as a form of civil disobedience.
It's been said before... lots of times... probably even on/.... but IMHO it bears repeating.
Pirates of copyrighted works often claim "civil disobedience" as a justification. "We just want to protest Evil Corporations Who Exploit Artists And Customers Alike."
But, without judging you in particular -- think about the following before you actually take up this occupation:
Is is just coincidence that pirating also happens to give you free access to what you would ordinarily have to pay for? If pirating cost you money instead, would you still do it just for the principle of the thing? (If so, you're in luck! You can pirate DVD's onto other DVD's! Blank DVD's cost a lot of money! You will really be making a statement when you can say "Rather than pay ECWEAACA for a copy of this DVD, I spent twice as much just so I could pirate my own.")
Would you pirate if it weren't so anonymous? Are you willing to stand up and be counted, and go to jail if need be? Have you contacted the copyright holders of the works you wish to pirate and dared them to take you to court? As a technocrat.net poster said a few days ago, if you're not willing to reap the consequences of breaking the law you disagree with, any sanctimonious claims of "civil disobedience" ring pretty hollow.
Oh Puhleaze!! If you want to know how something is licensed, just go look. To let you know, the libraries are under the LGPL, and the applications are either GPL, AL or BSD. A couple niggly things are under other licenses, but who cares. The whole kit and kaboodle is 100% FREE SOFTWARE.
So now the QPL is GPL-compatible? Yes, Virginia, there is a difference between "open source" and "GPL-compatible". Last I checked, and this was some time ago (back when QPLv2 was first written), it was not.
Because of the various provisions of the GPL, this means that, while I have permission to download Qt, and I have permission to download GPL-licensed software, I do not have permission to redistribute GPL-licensed binaries linked with Qt.
This is why Debian doesn't ship KDE. Because Debian insists on being shipping binary releases, which is not allowed by the combination of GPL and QPL. For a very similar reason, Debian can't ship qmail. (DJB does not allow distribution of binaries from modified source.)
From what I remember, Red Hat decided to ship KDE only because they believed that the KDE people and/or Troll Tech were taking care of the licensing issue Any Day Now. (Market pressure from Caldera might have had something to do with the decision as well.) This almost happened when TT released the QPLv2, which is almost GPL-compatible. Today, with Red Hat on board (and they were the only major Linux distribution other than Debian that cared much about the GPL violations of the original KDE+Qt), none of the parties involved seem at all interested in going the rest of the distance.
Most Linux distributions sweep this particular difficulty under the rug. They know that the KDE developers intend for their software to be freely redistributable, ergo nobody is likely to complain about their minor, but very real, license violation. Debian refuses and will continue to refuse to do this, because they believe licensing details, however petty, are important -- and that, if you ignore the "inconvenient" parts, all software licenses are meaningless. You might say Debian are the "strict constitutionalists" of software licensing. (I.e. a license doesn't just mean what I want it to mean, or even what its author wanted it to mean.)
[While I believe I share Debian's corporate opinion in this matter, I do not actually speak for them.]
Can you name me a SINGLE CASE brought by the ACLU that wasn't germane and noble?
No, I don't keep up with these things, so I can't name cases. But I have always been under the impression that the ACLU actually opposes freedom of expression in certain situations.
Take for example freedom of religious expression in schools. Unless I'm horribly confused, the ACLU actually takes the stand that in many cases freedom from having to listen to religious expression is more important than freedom of religious expression. Does this make sense to anyone? It doesn't to me.
And then there's those right-to-life groups. In certain cases, the ACLU has actually taken the side against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and has supported legislation designed to force pro-life people to "keep their distance" away from abortion clinics during demonstrations. As far as I can tell, the pro-life cause is a sort of special case; the ACLU seems to hold pretty much the opposite viewpoint on, say, union workers on strike demonstrating at the plant.
Maybe someone else can make sense of it, but to me this all looks like defending the rights only of those causes that do not politically offend you -- and actually attacking those that do. Is that really what the ACLU is about? Someone please set me straight if I have my facts wrong!
Ordinary people, when faced with something like a court order, think "Gee, I'd better obey that or I'll be in contempt of court. It's illegal to ignore one of these things. I don't want to do something illegal." We have respect for the law and the courts, and by and large, we have no interest in taking every last traffic ticket, as it were, all the way to the Supreme Court, just to exercise a theoretical right to do so.
