Pings are getting returned from newscientist's ip address (194.203.155.123) just fine... could someone with a little more knowledge of the vagaries of the Internet take a look at the situation and find out what exactly is wrong with newscientist's server?
Let me get this straight-- the hard drive manufacturers can barely come up with 500GB of storage on a single 3.5" drive and they claim to be releasing a memory-card with multi-TERABYTE storage? Either this thing has insanely high memory density or it's the size of a small Third World dictatorship, to say nothing of its cost.
Have there been any other canards to come out of Taipei in recent years? Perhaps this is just a ploy to arouse interest in their trade show; I for one don't really believe it.
A long time ago, Linus Torvalds gave an interview in Maximum PC in which he pointed out that some people thought that open source "somehow was tied to communism." This type of thinking is still around, I think, and it's part of what fuels the Ken Browns and Darl McBrides of the world. They see something that looks a little like something they've been trained to hate with unreasoning passion, and then the blinders go on and the brains turn off.
Fortunately, I think that people are finally starting to understand exactly what the open source software movement stands for and the benefits we stand to accrue from it. 'Communism' - either in its real form or the corrupted understanding that some people seem to have of it - simply doesn't enter into the equation anymore. Open source, to many mostly computer illiterate people that I know, looks much more like an exercise in free speech than an expression of the Marxist dialectic.
Open source voting software is the best way to deal with the problems in electronic voting machines. Will it be an absolute panacea? Probably not. But in any case, it will doubtless produce more trustworthy software than anything produced by a proprietary company using proprietary software development methods on a proprietary operating system with proprietary political causes and motivations.
Clearly their expedition will fail... they're going after a find of "tremendous historical significance," particularly to Biblical studies, and they're not bringing along Indiana Jones?! What were they thinking?
I think you need to spell out to your employers the importance of your cell phone particularly as it relates to your work. Make it clear to them that their new policy will substantially diminish your ability (and that of anyone else you can reasonably claim) to work efficiently, and that if it's implemented as planned, your company's productivity will diminish. Those are the terms that any executive or middle manager will understand.
And if that doesn't work, it might be worth it to try to get the company to issue work-only cell phones. It would be kind of a hassle to keep switching between two, but it might be the kind of alternative they'd be willing to agree to.
For the record, I do vote in every election I can. That doesn't stop me from being pissed off when I see corporations dictating policy and corrupting the democratic process.
We need more than voter turnout. We need to turn out the corporations from the public sphere-- permanently. The people have representation; moneymaking entities created by people should not.
This new governmental policy of letting the corporations dictate public policy has just got to stop. America is being overrun by special interest politics, and with so many politicians with their hands in the cookie jar, the MPAA and related organizations essentially have a free hand in drafting legislation, policy notes, you name it.
I'd be very interested to know whether this Attorney General received campaign "contributions" from the MPAA, and how much. What do you have to pay to buy an Attorney General these days? $10,000? $50,000? I hate that everyone has their price, but what really makes me sad is how low that price is sometimes...
"It gets even more fun the more beer you have," he said.
Now all we need is for some drunk kid to put someone's eye out while re-enacting a scene from X-Men 2 while completely sloshed...
Well, it's apparent now that SCO is not claiming that there has been any "direct copying" of code from System V into Linux. Instead, they're arguing that IBM and Sequent's licenses to use System V source code prohibited them from making publicly available any portion of the source code of their "derivative work," that is to say, code that they developed based on System V.
The problem with SCO's reasoning is that the RCU code is completely separate from System V. It doesn't contain any System V code at all. As such, it isn't a derivative work. Despite this, SCO is claiming that any code at all that IBM or Sequent developed for their respective System V derivatives (AIX and Dynix/ptx) is either owned by SCO or is to be treated under the same terms as the System V source code itself.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse! However, given the side letter AT&T issued to IBM in 1985 telling IBM that IBM's own non-derivative source code belonged to, well, IBM, I doubt SCO's claims will bear up in court.
It's really too bad that you need a "Hyperspace Login" (read: Give-us-the-right-to-spam-you-into-the-next-age Login) to see like 99% of the content on the site.
Having a movie spoiled was never this difficult on AICN.
