You're talking out of your ass. I don't believe you've been in a real Eskimo village. Maybe you spent some time in Barrow or Bethel or Nome or Kotzebue. Those are *towns*, not villages, and the people living there often have jobs that pay real money. In the villages where most Eskimos (and other Alaska Natives) live the unemployment rate is closer to 70%, and you hunt and fish to survive, not just for fun. You said "the parents go to work, if they are lucky enough to have a job". What do you think all those people who don't have jobs do? Wish their food into appearing?
The people living in towns also often get their food from relatives living out in the villages. They send back stuff that they can buy at the store in return. It's a fair trade, since the town people are too busy working their jobs to go out and put up food.
I grew up in Anchorage, but my father worked in construction all around the state doing mostly school repair. I traveled with him to some really remote places like Taititlek, St. Paul & St. George, Gambell & Savoonga, Point Lay, etc. I got to see what life is like in these places up close and in person. Also a number of my friends growing up were Eskimos and Indians from out in the Bush. Since I'm Tlingit, we'd go back to Southeast Alaska to visit family and go out fishing and hunting with relatives. I've never been anywhere off the road system where people didn't survive on subsistence foods to some extent, if not more than half of their diets. What you're talking about is complete nonsense.
And further evidence you have no idea what you're talking about: whales are hunted in small open boats. There are no such things as "factory killing ships". You've clearly never seen a whale hunt, and I'd be surprised if any Eskimos would invite your privileged white lazy fat ass along. I'd bet you've never gone subsistence hunting or fishing either. I certainly wouldn't invite you out or even share any of my traditional foods with you.
Come back when you've actually seen subsistence hunting and fishing, and have actually been in communities where it is the only option for the majority of the diet. And please remember to leave your bigoted opinions back in the Lower 48 where they belong.
There are a number of languages that use clicks, ejectives, and other less common consonants for which the POTS 4 kHz bandwidth is insufficient. Linguists routinely analyse spectrograms of consonants in the 5 to 15 kHz range to determine specific features of articulation. For languages which differentiate consonants in the > 4 kHz spectrum, POTS is unusable. I have had this very experience in discussions over the telephone with speakers of Na-Dené languages, for example, where neither I nor the consultant could effectively communicate a particular word because the frequency band was cut off before some determinant frequency in a consonant. In effect, the limited bandwidth reduced some words to homonyms although they are not in normal speech. So although POTS is sufficient for most languages, there are still some out there which require more bandwidth.
If you really want to be smart about wire pulling, put a loop in each smurf tube with little toy pulleys at either end. Then you don't have to worry about getting a new pull string in when you pull new cable. It's overkill, but then this whole project sounds like overkill anyway.
There are "creole" languages which did not arise from a pidgin language, however. An example is Michif or Metis which is an amalgam of Plains Cree and French. Another is Mednyj Aleut, which is a mix of Russian and Aleut. To differentiate them from the pidgin-creole continuum they are often called "mixed" languages instead.
The reasons why mixed languages arise are somewhat different from the reasons for the development of creole languages, but the former have been and are still called "creole" in some publications.
[[Due [to
[[a [freak [hail storm]]]_i
[[!!!] February 26]]
that []_i
[had [[golf-sized [hail chunks]]
[[raining down]
[on the launchpad]]]]]],
[[???]_j
[put
[several thousand [dings]]
[in [the foam
[covering [the [external [fuel tank]]]]]]]
[as well as
[[]_j
[damaging [28 tiles] [on Atlantis's wing]]]]]]
[]_i is an empty noun phrase which agrees with the determiner phrase [a [freak [hail storm]]_i above.
[!!!] is an empty head for a prepositional phrase that would normally contain "on". It's grammatical to leave this empty (or delete it, if you believe in transformational grammar) in some dialects of English, but not in others.
[???]_j is where there's a noun phrase missing which the empty noun phrase []_j wants to agree with. This is the only real ungrammatical error in the sentence.
