I can't speak for *your* copy of/usr/src, since you could have rm -rf/usr/src/sys/contrib. Mine has plenty, though. The policy of FreeBSD is (and I beleive has been for a long time) that the "contrib" directories have much more lenient restrictions on what licenses are acceptable. See, for example:
In recent years, you get a ton of information on the movie XXX, also spelled xXx. However, I call shenanigans, as 4 of the top 10 Google hits are, in fact, porn sites.
In other news, sun continues to fuse hydrogen into helium, dogs continue to lick their own testicles, and I continue to wonder if any real news will ever hit/. again.
It seems to me like they just set up a simple network with small amount of PCs, connected by wires (no "wi-fi", or the BSG equivalent). If that's the case, then how the frack would the cylons even know that there was a network to hack into?!?!
One of the key points in the pilot episode of the mini series was that Galactica's way antiquated computer equipment is the very reason it survived the Cylon attacks.
The more advanced, newer battlestars had complex networked computer systems. Perhaps not quite "sentient and speaking with the voice of the ship's chief nurse" advanced, but well beyond what Galactica does. The cylons are able to take over the ship's computer systems, and any other electronic stuff in the vicinity, from a good distance.
Galactica's systems are all essentially running standalone, with the humans providing the required communications between them. Think of the difference between a dozen PCs on the Internet vs. a dozen on a Sneakernet -- which group's getting compromised first?
The implication is that the Cylons, as soon as they get within thinking distance of the Galactica, begin trying to infiltrate it's computer systems. Their efforts are generall fruitless because the only systems they can manage to get into aren't connected to any critical weapons/nav/support systems. Once Gata hooked them all together to maximize Galactica's computing power, the Cylons noticed and started their assault.
1) To prevent confusion with the contraction of "it is".
2) Because possessive pronouns do not follow this convention. The possessive nature of these words is implicit.
I find it somewhat odd that no one can ever remember the different between "its" and "it's", but you never see people say stuff like "He didn't take hi's medicine today.". His/her(s)/its are all the same part of speech.
We all looked at each other for a moment with apparent confusion until we realized that this tard still believed that television shows occur in a particular order
Judging by my TiVo, they do! They air in the following order:
Good Eats -> Good Eats -> Daily Show -> Forensic Files -> Forensic Files -> Good Eats ->...
People who server in the military learn to take orders, perhaps really dumb orders
If this truly reflects your experience with military training, then it's no wonder our country is in such bad shape. If we were training our military properly, they would learn two very important things:
1) How to take orders, and 2) When to disobey them.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice very clearly states that members of the military are bound by their oath to obey lawful orders. The relevant sections (violation punishable by court martial in all cases):
Article 90: "Any person subject to this chapter who--
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer"
Article 91: "Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer"
Article 92: "Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order"
(emphasis added)
Obeying an order known to be unlawful puts the soldier in as much legal responsibility as the commander who issued them. "I was just following orders" is far from a foolproof way to avoid criminal prosecution.
Determining what is or isn't lawful may be tricky, especially in combat situations, but it's highly unusual for a soldier to be court martialed for disobeying an order they has clear reason to beleive was unlawful at the time. Assaulting non-combatants and actions in violation of US law (like treason) would fall in this category, as would most actions that violate international laws regarding war crimes, or and active treaties.
I will now take this opportunity to answer your blatently condescending, and quite ridiculous, statement with and equally condesending and ridiculous one of my own:
Frankly, I'd rather you spend your time learning about the past 200 years of American political and social history, than learning how to shoot a rifle in combat, before you try to act like you know what's best for the country. You go follow orders over seas and let the smart people figure out what those orders should be.
The real question is, how much time did the people at Salary.com and AOL waste at work to produce this study enough the amount of time everyone ELSE wasted at work?
I'm not quite ready to write it off to Intel's shenanigans yet, but this would explain why I seem to have so much more problems running high-end games on my PCs than the general public:x
the book used the word shall so much when I tried to count the amount Adobe Reader hung for 2 minutes.
