When he writes, "is a bit hard right now" it looks to me like he is referring to people's memory. The intelligence agencies aren't able to read peoples memories, their thoughts, from inside their skull. We're still a long way from that, although there are a few steps in that direction.
As I said, I respect you for finally manning up and admitting you were wrong, and I accept your apology, so no no worries!
In your dreams, but not in the real world. Just so you're clear: I'm right. You are wrong. I've never apologized since I have nothing to apologize for. You claiming that I apologized is a lie and a fantasy of yours, it never happened. It is, at best, a lie you tell yourself so you don't have to face up to your incompetence in dealing with Unix history. I think this should be clear, unless you continue to have problems with dyslexia that conveniently crop up when you want to imagine something else being said to protect your ego. Having your respect isn't something I worry about.
AT&T didn't treat Unix as a commercial product that they tried to sell until about 1982-83. That was a consequence of their monopoly status. By then Unix had existed for about 13-14 years.
The first couple of versions of Unix didn't even have a copyright notice in the source, a consequence of the way it started, i.e. not an official, supported, approved project. The first version of Unix with a copyright in the sources was version 3, which shows a Bell Telephone Labs copyright notice, not an AT&T notice.
So, I'm afraid you're stuck. It wasn't developed as a product as you claim. The C language wasn't developed to create it as you claim, Unix was created first. The people that wrote it did it because they wanted to do it, not because it was an assigned project. They had no official support to do it. The only funding they had when they created it was the same funding that they had to eat lunch and take bathroom breaks.
You didn't get much of anything right about its history. I have no reason to believe you have ever even read the paper you posted the link to.
But at least you make up for that by abusive posts and trolling.
Your first post was wrong, and you haven't managed to get it right since. In fact, you just keep digging. Multiple people have told you you're wrong. So far you are stuck at "potty break" funding. Sorry, but no. I'm right. It's tough for you to admit, but that's the breaks. Too bad for you.
You must have misread his post since he admitted no such thing. If you want to call it "paid research" it was "paid research" in the same sense that potty breaks and lunch breaks are paid research. There was no approved project for them to do it. If you want to claim there is, then show me the citation. I've already quoted where their project was denied.
Big Blue was an officially sanctioned project at IBM with considerable corporate support. Unix was not in the same position. There was no approved project. Claiming that Unix development at the start was funded by Bell Labs puts Unix in the same category as eating lunch or going to the restroom - something that salaried employees do in between the approved projects that you are actually paying them to do.
The only way that it could be said that the development of Unix was funded would be to put it in the same category as eating lunch or using the restroom - it was something that salaried employees in between the things that you were actually paying for them to do in approved projects. There was no approved project for Unix when they were writing it. So you are in fact wrong.
They said "no" to their operating system project, part of which was purchasing a computer.
... I am quite sure that at that time operating systems were not, for our management, an attractive area in which to support work. They were in the process of extricating themselves not only from an operating system development effort that had failed, but from running the local Computation Center. --- Dennis M. Ritchie
The only person that is confused here is you, and anyone that actually believes the nonsense you're posting in multiple places in the thread starting with my original post. That paper isn't news to me, I first read it long ago. I haven't seen any reason to believe that you have ever read it at all despite the fact that you link to it. You keep getting basic facts about the history of the development of Unix wrong despite the presence of the facts in the paper. You got the history of the development of the C language wrong. You keep making spurious claims consistent with your incorrect belief that Unix started as an officially approved project when the truth is that it didn't. There was no approved Unix project when they started writing it. So the only thing "weird" going on here is that you won't acknowledge that you are wrong despite the evidence against you in the paper you link to. One might suspect that you are tolling, or simply too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.
Unofficial bootleg project with no support from the company after their project request was rejected. Wrote space game and developed project they wanted to do, not as a work requirement. It's in the paper.
"It's worth remembering that Unix got its start as more or less as a fun project - there wasn't a plan to conquer the world."
I'm not sure if you actually believe that or it is more trolling. In case you really believe it, feel free to stand corrected
Unix was a very serious project funded by a monopoly (at the time) called AT&T - specifically AT&T's Bell Labs, and the C language was literally invented by Kerhnigan and Ritchie just so they could develop it. The goal was certainly not to have fun.