One potential problem with the rollout of electronic voting hardware and software in this country is that many people automatically assume that electronic devices are more reliable and less prone to failure than the older voting hardware, when it certainly appears that this is not the case.
I'm sure that at least some non-tech-savvy election officials are content with the Diebold machines on the basis that "at least they won't have dimpled chads," or something similar. As a result, the people in the know (ie, anyone who knows the inherent unreliability and insecurity of the Diebold devices) should be making it very clear to everyone else that the superiority of newer technology ain't necessarily so.
Motorola has been having problems with their advanced semiconductor products, particularly PowerPC microprocessors, for years. When Apple first released the Power Mac G4, there were so many fabrication problems at Motorola's chip foundries that Apple initially had to scale back what were supposed to be 500MHz G4s to 450MHz, a move that really hurt Apple's credibility in the computing world. More recently, Moto had been having problems delivering G4 7447s in sufficient quantities for Apple to release their Powerbook upgrades, including the much-ballyhooed 15" Aluminum model. In any case, Apple's decision to go with IBM's PowerPC technology was probably motivated as much by pragmatic corporate survivalism as any other factor -- they simply couldn't afford to be tied down by a semiconductor sloth like Motorola. In any case, I doubt this means much for Moto's embedded processor and microcontroller business, which has been thriving for quite some time. It just doesn't operate under the same pressure as the rapidly advancing world of high-performance microprocessor products. The 68HC11 and HCS12 will probably be around for a very long time to come.
Just as a brief footnote, it's important to remember that most of the so-called church fathers read the New Testament in Latin, either in the Old Latin version (which bordered on translationese) or the equally bad Vulgate, which Erasmus himself exposed as a terrible translation of the Greek. Consequently, any agreement between the church fathers and the TR can be said to be essentially meaningless to understanding the text.
"The name "Textus Receptus" comes from a quote in the introduction of Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir's edition published in 1633 "
Absolutely correct, which also points out that the TR has many editions spread out over several centuries... however, the other/.er was referring specifically to the edition used in the preparation of the KJV, which would probably have been either Erasmus' original 1516-8 work or one of the subsequent emendations, and I didn't want any confusion. Caveat emptor and all that.
Using just a few manuscripts can lead to substantial problems in the reading of a text. Bear in mind that the New Testament's various books were all completed sometime toward the end of the first century AD. Now, no printing presses existed then, so a copy of a manuscript was only as good as its copyist was attentive. The Hebrew scribal tradition was brilliant and included a number of error checking and correction methodologies, but the Greek and Latin-tradition scribes weren't always the sharpest quills in the inkwell and sometimes made some very glaring errors in copying. These errors were of course preserved in all copies originating from the first copy, along with whatever other errors the next scribe introduced.
Errors that crop up in succession can thus alter the fundamental meaning of a passage to the extent that it's no longer commensurate with what the original author actually meant! Accordingly, it is absolutely vital in examining as multifarious a text as the New Testament that as many ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments from as many different traditions as possible be used to prepare an "emended" text that is as close to the original as possible. This is the work of the Nestle-Aland and UBS revisions of the New Testament, and their scholarship has provided a firm basis upon which the modern translations rest.
"Erasmus was fully aware of the Alexandrian manuscripts "
Actually, the distinction between the Alexandrine and Byzantine manuscript traditions wasn't made until the time of Westcott and Hort in the 19th century. Erasmus certainly couldn't have known about Sinaiticus considering it was collecting dust in a Russian monastery at the time. Erasmus was a brilliant man, but bear in mind that he was working within his limits as one man with a limited manuscript collection. Flip open any copy of the NA/UBS to the introduction and you'll find listings of the hundreds, if not thousands, of sources used in that edition's creation. Erasmus' 1516-8 TR was one man's work for a couple of years with a few manuscripts. The NA/UBS text represents the work of hundreds of scholars for close to 70 years with hundreds of sources simply not available to Erasmus.
"Indeed today the manuscript evidence for the TR is up to something over 5000 (including papyrus fragments and bits here and there)."
"Fragments and bits?" The reliable papyrus fragments (including P64 and P67 particularly, the former of which has been dated by some sources to be as early as 70AD) clearly show Alexandrine readings, and are the sources in the NA/UBS text for their respective passages (various passages in Matthew, IIRC).