Lawyers, on the other hand, think "Gee, how long can I hold out against the court? Is there some way I can not comply with this order and get away with it? Failing that, how long can I stall them?" Lawyers have no respect for the legal system -- it merely exists to be exploited to produce the greatest personal benefit possible.
As the ACLU comprises mostly lawyers and their sympathizers, they can't help but misunderstand if a company voluntarily complies with a court order without first fighting it tooth and nail. If Yahoo! does this, the ACLU will naturally think that it is only to further some nefarious anti-privacy agenda. In my mind, it is much simpler: Yahoo! does not have anything to gain by throwing extra legal resources into guarding their users' privacy. Why should they? They never said they would. Users have never demanded it of them. Probably nobody has ever written to Yahoo! asking them to change their privacy policy to guarantee some sort of legal defense of anonymity.
It's the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. Most people think in terms of the spirit of the law; lawyers are experts in knowing the exact letter of the law, and what it does and doesn't let them get away with.
Outside the context of legal practice, people who only think in terms of personal gain, and in terms of what literal rights they have, as opposed to what can be done to help the system as a whole run smoothly -- well, there are a lot of unflattering words for such people, like "obnoxious".
Check your facts. The Linux kernel "zImage" and "bzImage" formats are both deflate-based. "bzImage" is short for "big zImage" -- nothing to do with bzip or bzip2.
Slashdot Mirror
Kansas. I for one do not have either of those things, and I've been on this side of 18 for quite awhile. You certainly can get a state ID, but I've never heard that it's required, and for myself, I don't see the point. It's not like I own a car, or want one.
Do you honestly think anyone buying nitrate fertilizer for the purpose of blowing up a building will already have a criminal record or an open FBI investigation? Or do you believe it is OK to deny farmers the right to buy the supplies they need just because they belong to a particular organisation (read: "militia") viewed by the left as suspicious? In other words, do you really think that restrictions on buying the ingredients for an ANFO bomb would be either practical or effective?
You could go further, you know. Don't let anyone buy gasoline (a very popular substance for arson - not to mention the main ingredient in napalm!) without photo ID. Maybe have a five-day waiting period for buying gas, so they can check you out and make sure it's only for your car.
What's that, you say? That would put an obnoxious and unnecessary burden on ordinary law-abiding citizens such as yourself?
Unlike the former USSR, the US gives you the right to emigrate, pretty much no-questions-asked. [Now, the right to immigrate to another country without making the proper arrangements might be another thing altogether, but that's the other country's bailiwick.] Oddly enough, it seems that very few of the people who claim to have such serious grievances against our government take advantage of this amazing offer. Might you all be ... *gasp* ... bluffing?
Executive Orders, by Tom Clancy. I'm sure the plot has been used by others, but that one fits your description. The agent in question was a strain of Ebola which incubated for a few days.
As usual in Clancy, something goes wrong (the virus is not as contagious as the Persians had hoped) so disaster was averted by chance - there were "only" a few thousand victims.
Everyone is saying this, but there are issues involved. They were saying the same thing before 2.2 was even released - "give us a 2.3 so we can play". Linus doesn't work that way, because he believes (unlike, say, the Debian folks) that the resulting "brain drain" due to people hacking on the next unstable release unacceptibly hinders the bug-fixing effort in the current stable.
Sure, it's at least 80% psychological, but it does work, for all that. If you read his posts, you'll see that Linus has never been one to shy away from using psychology!
The unfortunate fact is, until recently, 2.4 did not have a usable VM. We can argue all day about whether Linus was too hasty in integrating Andrea's VM (I think he was, which is why I've switched to -ac kernels for now) but it is hard to argue that 2.5 should have forked before the 2.4 VM shaped up ... at least given Linus's brain drain philosophy.
So, while the 2.4-only series has almost certainly gone on too long, there are valid reasons for it. Perhaps if you had contributed all your VM fixes six months ago, we could have had a 2.5 by now. (:
Multi-serial-port thing, I think. Useful for modem banks if you're a pre-broadband ISP.
No, Trond does NFS. xdr (External Data Representation) is the low-level NFS wire protocol.
Yeah, two drivers for hardware RAID boards. We all know the saying: if you don't know whether or not you have one, you don't....
Specifically, System Management Mode lets you control stuff like video output switching, volume control, etc (you know, those hot-key functions on most laptops). I think.