You didn't get much right in your reply, in fact much of it is backwards. Allow me to correct you. They originally requested a computer to write an operating system, but that was denied. They then bootlegged a computer, wrote a game, and hacked on an operating system without it being an official project, and eventually got buy-in to buy a computer to build a text processing system, not an operating system. Unix was already in existence by the time they were allowed to purchase a computer for the text processing system. (I will also note that as a monopoly they were under very tight restrictions about what they could do with Unix in terms of sales.) From the above paper:
Throughout 1969 we (mainly Ossanna, Thompson, Ritchie) lobbied intensively for the purchase of a medium-scale machine for which we promised to write an operating system; the machines we suggested were the DEC PDP-10 and the SDS (later Xerox) Sigma 7. The effort was frustrating, because our proposals were never clearly and finally turned down, but yet were certainly never accepted. Several times it seemed we were very near success. The final blow to this effort came when we presented an exquisitely complicated proposal, designed to minimize financial outlay, that involved some outright purchase, some third-party lease, and a plan to turn in a DEC KA-10 processor on the soon-to-be-announced and more capable KI-10. The proposal was rejected, and rumor soon had it that W. O. Baker (then vice-president of Research) had reacted to it with the comment `Bell Laboratories just doesn't do business this way!'....
Also during 1969, Thompson developed the game of `Space Travel.' First written on Multics, then transliterated into Fortran for GECOS (the operating system for the GE, later Honeywell, 635), it was nothing less than a simulation of the movement of the major bodies of the Solar System, with the player guiding a ship here and there, observing the scenery, and attempting to land on the various planets and moons. The GECOS version was unsatisfactory in two important respects: first, the display of the state of the game was jerky and hard to control because one had to type commands at it, and second, a game cost about $75 for CPU time on the big computer. It did not take long, therefore, for Thompson to find a little-used PDP-7 computer with an excellent display processor; the whole system was used as a Graphic-II terminal. He and I rewrote Space Travel to run on this machine. The undertaking was more ambitious than it might seem; because we disdained all existing software, we had to write a floating-point arithmetic package, the pointwise specification of the graphic characters for the display, and a debugging subsystem that continuously displayed the contents of typed-in locations in a corner of the screen. All this was written in assembly language for a cross-assembler that ran under GECOS and produced paper tapes to be carried to the PDP-7....
Space Travel, though it made a very attractive game, served mainly as an introduction to the clumsy technology of preparing programs for the PDP-7. Soon Thompson began implementing the paper file system (perhaps `chalk file system' would be more accurate) that had been designed earlier. A file system without a way to e
In addition, the Court of Review has jurisdiction over petitions for review of a decision under section 501(f)(2) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. 1861(f)(2), to affirm, modify, or set aside a production order or nondisclosure order filed by the government or any person receiving such an order.35 Upon the request of the government, any order setting aside a nondisclosure order shall be stayed pending such review.36
The Court of Review shall provide for the record a written statement of the reasons for its decision and, on petition by the government or any person receiving such order for writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
That takes care of the appeal to the Supreme Court as well.
If you think your little parade of horrors is a reasonable representation of the US, then it might be a good idea for you to vacation elsewhere. You probably wouldn't enjoy yourself since you would be continually casting paranoid glances around wondering where all the repression was, and how they manage to hide it from you. The existential torment might drive you mad.
The FISA court has rejected a small number of warrant requests, the government has withdrawn nearly three times as many itself, and many, many more have been modified by the court - about 4.3%.
Aside from the question of who gets to act as producer, how is this different from using CNN to do the same thing?
The message: Terrorism as a "glorious victory of jihad and martyrdom leading to paradise", or terrorism as "a mass atrocity and embarrassment to its co-religionists in particular, and humanity in general."
So in short, this is just another "power" narrative to you, and you're in favor of "power to the people" even if it is power to those who are killing the people?
Slashdot Mirror
When he writes, "is a bit hard right now" it looks to me like he is referring to people's memory. The intelligence agencies aren't able to read peoples memories, their thoughts, from inside their skull. We're still a long way from that, although there are a few steps in that direction.
As I said, I respect you for finally manning up and admitting you were wrong, and I accept your apology, so no no worries!