I haven't done much Web-based reading about textual criticism, but a good primer is available here: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/intro.html
"It is widely known that the best Greek text is the "Textus Receptus"; the altered text or "Westcott and Hort" or "Nestle-Aland" text is the one based on the corrupted manuscripts."
This is idiotic, and I'll explain why:
The Textus Receptus was created in 1518 by Desiderius Erasmus, a very wise scholar of many ancient languages. Unfortunately, dear old Erasmus had access to only a handful of Byzantine-tradition manuscripts for his Textus Receptus, so it absolutely positively cannot be a more reliable source than the emended texts available today.
Incidentally, his only copy of the book of Revelations was missing the last few pages! His solution: he retranslated the Vulgate's Latin text of the pages into Greek, so his last few chapters of Revelation were a translation of a translation... think about a video that goes through multiple standards conversions and you get the impression of what the TR's last few pages of Revelations look like.
Ah, the extents to which people will go to discredit Alexandrine-tradition manuscripts anymore... (of course, the Gospel of John text in Sinaiticus is Byzantine, but I suppose that spells the difference between "badly corrupted" and "totally corrupted" to the otherwise uneducated.
Almost all major translation efforts carried out since the release of the Revised Standard Version have used as their reference texts the Nestle-Aland and UBS revisions of the Greek New Testament, which are critical texts based on the oldest available sources for the NT. There is no doubt that translations effected today are based on much better-attested texts than what was available to the creators of the King James Version, since certain discoveries had simply not been made by that point. In fact, one of the "baseline" texts for the NA/UBS editions is Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century well-preserved Greek New Testament manuscript that was only rediscovered in the nineteenth century.
Hic parvus porcus ad forum veni...
... what this is going to do to family photos taken on holiday.
"Honey, could you and the kids move forward a few steps? I'm still not in the hotspot yet."
Slashdot Mirror
It's a straight fight so far in the Privilege Escalation match in the past year, so let's look in on our contenders:
Windows (all versions) 100
Linux 1
It looks pretty bad for Linux until you consider that this game is scored like golf, and then it's all tears and jeers in Redmond.
Back to you, Cowboyneal.
(NB. I know there have probably been other Linux kernel exploits, but this is the first in recent memory.)
It's sort of ironic that a story about a dead operating system was submitted by someone with whose user name comes from a dead language...
Don't you think?
The affected page isn't loading up at all!
Oh wait...
Pings are getting returned from newscientist's ip address (194.203.155.123) just fine... could someone with a little more knowledge of the vagaries of the Internet take a look at the situation and find out what exactly is wrong with newscientist's server?
Let me get this straight-- the hard drive manufacturers can barely come up with 500GB of storage on a single 3.5" drive and they claim to be releasing a memory-card with multi-TERABYTE storage? Either this thing has insanely high memory density or it's the size of a small Third World dictatorship, to say nothing of its cost.
Have there been any other canards to come out of Taipei in recent years? Perhaps this is just a ploy to arouse interest in their trade show; I for one don't really believe it.
A long time ago, Linus Torvalds gave an interview in Maximum PC in which he pointed out that some people thought that open source "somehow was tied to communism." This type of thinking is still around, I think, and it's part of what fuels the Ken Browns and Darl McBrides of the world. They see something that looks a little like something they've been trained to hate with unreasoning passion, and then the blinders go on and the brains turn off.
Fortunately, I think that people are finally starting to understand exactly what the open source software movement stands for and the benefits we stand to accrue from it. 'Communism' - either in its real form or the corrupted understanding that some people seem to have of it - simply doesn't enter into the equation anymore. Open source, to many mostly computer illiterate people that I know, looks much more like an exercise in free speech than an expression of the Marxist dialectic.
Open source voting software is the best way to deal with the problems in electronic voting machines. Will it be an absolute panacea? Probably not. But in any case, it will doubtless produce more trustworthy software than anything produced by a proprietary company using proprietary software development methods on a proprietary operating system with proprietary political causes and motivations.
Clearly their expedition will fail... they're going after a find of "tremendous historical significance," particularly to Biblical studies, and they're not bringing along Indiana Jones?! What were they thinking?