Did you take into account the fact that the book quotes the entire ISO C99 standard, for which the word "shall" has a specific meaning? And which uses the word "shall" to describe a large number of requirements for a conforming implementation?
Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ
Incorrect. I am a recovering Catholic, so I have some major issues with their beleifs from the perspective of living in the real world, but this is not one of them. They beleive that the priest *petitions Jesus* to turn the host into his body, like he did at the Last Supper, so that the congregation can gain the same benefits as the Apostles.
In general, Catholics do not ever profess to beleive that people have their own internal "super powers" -- not the pope, or priests, or even saints. Their beleive is that these people have a much closer connection with God. God then performs performs such miraculous works as the consecration at mass, the pope's infallible statements, etc., using the person as his agent.
While I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, the implication is that God could easily just do these things without human intercession, but that having a person act as his agnet to do them provides a more comfortable and easily understood experience that simply having full written Papal bulls appear from thin air.
"Some" modifications is a bit of an understatement. It's much more accurate to say that OS X is built on Mach with some modifications, and a FreeBSDish userland. Mach is certainly not "real" UNIX, thus neither is OS X.
Not being real UNIX isn't exactly a bad thing. After all, SCO386 is (was?) a real UNIX and it's a steaming pile of SCO.
Even crackheads can be right sometimes, especially when half the planet saw it coming. As far as killing Linux, in case no one noticed, *EVERYTHING* is going to kill Linux, if you listen to Dvorak.
Apple switch to Intel: Death of Linux Bitkeeper Drops OSS Support: Death of Linux SCO Sued IBM: Death of Linux Firefox gets popular: Death of Linux Linus Torvalds sneezes: Death of Linux
This guy is a useless hack with absolutely no credibility. Why does/. even bother printing his name anymore, let alone linking to his useless articles?
Re:Microsoft's Underdog
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Well it keeps to the spirit of their software! It just works.
There is no real consensus on how this is "supposed" to work. The entire 127/8 is reserved for loopback purposes, but that doesn't mean it *must be* associated with the loopback device:
C:\Documents and Settings\kutulu>ver Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] C:\Documents and Settings\kutulu>ping 127.0.0.2
Pinging 127.0.0.2 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=128 Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=128
kutulu@system1:~$ uname -rs Linux 2.4.28 kutulu@system1:~$ ping 127.0.0.2 PING 127.0.0.2 (127.0.0.2): 56 octets data 64 octets from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms 64 octets from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
JasperReports will stay open source forever, and its advancement will accelerate with the additional resources now being applied to it. JasperSoft and I are committed to investing in, and building the best open source reporting products available.
Right. Because cars are *so* standardized that this is a brilliant comparison.
I mean, if my Ford Escape breaks down I can just go digging into the guts of my wife's Honda Civic she never drives and start swapping out engine parts -- cuz it's all standardized, right?
It would be great if I *could* -- but instead, due to the lack of automotive standards I get to pick through the local auto parts store's 9 billion page catalog.
(NB: I don't think car parts should be standardized, I just think it's ridiculous to compare my car's engine to a C compiler.)
Ideally you will probably want OpenBSD on a router/gateway, since it's typically considered 'more secure' than the others. This is really 'more secure out-of-box', though, since a little effort with any *BSD will get you to the game point.
However, having installed all four of them in the past 2 months, I can tell you that FreeBSD is the easiest to get up and running. The FreeBSD installer, and all it's well-documented problems, is still much better than the install process for OpenBSD or NetBSD. I would suggest installing the latest released version of FreeBSD 5.x, get used to that, and then try moving up to -STABLE. This will get you used to the ports process, the rebuilding world process, and the general operating of a BSD system.
Once you are used to BSD, if you feel a need to migrate off of FreeBSD, I would suggest OpenBSD. I would avoid NetBSD unless you need it's platform support, as (IMO) it's the most advanced-admin-centric of the BSD variations.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for *your* copy of /usr/src, since you could have rm -rf /usr/src/sys/contrib. Mine has plenty, though. The policy of FreeBSD is (and I beleive has been for a long time) that the "contrib" directories have much more lenient restrictions on what licenses are acceptable. See, for example:
/usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/ath -name *.uu /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/ath/COPYRIGHT
find
cat
I beleive sys/contrib/dev/nve also has binary-only drivers too. (No COPYRIGHT notice there, so who knows what the terms are.)