There are two punctuation errors which I've corrected, but which have nothing to do with the grammaticality of the sentence. The first is inserting a comma after "launchpad", the second is adding an "s" after "Atlantis'", since it's not a plural possessive but a noun ending in/s/.
I'd draw you a tree but this is text only, sorry.
If I were rewriting this, I'd throw the whole thing out and start again. It looks like someone edited it to death.
There's a bug with iTunes & Uno together that may make iTunes die after having installed Uno. The fix is to download the iTunes DMG and (re)install it after having set up Uno however you want. Presumably this has something to do with changing the guts inside of iTunes, and hopefully will be FITNR of one of the two programs.
From the Uno website there's a link to a Firefox skin which makes it fit the same style as everything else.
Even the on the Lisp Machines the "kernel" code was implemented with manual memory management. There's a very simple reason for this. How do you implement the memory manager? It's a chicken and egg problem, so the lowest levels always have to do memory management by hand.
Also, it's less efficient to simply use one heap for everything. Instead, an OS kernel written in a language with automatic memory management usually maintains large blocks of memory for the various tasks to work in, like an area for packet construction, an area for I/O buffers, etc. The automatic allocator and GC are told which area to work in, and then create or delete stuff in that area as needed.
So no, it's not generally reasonable to implement the lower levels of any OS with automatic memory management. You're free to try, though.
That doesn't apply to Python. In that language, TAB has syntactic effects and must be used for indentation. For Python code most people change their tab widths to something comfortable.
There is a major problem with probiotics. The primary concentration of bacteria and fungi in the gut is in the large intestine, the colon. The small intestine is relatively alkaline, and the stomach is famous for its acidity. Neither area is a hospitable environment for most bacteria, particularly those known for a symbiotic or commensal relationship with humans in the gut. Therefore, administering probiotics orally is unreliable unless they are properly encapsulated to survive passage through the stomach and small intestine. I imagine that those found in e.g. yogurt are not so encapsulated, meaning that the majority are destroyed upon reaching the stomach.
As with other substances such as the vitamin B complex, is possible to administer enough to ensure that some percentage survives the passage through the upper gut to the large intestine, but I don't see how commercial food additives are likely to provide enough mass action for this to occur.
In summary, if you really want to actively change your gut flora and fauna, the best method is through enemas.
> "Folksonomy" probably has some close synonyms in anthropology, but I don't > know how well the mainstream would digest them. I certainly can't think of > a synonym that I could use and be understood by most people.
The term in anthropology is "folk taxonomy". Analyzing folk taxonomies is a central part of ethnoscience, that is the study of how people construct and communicate systems of empirical knowledge and understanding of the world around them. The postmodernists have belittled such study for the last couple of decades however it is starting to make a resurgence.
Re:Great job, now to clean up XML itself
on
Tim Bray Says RELAX
·
· Score: 1
Nonsense. Just stick to READ and don't call EVAL on your data. Or write your own toy EVAL that is restricted to certain known operations.
You might want to set up your own READ macros as well, to ensure that nobody uses #. maliciously.
I do believe that the personal computer you're describing is called a "portable". There were quite a few of these on the market before laptops became so prevalent.
Sorry to be the bad one in the barrel, but "apple" is not an example of affix clipping. The word is actually reconstructed in Proto-Germanic, and also appears in Proto-Slavic and in modern Lithuanian, Latvian, Irish, and Welsh. It's not known how the various words are related, but it is clear that they are since they all begin with/a/ or palatalized/ja/, although Lithuanian has raised the vowel to/o/. In addition, the medial consonant is bilabial in all of the daughter languages, except in Modern German and various high German dialects where it has shifted to the/pf/ cluster and in Welsh and Irish where it is labiodental. This medial consonant is voiced in the Slavic family, in Latvian and Lithuanian, and in Irish. The/l/ appears in various forms in all of these languages, sometimes in a consonant cluster, sometimes palatalized, and sometimes with a following vowel. The Slavic languages have added a/ko/ on the end whose original function is unknown, cf. Russian/jabloko/.