In your dreams, but not in the real world. Just so you're clear: I'm right. You are wrong. I've never apologized since I have nothing to apologize for. You claiming that I apologized is a lie and a fantasy of yours, it never happened. It is, at best, a lie you tell yourself so you don't have to face up to your incompetence in dealing with Unix history. I think this should be clear, unless you continue to have problems with dyslexia that conveniently crop up when you want to imagine something else being said to protect your ego. Having your respect isn't something I worry about.
AT&T didn't treat Unix as a commercial product that they tried to sell until about 1982-83. That was a consequence of their monopoly status. By then Unix had existed for about 13-14 years.
The first couple of versions of Unix didn't even have a copyright notice in the source, a consequence of the way it started, i.e. not an official, supported, approved project. The first version of Unix with a copyright in the sources was version 3, which shows a Bell Telephone Labs copyright notice, not an AT&T notice.
So, I'm afraid you're stuck. It wasn't developed as a product as you claim. The C language wasn't developed to create it as you claim, Unix was created first. The people that wrote it did it because they wanted to do it, not because it was an assigned project. They had no official support to do it. The only funding they had when they created it was the same funding that they had to eat lunch and take bathroom breaks.
You didn't get much of anything right about its history. I have no reason to believe you have ever even read the paper you posted the link to.
But at least you make up for that by abusive posts and trolling.
Do you have any insights as to why they might have been made illegal in the first place?
Your first post was wrong, and you haven't managed to get it right since. In fact, you just keep digging. Multiple people have told you you're wrong. So far you are stuck at "potty break" funding. Sorry, but no. I'm right. It's tough for you to admit, but that's the breaks. Too bad for you.
First, it wasn't my post. Second, I wrote "misread" not "miss". But that mistake of yours might explain a lot....
So, how big of a media platform do you want to give these guys?
You must have misread his post since he admitted no such thing. If you want to call it "paid research" it was "paid research" in the same sense that potty breaks and lunch breaks are paid research. There was no approved project for them to do it. If you want to claim there is, then show me the citation. I've already quoted where their project was denied.
Big Blue was an officially sanctioned project at IBM with considerable corporate support. Unix was not in the same position. There was no approved project. Claiming that Unix development at the start was funded by Bell Labs puts Unix in the same category as eating lunch or going to the restroom - something that salaried employees do in between the approved projects that you are actually paying them to do.
The only way that it could be said that the development of Unix was funded would be to put it in the same category as eating lunch or using the restroom - it was something that salaried employees in between the things that you were actually paying for them to do in approved projects. There was no approved project for Unix when they were writing it. So you are in fact wrong.
They said "no" to their operating system project, part of which was purchasing a computer.
... I am quite sure that at that time operating systems were not, for our management, an attractive area in which to support work. They were in the process of extricating themselves not only from an operating system development effort that had failed, but from running the local Computation Center. --- Dennis M. Ritchie
The only person that is confused here is you, and anyone that actually believes the nonsense you're posting in multiple places in the thread starting with my original post. That paper isn't news to me, I first read it long ago. I haven't seen any reason to believe that you have ever read it at all despite the fact that you link to it. You keep getting basic facts about the history of the development of Unix wrong despite the presence of the facts in the paper. You got the history of the development of the C language wrong. You keep making spurious claims consistent with your incorrect belief that Unix started as an officially approved project when the truth is that it didn't. There was no approved Unix project when they started writing it. So the only thing "weird" going on here is that you won't acknowledge that you are wrong despite the evidence against you in the paper you link to. One might suspect that you are tolling, or simply too stubborn to admit when you are wrong.
This paper should clear up some confusion.
Respect. ;D
Unofficial bootleg project with no support from the company after their project request was rejected. Wrote space game and developed project they wanted to do, not as a work requirement. It's in the paper.
Everything I quoted is directly from the sources. Go read it, you'll be better for it. You didn't get much of that right, at all.
I don't really have to do much of anything to make you look bad to anyone knowledgeable, but your snark is very appealing to the uninformed.
Your history is a bit off.
I'm not sure if you actually believe that or it is more trolling. In case you really believe it, feel free to stand corrected
Unix was a very serious project funded by a monopoly (at the time) called AT&T - specifically AT&T's Bell Labs, and the C language was literally invented by Kerhnigan and Ritchie just so they could develop it. The goal was certainly not to have fun.