In recent years, you get a ton of information on the movie XXX, also spelled xXx. However, I call shenanigans, as 4 of the top 10 Google hits are, in fact, porn sites.
Only if you spell it "Triple X Syndrome", with quotes :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome
In other news, sun continues to fuse hydrogen into helium, dogs continue to lick their own testicles, and I continue to wonder if any real news will ever hit /. again.
infiltrate it's computer systems
:x
And before anyone yells at me, yes, this is a typo (from some way-to-fast editing), and should be "its".
One of the key points in the pilot episode of the mini series was that Galactica's way antiquated computer equipment is the very reason it survived the Cylon attacks.
The more advanced, newer battlestars had complex networked computer systems. Perhaps not quite "sentient and speaking with the voice of the ship's chief nurse" advanced, but well beyond what Galactica does. The cylons are able to take over the ship's computer systems, and any other electronic stuff in the vicinity, from a good distance.
Galactica's systems are all essentially running standalone, with the humans providing the required communications between them. Think of the difference between a dozen PCs on the Internet vs. a dozen on a Sneakernet -- which group's getting compromised first?
The implication is that the Cylons, as soon as they get within thinking distance of the Galactica, begin trying to infiltrate it's computer systems. Their efforts are generall fruitless because the only systems they can manage to get into aren't connected to any critical weapons/nav/support systems. Once Gata hooked them all together to maximize Galactica's computing power, the Cylons noticed and started their assault.
Two reasons:
1) To prevent confusion with the contraction of "it is".
2) Because possessive pronouns do not follow this convention. The possessive nature of these words is implicit.
I find it somewhat odd that no one can ever remember the different between "its" and "it's", but you never see people say stuff like "He didn't take hi's medicine today.". His/her(s)/its are all the same part of speech.
Judging by my TiVo, they do! They air in the following order:
Good Eats -> Good Eats -> Daily Show -> Forensic Files -> Forensic Files -> Good Eats ->
You might as well give up.
It will take you longer to type in the install commands than it will take the show to air in it's entirety. Twice. On back to back weekends.
--K
To be fair: Say "ATM" around a collection of geeks and see what's the first thing that pops into their head.
If this truly reflects your experience with military training, then it's no wonder our country is in such bad shape. If we were training our military properly, they would learn two very important things:
1) How to take orders, and
2) When to disobey them.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice very clearly states that members of the military are bound by their oath to obey lawful orders. The relevant sections (violation punishable by court martial in all cases):
Article 90: "Any person subject to this chapter who--
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer"
Article 91: "Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer"
Article 92: "Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order"
(emphasis added)
Obeying an order known to be unlawful puts the soldier in as much legal responsibility as the commander who issued them. "I was just following orders" is far from a foolproof way to avoid criminal prosecution.
Determining what is or isn't lawful may be tricky, especially in combat situations, but it's highly unusual for a soldier to be court martialed for disobeying an order they has clear reason to beleive was unlawful at the time. Assaulting non-combatants and actions in violation of US law (like treason) would fall in this category, as would most actions that violate international laws regarding war crimes, or and active treaties.
"If you didn't serve, don't vote
I will now take this opportunity to answer your blatently condescending, and quite ridiculous, statement with and equally condesending and ridiculous one of my own:
Frankly, I'd rather you spend your time learning about the past 200 years of American political and social history, than learning how to shoot a rifle in combat, before you try to act like you know what's best for the country. You go follow orders over seas and let the smart people figure out what those orders should be.
--K
Should Read:
"...produce this study about the amount of time..."
Clearly I need to waste more time at work reading the Preview of my posts to
The real question is, how much time did the people at Salary.com and AOL waste at work to produce this study enough the amount of time everyone ELSE wasted at work?