I think you need to spell out to your employers the importance of your cell phone particularly as it relates to your work. Make it clear to them that their new policy will substantially diminish your ability (and that of anyone else you can reasonably claim) to work efficiently, and that if it's implemented as planned, your company's productivity will diminish. Those are the terms that any executive or middle manager will understand.
And if that doesn't work, it might be worth it to try to get the company to issue work-only cell phones. It would be kind of a hassle to keep switching between two, but it might be the kind of alternative they'd be willing to agree to.
For the record, I do vote in every election I can. That doesn't stop me from being pissed off when I see corporations dictating policy and corrupting the democratic process.
We need more than voter turnout. We need to turn out the corporations from the public sphere-- permanently. The people have representation; moneymaking entities created by people should not.
This new governmental policy of letting the corporations dictate public policy has just got to stop. America is being overrun by special interest politics, and with so many politicians with their hands in the cookie jar, the MPAA and related organizations essentially have a free hand in drafting legislation, policy notes, you name it.
I'd be very interested to know whether this Attorney General received campaign "contributions" from the MPAA, and how much. What do you have to pay to buy an Attorney General these days? $10,000? $50,000? I hate that everyone has their price, but what really makes me sad is how low that price is sometimes...
"It gets even more fun the more beer you have," he said. Now all we need is for some drunk kid to put someone's eye out while re-enacting a scene from X-Men 2 while completely sloshed...
Well, it's apparent now that SCO is not claiming that there has been any "direct copying" of code from System V into Linux. Instead, they're arguing that IBM and Sequent's licenses to use System V source code prohibited them from making publicly available any portion of the source code of their "derivative work," that is to say, code that they developed based on System V.
The problem with SCO's reasoning is that the RCU code is completely separate from System V. It doesn't contain any System V code at all. As such, it isn't a derivative work. Despite this, SCO is claiming that any code at all that IBM or Sequent developed for their respective System V derivatives (AIX and Dynix/ptx) is either owned by SCO or is to be treated under the same terms as the System V source code itself.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse! However, given the side letter AT&T issued to IBM in 1985 telling IBM that IBM's own non-derivative source code belonged to, well, IBM, I doubt SCO's claims will bear up in court.
It's really too bad that you need a "Hyperspace Login" (read: Give-us-the-right-to-spam-you-into-the-next-age Login) to see like 99% of the content on the site.
Having a movie spoiled was never this difficult on AICN.
One potential problem with the rollout of electronic voting hardware and software in this country is that many people automatically assume that electronic devices are more reliable and less prone to failure than the older voting hardware, when it certainly appears that this is not the case.
I'm sure that at least some non-tech-savvy election officials are content with the Diebold machines on the basis that "at least they won't have dimpled chads," or something similar. As a result, the people in the know (ie, anyone who knows the inherent unreliability and insecurity of the Diebold devices) should be making it very clear to everyone else that the superiority of newer technology ain't necessarily so.
Motorola has been having problems with their advanced semiconductor products, particularly PowerPC microprocessors, for years. When Apple first released the Power Mac G4, there were so many fabrication problems at Motorola's chip foundries that Apple initially had to scale back what were supposed to be 500MHz G4s to 450MHz, a move that really hurt Apple's credibility in the computing world.
More recently, Moto had been having problems delivering G4 7447s in sufficient quantities for Apple to release their Powerbook upgrades, including the much-ballyhooed 15" Aluminum model. In any case, Apple's decision to go with IBM's PowerPC technology was probably motivated as much by pragmatic corporate survivalism as any other factor -- they simply couldn't afford to be tied down by a semiconductor sloth like Motorola.
In any case, I doubt this means much for Moto's embedded processor and microcontroller business, which has been thriving for quite some time. It just doesn't operate under the same pressure as the rapidly advancing world of high-performance microprocessor products. The 68HC11 and HCS12 will probably be around for a very long time to come.
Just as a brief footnote, it's important to remember that most of the so-called church fathers read the New Testament in Latin, either in the Old Latin version (which bordered on translationese) or the equally bad Vulgate, which Erasmus himself exposed as a terrible translation of the Greek.
Consequently, any agreement between the church fathers and the TR can be said to be essentially meaningless to understanding the text.