Now, not to compare apples and oranges, but the word "orange" is indeed an example of affix clipping. In this case the loss of initial/n/ seems to have occurred in Italian and French before the word was borrowed into Anglo-Norman and thence into English. However, the OED notes that this may reflect loss of initial/n/ in some varieties of Arabic at the time.
Encryption over HAM bands is illegal. This was mostly to enforce FCC regs that prohibit profanity or commercial activity, and to ensure that all HAM communications have clear self-identification.
However, encryption over unlicensed (ISM) bands is wide open AFAIK.
Perhaps because it assumes that you'll be intelligent? That you won't be doing something silly like trying to spot satellites visually during the daytime?
Knowing where spy satellites are is vital if you're trying to hide something. Since even the US doesn't have and can't afford a globe covering spy satellite system a la Iridium, the eye in the sky can't be watching you every minute of the day. Thus if you know the orbits of the spy satellites you can time things to keep your unpleasant business a secret. Even if you don't know where *all* of the satellites are, knowing where some of them are is better than nothing.
Consider the situation where you want to move a pile of refined weapon-grade plutonium out of your nuclear power station reactor. It's not something you're supposed to be doing, since that reactor is ostensibly for power generation, not for armament production. You don't exactly want to do this when people are watching because it's rather obvious when you park a big shielded truck outside your reactor and load the plutonium onto it. So you want to pick a time that the bird's eye won't be watching, or at least when it won't get a good view of what's going on. This will keep you from having to answer to the IAEA or the UN or any other nuclear busybodies. This worked pretty well for India.
Dave Mills, author of the NTP RFC and main implementor of the NTP server software since time immemorial (back in the Fuzzball distro for PDP-11 days) has an extensive collection of information about time and how it relates to networks. Here's a specific page about the leap second:
No, you are completely wrong. There are *no* redeeming qualities to be found in Manos. As a friend of mine said after watching it "I have just lost two hours of my life that I will never, ever get back. Why?"
Hubs are not pure unadulterated evil. They have one use that is unmatched by other ethernet switching devices. That is, seeing every damned packet crossing a given segment. If you want to be able to snoop on *all* the traffic on a segment then you can't rely on a switch because it's keeping you from all the stuff not directed to your host. So if you're feeling snoopy, you want a hub.
Now, in real life where people don't have a need to snoop, switches are a big win. But my home network sure as hell uses a hub. I don't care if it slows down one or two machines, I want to make sure I can see all the traffic there is, whether it's hitting the router or not.
(Actually, my Nortel is a layer 3 (and 4 sorta) switch so it's not really a hub and I can configure any arbitrary port to receive traffic from all the others. So I lied a little. But if I didn't have my studly switch then I'd be using a hub. Because I'm suspicious.)
Sure it works great. Unless you care about POSIX sigcontext. In which case the SPARC/UltraSPARC Linux kernel sucks like a Hoover. And yes, the SPARC kernel developers know about it, and no they don't give a damned. It's the only version of the Linux kernel with a broken sigcontext implementation.
Oh, and GCC still doesn't support all of UltraSPARC's 64-bit instructions. And no, Linux distros for UltraSPARC don't come compiled 64-bit. And last I checked (a couple months ago) I still couldn't get glibc to compile in 64-bit mode on Linux/UltraSPARC. It just choked somewhere in the middle of the build due to broken code generated by GCC.
Linux kicks ass over Slowlaris and SunOS when run on 32-bit SPARC processors. But when it comes to 64-bit UltraSPARCs it simply bites. And nobody seems to care enough about the lack of performance or support to make it better.
But Linux/UltraSPARC does make a good web server or the like. An Ultra 5 doesn't cost too much more than a similarly rated PC and is essentially immune to all r00tkits because the script kiddies don't have tools for Linux/UltraSPARC. For Linux/x86 yes, and for Solaris/UltraSPARC, but not for Linux on an UltraSPARC. You just get a weird message in your logs and the program in question just dies quietly.
> Even a source archive that requires the 'make install' to be run as root has the same problem.