You didn't get much right in your reply, in fact much of it is backwards. Allow me to correct you. They originally requested a computer to write an operating system, but that was denied. They then bootlegged a computer, wrote a game, and hacked on an operating system without it being an official project, and eventually got buy-in to buy a computer to build a text processing system, not an operating system. Unix was already in existence by the time they were allowed to purchase a computer for the text processing system. (I will also note that as a monopoly they were under very tight restrictions about what they could do with Unix in terms of sales.) From the above paper:
Throughout 1969 we (mainly Ossanna, Thompson, Ritchie) lobbied intensively for the purchase of a medium-scale machine for which we promised to write an operating system; the machines we suggested were the DEC PDP-10 and the SDS (later Xerox) Sigma 7. The effort was frustrating, because our proposals were never clearly and finally turned down, but yet were certainly never accepted. Several times it seemed we were very near success. The final blow to this effort came when we presented an exquisitely complicated proposal, designed to minimize financial outlay, that involved some outright purchase, some third-party lease, and a plan to turn in a DEC KA-10 processor on the soon-to-be-announced and more capable KI-10. The proposal was rejected, and rumor soon had it that W. O. Baker (then vice-president of Research) had reacted to it with the comment `Bell Laboratories just doesn't do business this way!' ....
Also during 1969, Thompson developed the game of `Space Travel.' First written on Multics, then transliterated into Fortran for GECOS (the operating system for the GE, later Honeywell, 635), it was nothing less than a simulation of the movement of the major bodies of the Solar System, with the player guiding a ship here and there, observing the scenery, and attempting to land on the various planets and moons. The GECOS version was unsatisfactory in two important respects: first, the display of the state of the game was jerky and hard to control because one had to type commands at it, and second, a game cost about $75 for CPU time on the big computer. It did not take long, therefore, for Thompson to find a little-used PDP-7 computer with an excellent display processor; the whole system was used as a Graphic-II terminal. He and I rewrote Space Travel to run on this machine. The undertaking was more ambitious than it might seem; because we disdained all existing software, we had to write a floating-point arithmetic package, the pointwise specification of the graphic characters for the display, and a debugging subsystem that continuously displayed the contents of typed-in locations in a corner of the screen. All this was written in assembly language for a cross-assembler that ran under GECOS and produced paper tapes to be carried to the PDP-7. ...
Space Travel, though it made a very attractive game, served mainly as an introduction to the clumsy technology of preparing programs for the PDP-7. Soon Thompson began implementing the paper file system (perhaps `chalk file system' would be more accurate) that had been designed earlier. A file system without a way to e
"Ima gonna write a new unix". That's One Huge Task.
It was a much smaller task at the time.
It's worth remembering that Unix got its start as more or less as a fun project - there wasn't a plan to conquer the world.
Yes, other entities can appeal.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: An Overview
In addition, the Court of Review has jurisdiction over petitions for review of a decision under section 501(f)(2) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. 1861(f)(2), to affirm, modify, or set aside a production order or nondisclosure order filed by the government or any person receiving such an order.35 Upon the request of the government, any order setting aside a nondisclosure order shall be stayed pending such review.36
The Court of Review shall provide for the record a written statement of the reasons for its decision and, on petition by the government or any person receiving such order for writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
That takes care of the appeal to the Supreme Court as well.
If you think your little parade of horrors is a reasonable representation of the US, then it might be a good idea for you to vacation elsewhere. You probably wouldn't enjoy yourself since you would be continually casting paranoid glances around wondering where all the repression was, and how they manage to hide it from you. The existential torment might drive you mad.
You are still misinformed, and mistaken.
The FISA court has rejected a small number of warrant requests, the government has withdrawn nearly three times as many itself, and many, many more have been modified by the court - about 4.3%.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: A Look At The Judges Who Preside Over America's Secret Court
Companies that receive FISA warrants, like Yahoo, have challenged them in the FISA court.
Yes, but imagine the devastating impact if they get dropped: RIM - so bad that even terrorists won't use it*.
* For parody use only.
Aside from the question of who gets to act as producer, how is this different from using CNN to do the same thing?
The message: Terrorism as a "glorious victory of jihad and martyrdom leading to paradise", or terrorism as "a mass atrocity and embarrassment to its co-religionists in particular, and humanity in general."
So in short, this is just another "power" narrative to you, and you're in favor of "power to the people" even if it is power to those who are killing the people?