"The name "Textus Receptus" comes from a quote in the introduction of Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir's edition published in 1633 "
/.er was referring specifically to the edition used in the preparation of the KJV, which would probably have been either Erasmus' original 1516-8 work or one of the subsequent emendations, and I didn't want any confusion. Caveat emptor and all that.
Absolutely correct, which also points out that the TR has many editions spread out over several centuries... however, the other
Using just a few manuscripts can lead to substantial problems in the reading of a text. Bear in mind that the New Testament's various books were all completed sometime toward the end of the first century AD. Now, no printing presses existed then, so a copy of a manuscript was only as good as its copyist was attentive. The Hebrew scribal tradition was brilliant and included a number of error checking and correction methodologies, but the Greek and Latin-tradition scribes weren't always the sharpest quills in the inkwell and sometimes made some very glaring errors in copying. These errors were of course preserved in all copies originating from the first copy, along with whatever other errors the next scribe introduced.
Errors that crop up in succession can thus alter the fundamental meaning of a passage to the extent that it's no longer commensurate with what the original author actually meant! Accordingly, it is absolutely vital in examining as multifarious a text as the New Testament that as many ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments from as many different traditions as possible be used to prepare an "emended" text that is as close to the original as possible. This is the work of the Nestle-Aland and UBS revisions of the New Testament, and their scholarship has provided a firm basis upon which the modern translations rest.
"Erasmus was fully aware of the Alexandrian manuscripts " Actually, the distinction between the Alexandrine and Byzantine manuscript traditions wasn't made until the time of Westcott and Hort in the 19th century. Erasmus certainly couldn't have known about Sinaiticus considering it was collecting dust in a Russian monastery at the time. Erasmus was a brilliant man, but bear in mind that he was working within his limits as one man with a limited manuscript collection. Flip open any copy of the NA/UBS to the introduction and you'll find listings of the hundreds, if not thousands, of sources used in that edition's creation. Erasmus' 1516-8 TR was one man's work for a couple of years with a few manuscripts. The NA/UBS text represents the work of hundreds of scholars for close to 70 years with hundreds of sources simply not available to Erasmus. "Indeed today the manuscript evidence for the TR is up to something over 5000 (including papyrus fragments and bits here and there)." "Fragments and bits?" The reliable papyrus fragments (including P64 and P67 particularly, the former of which has been dated by some sources to be as early as 70AD) clearly show Alexandrine readings, and are the sources in the NA/UBS text for their respective passages (various passages in Matthew, IIRC). I haven't done much Web-based reading about textual criticism, but a good primer is available here: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/intro.html
"It is widely known that the best Greek text is the "Textus Receptus"; the altered text or "Westcott and Hort" or "Nestle-Aland" text is the one based on the corrupted manuscripts." This is idiotic, and I'll explain why: The Textus Receptus was created in 1518 by Desiderius Erasmus, a very wise scholar of many ancient languages. Unfortunately, dear old Erasmus had access to only a handful of Byzantine-tradition manuscripts for his Textus Receptus, so it absolutely positively cannot be a more reliable source than the emended texts available today. Incidentally, his only copy of the book of Revelations was missing the last few pages! His solution: he retranslated the Vulgate's Latin text of the pages into Greek, so his last few chapters of Revelation were a translation of a translation... think about a video that goes through multiple standards conversions and you get the impression of what the TR's last few pages of Revelations look like. Ah, the extents to which people will go to discredit Alexandrine-tradition manuscripts anymore... (of course, the Gospel of John text in Sinaiticus is Byzantine, but I suppose that spells the difference between "badly corrupted" and "totally corrupted" to the otherwise uneducated.
Almost all major translation efforts carried out since the release of the Revised Standard Version have used as their reference texts the Nestle-Aland and UBS revisions of the Greek New Testament, which are critical texts based on the oldest available sources for the NT. There is no doubt that translations effected today are based on much better-attested texts than what was available to the creators of the King James Version, since certain discoveries had simply not been made by that point. In fact, one of the "baseline" texts for the NA/UBS editions is Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century well-preserved Greek New Testament manuscript that was only rediscovered in the nineteenth century. Hic parvus porcus ad forum veni...
... what this is going to do to family photos taken on holiday. "Honey, could you and the kids move forward a few steps? I'm still not in the hotspot yet."