Hey - the surface of a sphere is very much a two-dimensional coordinate space. Therefore a polygon on a sphere is a two-dimensional object.
The fact that it can also be described using a 3-D (Euclidian) coordinate system is entirely beside the point. After all, a Euclidian planar object could be described using 3-D coordinates in some non-Euclidian system.
(I'm an expert. I live in Kansas, which for the most part is mind-numbingly flat, even though we are technically mapped on a spherical surface. A wheat field around here is definitely two-dimensional, as anyone can see.)
Yes it is true, a triangle is a polygon. Obviously the converse is not true (the point you were apparently trying to make) but if you can take people to task for verbal pedantry, I can too.
Not so. Ask IBM's consulting arm about PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) sometime. In certain sectors, including automotive, it seems to be one of this year's buzzwords. PLM is hard to pin down, like any good buzzword, but it seems to enable lots of nifty B2B type stuff.
Whether or not deploying SmarTeam, WebSphere, etc so you can have shared whiteboards, parts lists, design specs, CAD databases, etc. actually helps engineers collaborate over distance remains, IMHO, to be proven.
Enlighten me. My history is a bit weak. What exactly did happen to Martin Luther? My impression was that although he pissed off a lot of people, he didn't suffer any physical consequences (imprisonment, torture, execution, etc) due to his stand.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, I could always use a bit of that.
You mean one of the most corrupt in the western world, right?
A lot of people like you say stuff like this, but when challenged, it generally turns out that they've never lived in the so-called Third World. Have you? I have. The levels of corruption between some (most?) Third-World governments and any Western regime -- even ours in the US ... there is simply no basis for comparison.
Believe me, I am truly upset at the bill that was passed, but "most corrupt in the world" is blatant hyperbole. Now, if you mean "in the Western world" -- well, I only lived in Europe for one year, 20 years ago, so I am not really qualified to comment.
I've heard exactly the opposite. You've heard of jihad, right? It amounts to conquering the infidel nations by force in order to transform them into Muslim societies. No, this is not a recent mutation or fanaticism - Muhammad himself promoted jihad.
The thing about Islam - and this is a crucial point - it is fundamentally opposed to the concept of "separation of church and state". In the ideal Islamic society, the church completely permeates society - the Qu'ran is basically the law of the land. I think it is fair to say, in modern parlance, that pure orthodox Islam is the epitome of religious intolerance.
(Note: many modern Muslim nations do not reach this ideal, having become secularized and westernized over the years. I'm talking about the type of society Muhammad promoted in the Qu'ran.)
My theory is that this is why the Arab nations hate us (the US) so much. It is not just about Israel. They hate our society for being so secular, because our government so strongly stands for the separation of church and state, for individual freedom of religion. This is a threat to the Muhammaden way of life.
If you don't believe me, go live in a country with an Islamic government. Stop people on the street and talk loudly with them about your non-Muslim beliefs. See how long it takes before you are confronted in one way or another. Obviously the exact consequences would depend on which government - in this dimplomatic and civilized day and age I bet most would merely deport you, but even so....
So you're saying the British government does fund this sort of thing? And that they fund it sufficiently to make it worthwhile to emigrate so you can get more money?
That is what is being debated -- whether or not it is possible to get federal grant money for certain purposes.
I don't have any references for you, but I have heard the same thing.
My theory on this (not original) is that fetal stem cell research is not actually justifiable in terms of past or expected results. It is justifiable in terms of creating an excuse to abort more fetuses (aka "frozen embryos").
That is what makes embryonic stem cell research interesting: providing a perceived "moral good" to the abortion industry / apologists. Pointing out the lack of success with such stem cells so far would only elicit the response "well, obviously science can never guarantee future results, but I'm sure we'll do something exciting RSN."
Without knowing anything about them, I'm guessing probably not. Because they were probably engineered with the CPU power to decode MP3s. (Overengineering is a huge no-no for embedded.)
I use vorbis format myself, out of principle, but decoding vorbis takes a couple orders of magnitude more CPU than decoding MP3.
You mean HTTP/0.9 which is case-sensitive and
requires "GET" to be in uppercase?
This is just too funny!
You are trying to make the point that global warming is not just hype created by people who have no idea what they're talking about ... but
then you go and confuse global warming with ozone
depletion! Am I the only one who finds this a
wee bit ironic?
I think you made the original poster's point for him........
Pirates of copyrighted works often claim "civil disobedience" as a justification. "We just want to protest Evil Corporations Who Exploit Artists And Customers Alike."