That's why I don't use 'make install'. I read the code before I compile it, do a pro tem security audit (especially if it's from those OpenBSD Canadian Communist freaks, you can't trust those sneaky bastards), wrap all library and syscalls so they leave audit trails when executed, and finally use 'gcc -save-temps' so I can read the output from the assembler to see that it doesn't insert any secret calls that are embedded in the C library or in the compiler.
I tell ya, it's getting harder and harder nowadays. Reading through the latest rev of the GNU LibC took me a couple of months. Couldn't compile anything new until I finished it.
I'm all in favor of Ximian partnering with someone like Microsoft. It just gives me more reason to tell my users that they can't use any code except that which I have personally reviewed. They're all using Apple//cs right now running my own operating system that I wrote for it in Integer BASIC (can't trust that Applesoft BASIC, it doesn't come built in). As soon as I'm done reading the DIX Ethernet standard I might even let them do things like networking.
America has some of the best, fastest, largest, and most powerful supercomputers on earth. Why aren't these being used by the scientific community? A couple of reasons... Any supercomputing installation that receives funding from the Federal government (ie, most installations) is required to allocate some percentage of available runtime (I think it's about 30% or somesuch) to the Department of Defense for classified research. I discovered this when using the University of Alaska Fairbanks's 'triforce' of Crays at the Arctic Regional Supercomputing Center.
So what is all that time allocated to the DoD spent on? And why are the nation's largest supercomputers not used for general scientific research, such as weather, genetic research, high-energy physics? Because the most important thing for America to be spending its supercomputing cycles on is the modeling of nuclear weapons. Since we're not allowed to blow up small tropical islands anymore because Japanese fishermen don't like being randomly irradiated (you'd think they'd be used to it by now, after all didn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki make the point that they'd forever be our test subjects?), we spend as much of our cycles as possible modeling those explosions in massive chunks of supercomputing time.
Maybe someday we'll be able to save the Known Universe from invasion by evil aliens because of our advanced understanding of the explosion of nuclear weapons. We'll be happy we didn't waste our valuable supercomputing cycles on something so silly as modeling climatological systems, processing astronomical data, working on cosmological models of the Universe, or dissecting the world of quantum mechanics. After all, having big guns is what makes America great!
You can't do anything underground anywhere north of about the 60th degree line. This is because of permafrost. Permafrost is a layer of frozen ground anywhere from a meter or two to hundreds of meters deep. Permafrost is permanently frozen, even on the days when the ambient air temperature at ground level is well above 40 degrees C (72 degrees F).
Permafrost is totally unworkable. This is why the Alaska Pipeline is raised for well over half of its length. They would have buried it if they could, it would have been much cheaper and would have posed less risk for disaster. But the existence of permafrost made this completely impossible.
I have personally seen bulldozers whose blades are bent and twisted from trying to dig down a foot or two into the frozen ground.
The other nasty problem with permafrost, aside from it being unworkable, is that if you do manage to bury something within it the heat differential between the ground and the buried object is great enough at times to cause melting. Melted permafrost causes heaves and sinkholes to form as the thawing ground expands and contracts under thermal pressure. The ingenious solution that the pipeline engineers had for this problem (since even a raised pipeline needs buried supports) was to fill the support pylons with ammonia and put radiator fins at the tops of the pylons up in the air. The ammonia circulates from the bottom of the pylons where it heats up, then through convection raises to the radiator fins where it cools and then convects downward. This prevents the permafrost from melting.
It is absolutely impossible to bury anything in the Arctic. Everything that is buried is either destroyed from the melting and refreezing process, or the ground itself can't be dug without high explosives.
As for local geothermal energy, most of the Arctic is a barren treeless plain of nothing but wet, swampy muskeg and mosquitoes, with almost no major geological activity. There are thermokarsts, pingoes, and sinkholes caused by the freeze/thaw cycle, the occasional earthquake from shifting tectonic plates, and the slow but steady upthrust of the Arctic mountain ranges. Little in the way of exploitable energy sources, except for the obvious petrochemicals.