I'm not quite ready to write it off to Intel's shenanigans yet, but this would explain why I seem to have so much more problems running high-end games on my PCs than the general public :x
Did you take into account the fact that the book quotes the entire ISO C99 standard, for which the word "shall" has a specific meaning? And which uses the word "shall" to describe a large number of requirements for a conforming implementation?
Incorrect. I am a recovering Catholic, so I have some major issues with their beleifs from the perspective of living in the real world, but this is not one of them. They beleive that the priest *petitions Jesus* to turn the host into his body, like he did at the Last Supper, so that the congregation can gain the same benefits as the Apostles.
In general, Catholics do not ever profess to beleive that people have their own internal "super powers" -- not the pope, or priests, or even saints. Their beleive is that these people have a much closer connection with God. God then performs performs such miraculous works as the consecration at mass, the pope's infallible statements, etc., using the person as his agent.
While I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, the implication is that God could easily just do these things without human intercession, but that having a person act as his agnet to do them provides a more comfortable and easily understood experience that simply having full written Papal bulls appear from thin air.
"Some" modifications is a bit of an understatement. It's much more accurate to say that OS X is built on Mach with some modifications, and a FreeBSDish userland. Mach is certainly not "real" UNIX, thus neither is OS X.
Not being real UNIX isn't exactly a bad thing. After all, SCO386 is (was?) a real UNIX and it's a steaming pile of SCO.
Even crackheads can be right sometimes, especially when half the planet saw it coming. As far as killing Linux, in case no one noticed, *EVERYTHING* is going to kill Linux, if you listen to Dvorak.
/. even bother printing his name anymore, let alone linking to his useless articles?
Apple switch to Intel: Death of Linux
Bitkeeper Drops OSS Support: Death of Linux
SCO Sued IBM: Death of Linux
Firefox gets popular: Death of Linux
Linus Torvalds sneezes: Death of Linux
This guy is a useless hack with absolutely no credibility. Why does
There is no real consensus on how this is "supposed" to work. The entire 127/8 is reserved for loopback purposes, but that doesn't mean it *must be* associated with the loopback device:
C:\Documents and Settings\kutulu>ver
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
C:\Documents and Settings\kutulu>ping 127.0.0.2
Pinging 127.0.0.2 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time1ms TTL=128
kutulu@system1:~$ uname -rs
Linux 2.4.28
kutulu@system1:~$ ping 127.0.0.2
PING 127.0.0.2 (127.0.0.2): 56 octets data
64 octets from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
64 octets from 127.0.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
kutulu@system2:~$ uname -rs
FreeBSD 5.4-PRERELEASE
kutulu@system2:~$ ping 127.0.0.2
PING 127.0.0.2 (127.0.0.2): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
Wait. You mean the SUMMARY WAS WRONG?
*faint*
Right. Because cars are *so* standardized that this is a brilliant comparison.
I mean, if my Ford Escape breaks down I can just go digging into the guts of my wife's Honda Civic she never drives and start swapping out engine parts -- cuz it's all standardized, right?
It would be great if I *could* -- but instead, due to the lack of automotive standards I get to pick through the local auto parts store's 9 billion page catalog.
(NB: I don't think car parts should be standardized, I just think it's ridiculous to compare my car's engine to a C compiler.)
cd /usr/ports/foo/bar && make all install clean
oh wait... that OS is dead. My fault.
Ideally you will probably want OpenBSD on a router/gateway, since it's typically considered 'more secure' than the others. This is really 'more secure out-of-box', though, since a little effort with any *BSD will get you to the game point.
However, having installed all four of them in the past 2 months, I can tell you that FreeBSD is the easiest to get up and running. The FreeBSD installer, and all it's well-documented problems, is still much better than the install process for OpenBSD or NetBSD. I would suggest installing the latest released version of FreeBSD 5.x, get used to that, and then try moving up to -STABLE. This will get you used to the ports process, the rebuilding world process, and the general operating of a BSD system.
Once you are used to BSD, if you feel a need to migrate off of FreeBSD, I would suggest OpenBSD. I would avoid NetBSD unless you need it's platform support, as (IMO) it's the most advanced-admin-centric of the BSD variations.