But, without judging you in particular -- think about the following before you actually take up this occupation:
...Which is not to say LANL was probably in any danger, but your comment hit a particular nail right on the head.
Because of the various provisions of the GPL, this means that, while I have permission to download Qt, and I have permission to download GPL-licensed software, I do not have permission to redistribute GPL-licensed binaries linked with Qt.
This is why Debian doesn't ship KDE. Because Debian insists on being shipping binary releases, which is not allowed by the combination of GPL and QPL. For a very similar reason, Debian can't ship qmail. (DJB does not allow distribution of binaries from modified source.)
From what I remember, Red Hat decided to ship KDE only because they believed that the KDE people and/or Troll Tech were taking care of the licensing issue Any Day Now. (Market pressure from Caldera might have had something to do with the decision as well.) This almost happened when TT released the QPLv2, which is almost GPL-compatible. Today, with Red Hat on board (and they were the only major Linux distribution other than Debian that cared much about the GPL violations of the original KDE+Qt), none of the parties involved seem at all interested in going the rest of the distance.
Most Linux distributions sweep this particular difficulty under the rug. They know that the KDE developers intend for their software to be freely redistributable, ergo nobody is likely to complain about their minor, but very real, license violation. Debian refuses and will continue to refuse to do this, because they believe licensing details, however petty, are important -- and that, if you ignore the "inconvenient" parts, all software licenses are meaningless. You might say Debian are the "strict constitutionalists" of software licensing. (I.e. a license doesn't just mean what I want it to mean, or even what its author wanted it to mean.)
[While I believe I share Debian's corporate opinion in this matter, I do not actually speak for them.]
No, I don't keep up with these things, so I can't name cases. But I have always been under the impression that the ACLU actually opposes freedom of expression in certain situations.
Take for example freedom of religious expression in schools. Unless I'm horribly confused, the ACLU actually takes the stand that in many cases freedom from having to listen to religious expression is more important than freedom of religious expression. Does this make sense to anyone? It doesn't to me.
And then there's those right-to-life groups. In certain cases, the ACLU has actually taken the side against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and has supported legislation designed to force pro-life people to "keep their distance" away from abortion clinics during demonstrations. As far as I can tell, the pro-life cause is a sort of special case; the ACLU seems to hold pretty much the opposite viewpoint on, say, union workers on strike demonstrating at the plant.
Maybe someone else can make sense of it, but to me this all looks like defending the rights only of those causes that do not politically offend you -- and actually attacking those that do. Is that really what the ACLU is about? Someone please set me straight if I have my facts wrong!
That's not how lawyers think.
Ordinary people, when faced with something like a court order, think "Gee, I'd better obey that or I'll be in contempt of court. It's illegal to ignore one of these things. I don't want to do something illegal." We have respect for the law and the courts, and by and large, we have no interest in taking every last traffic ticket, as it were, all the way to the Supreme Court, just to exercise a theoretical right to do so.
Lawyers, on the other hand, think "Gee, how long can I hold out against the court? Is there some way I can not comply with this order and get away with it? Failing that, how long can I stall them?" Lawyers have no respect for the legal system -- it merely exists to be exploited to produce the greatest personal benefit possible.
As the ACLU comprises mostly lawyers and their sympathizers, they can't help but misunderstand if a company voluntarily complies with a court order without first fighting it tooth and nail. If Yahoo! does this, the ACLU will naturally think that it is only to further some nefarious anti-privacy agenda. In my mind, it is much simpler: Yahoo! does not have anything to gain by throwing extra legal resources into guarding their users' privacy. Why should they? They never said they would. Users have never demanded it of them. Probably nobody has ever written to Yahoo! asking them to change their privacy policy to guarantee some sort of legal defense of anonymity.
It's the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. Most people think in terms of the spirit of the law; lawyers are experts in knowing the exact letter of the law, and what it does and doesn't let them get away with.
Outside the context of legal practice, people who only think in terms of personal gain, and in terms of what literal rights they have, as opposed to what can be done to help the system as a whole run smoothly -- well, there are a lot of unflattering words for such people, like "obnoxious".
P.
That would be A86. I thought it was a pretty clever idea too.
Check your facts. The Linux kernel "zImage" and "bzImage" formats are both deflate-based.
"bzImage" is short for "big zImage" -- nothing to do with bzip or bzip2.