Also, buried buildings stand a much *higher* risk from earthquakes in some areas, particularly because the surrounding earth has a tendency to collapse in on itself due to relatively low-density soil. Burying in bedrock alleviates this, of course, but increases the development expense dramatically.
As far as actually building a networked computer processing center on the Arctic Slope, the whole idea is ridiculous. There isn't enough bandwidth as it is (the whole state has perpetually suffered from connectivity shortages and transient outages since its inception), the cost of moving people into the location is not economically feasible (the only reason the Oil companies have people up there is because they have to, not because it's cheap), the projected average cost of development in that region is higher than the projected average cost of development on the Moon (the Oil companies often joke about this, that they'd rather drill for oil on the moon because it'd be cheaper with less environmental constraints), and the permitting process for development in the region can take decades.
Obviously this announcement was just a marketing ploy to make this company's stock price increase. There can't be any content involved here. Particularly because the story only made the Anchorage Daily News, not a real newspaper. It sounds to me like the article was bought and paid for, which is typical for the Daily News (who is often a mouthpiece for the local government and development companies).
Let's just go back to the ANWR debate. At least that one has some realism to it. This is just Silicon Valley hucksters selling vaporous hype.
(If you're wondering, I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I've seen this BS over and over. This is just like the Point Mackensie Tidal Power Plant Bridge, the Copper River Highway and the Million Dollar Bridge, the Wrangell Highway, the Nome to Siberia Tunnel, and the Delta Barley Project. Another giant project envisioned on a whim from someone with too much money, doomed to failure.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking out of your ass. I don't believe you've been in a real Eskimo village. Maybe you spent some time in Barrow or Bethel or Nome or Kotzebue. Those are *towns*, not villages, and the people living there often have jobs that pay real money. In the villages where most Eskimos (and other Alaska Natives) live the unemployment rate is closer to 70%, and you hunt and fish to survive, not just for fun. You said "the parents go to work, if they are lucky enough to have a job". What do you think all those people who don't have jobs do? Wish their food into appearing?
b out/subfaq.cfm
The people living in towns also often get their food from relatives living out in the villages. They send back stuff that they can buy at the store in return. It's a fair trade, since the town people are too busy working their jobs to go out and put up food.
I grew up in Anchorage, but my father worked in construction all around the state doing mostly school repair. I traveled with him to some really remote places like Taititlek, St. Paul & St. George, Gambell & Savoonga, Point Lay, etc. I got to see what life is like in these places up close and in person. Also a number of my friends growing up were Eskimos and Indians from out in the Bush. Since I'm Tlingit, we'd go back to Southeast Alaska to visit family and go out fishing and hunting with relatives. I've never been anywhere off the road system where people didn't survive on subsistence foods to some extent, if not more than half of their diets. What you're talking about is complete nonsense.
And further evidence you have no idea what you're talking about: whales are hunted in small open boats. There are no such things as "factory killing ships". You've clearly never seen a whale hunt, and I'd be surprised if any Eskimos would invite your privileged white lazy fat ass along. I'd bet you've never gone subsistence hunting or fishing either. I certainly wouldn't invite you out or even share any of my traditional foods with you.
Come back when you've actually seen subsistence hunting and fishing, and have actually been in communities where it is the only option for the majority of the diet. And please remember to leave your bigoted opinions back in the Lower 48 where they belong.
Oh, for reference, check the State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game web page on subsistence before pulling any more bullshit out of your ass. http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/
Their FAQ is more enlightening than any of your uninformed and opinionated nonsense: http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/a
There are a number of languages that use clicks, ejectives, and other less common consonants for which the POTS 4 kHz bandwidth is insufficient. Linguists routinely analyse spectrograms of consonants in the 5 to 15 kHz range to determine specific features of articulation. For languages which differentiate consonants in the > 4 kHz spectrum, POTS is unusable. I have had this very experience in discussions over the telephone with speakers of Na-Dené languages, for example, where neither I nor the consultant could effectively communicate a particular word because the frequency band was cut off before some determinant frequency in a consonant. In effect, the limited bandwidth reduced some words to homonyms although they are not in normal speech. So although POTS is sufficient for most languages, there are still some out there which require more bandwidth.
If you really want to be smart about wire pulling, put a loop in each smurf tube with little toy pulleys at either end. Then you don't have to worry about getting a new pull string in when you pull new cable. It's overkill, but then this whole project sounds like overkill anyway.
There are "creole" languages which did not arise from a pidgin language, however. An example is Michif or Metis which is an amalgam of Plains Cree and French. Another is Mednyj Aleut, which is a mix of Russian and Aleut. To differentiate them from the pidgin-creole continuum they are often called "mixed" languages instead.
The reasons why mixed languages arise are somewhat different from the reasons for the development of creole languages, but the former have been and are still called "creole" in some publications.
I hate to agree with an Anonymous Coward, but he has a point here.
Here, I'll give it a half-assed parsing for you.
/s/.
[[Due [to
[[a [freak [hail storm]]]_i
[[!!!] February 26]]
that []_i
[had [[golf-sized [hail chunks]]
[[raining down]
[on the launchpad]]]]]],
[[???]_j
[put
[several thousand [dings]]
[in [the foam
[covering [the [external [fuel tank]]]]]]]
[as well as
[[]_j
[damaging [28 tiles] [on Atlantis's wing]]]]]]
[]_i is an empty noun phrase which agrees with the determiner phrase [a [freak [hail storm]]_i above.
[!!!] is an empty head for a prepositional phrase that would normally contain "on". It's grammatical to leave this empty (or delete it, if you believe in transformational grammar) in some dialects of English, but not in others.
[???]_j is where there's a noun phrase missing which the empty noun phrase []_j wants to agree with. This is the only real ungrammatical error in the sentence.
There are two punctuation errors which I've corrected, but which have nothing to do with the grammaticality of the sentence. The first is inserting a comma after "launchpad", the second is adding an "s" after "Atlantis'", since it's not a plural possessive but a noun ending in
I'd draw you a tree but this is text only, sorry.
If I were rewriting this, I'd throw the whole thing out and start again. It looks like someone edited it to death.
Share and Enjoy!
Uno is the fix you're looking for. It lets you get all apps into a consistent look.
http://gui.interacto.net/
There's a bug with iTunes & Uno together that may make iTunes die after having installed Uno. The fix is to download the iTunes DMG and (re)install it after having set up Uno however you want. Presumably this has something to do with changing the guts inside of iTunes, and hopefully will be FITNR of one of the two programs.
From the Uno website there's a link to a Firefox skin which makes it fit the same style as everything else.
Even the on the Lisp Machines the "kernel" code was implemented with manual memory management. There's a very simple reason for this. How do you implement the memory manager? It's a chicken and egg problem, so the lowest levels always have to do memory management by hand.
Also, it's less efficient to simply use one heap for everything. Instead, an OS kernel written in a language with automatic memory management usually maintains large blocks of memory for the various tasks to work in, like an area for packet construction, an area for I/O buffers, etc. The automatic allocator and GC are told which area to work in, and then create or delete stuff in that area as needed.
So no, it's not generally reasonable to implement the lower levels of any OS with automatic memory management. You're free to try, though.
That doesn't apply to Python. In that language, TAB has syntactic effects and must be used for indentation. For Python code most people change their tab widths to something comfortable.
There is a major problem with probiotics. The primary concentration of bacteria and fungi in the gut is in the large intestine, the colon. The small intestine is relatively alkaline, and the stomach is famous for its acidity. Neither area is a hospitable environment for most bacteria, particularly those known for a symbiotic or commensal relationship with humans in the gut. Therefore, administering probiotics orally is unreliable unless they are properly encapsulated to survive passage through the stomach and small intestine. I imagine that those found in e.g. yogurt are not so encapsulated, meaning that the majority are destroyed upon reaching the stomach.
As with other substances such as the vitamin B complex, is possible to administer enough to ensure that some percentage survives the passage through the upper gut to the large intestine, but I don't see how commercial food additives are likely to provide enough mass action for this to occur.
In summary, if you really want to actively change your gut flora and fauna, the best method is through enemas.
> "Folksonomy" probably has some close synonyms in anthropology, but I don't
> know how well the mainstream would digest them. I certainly can't think of
> a synonym that I could use and be understood by most people.
The term in anthropology is "folk taxonomy". Analyzing folk taxonomies is a central part of ethnoscience, that is the study of how people construct and communicate systems of empirical knowledge and understanding of the world around them. The postmodernists have belittled such study for the last couple of decades however it is starting to make a resurgence.
Nonsense. Just stick to READ and don't call EVAL on your data. Or write your own toy EVAL that is restricted to certain known operations.
You might want to set up your own READ macros as well, to ensure that nobody uses #. maliciously.
I do believe that the personal computer you're describing is called a "portable". There were quite a few of these on the market before laptops became so prevalent.
Periodic database copies might be more efficient. Though that's just an off the cuff answer.
Sorry to be the bad one in the barrel, but "apple" is not an example of affix clipping. The word is actually reconstructed in Proto-Germanic, and also appears in Proto-Slavic and in modern Lithuanian, Latvian, Irish, and Welsh. It's not known how the various words are related, but it is clear that they are since they all begin with /a/ or palatalized /ja/, although Lithuanian has raised the vowel to /o/. In addition, the medial consonant is bilabial in all of the daughter languages, except in Modern German and various high German dialects where it has shifted to the /pf/ cluster and in Welsh and Irish where it is labiodental. This medial consonant is voiced in the Slavic family, in Latvian and Lithuanian, and in Irish. The /l/ appears in various forms in all of these languages, sometimes in a consonant cluster, sometimes palatalized, and sometimes with a following vowel. The Slavic languages have added a /ko/ on the end whose original function is unknown, cf. Russian /jabloko/.
/n/ seems to have occurred in Italian and French before the word was borrowed into Anglo-Norman and thence into English. However, the OED notes that this may reflect loss of initial /n/ in some varieties of Arabic at the time.
Now, not to compare apples and oranges, but the word "orange" is indeed an example of affix clipping. In this case the loss of initial
Encryption over HAM bands is illegal. This was mostly to enforce FCC regs that prohibit profanity or commercial activity, and to ensure that all HAM communications have clear self-identification.
However, encryption over unlicensed (ISM) bands is wide open AFAIK.
Perhaps because it assumes that you'll be intelligent? That you won't be doing something silly like trying to spot satellites visually during the daytime?
You don't appear to have read the article.
Knowing where spy satellites are is vital if you're trying to hide something. Since even the US doesn't have and can't afford a globe covering spy satellite system a la Iridium, the eye in the sky can't be watching you every minute of the day. Thus if you know the orbits of the spy satellites you can time things to keep your unpleasant business a secret. Even if you don't know where *all* of the satellites are, knowing where some of them are is better than nothing.
Consider the situation where you want to move a pile of refined weapon-grade plutonium out of your nuclear power station reactor. It's not something you're supposed to be doing, since that reactor is ostensibly for power generation, not for armament production. You don't exactly want to do this when people are watching because it's rather obvious when you park a big shielded truck outside your reactor and load the plutonium onto it. So you want to pick a time that the bird's eye won't be watching, or at least when it won't get a good view of what's going on. This will keep you from having to answer to the IAEA or the UN or any other nuclear busybodies. This worked pretty well for India.
Dave Mills, author of the NTP RFC and main implementor of the NTP server software since time immemorial (back in the Fuzzball distro for PDP-11 days) has an extensive collection of information about time and how it relates to networks. Here's a specific page about the leap second:
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html
For more info, see the NTP site:
http://www.ntp.org/
and the site of the Network Time Synchronization Project:
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp.html
No, you are completely wrong. There are *no* redeeming qualities to be found in Manos. As a friend of mine said after watching it "I have just lost two hours of my life that I will never, ever get back. Why?"
Hubs are not pure unadulterated evil. They have one use that is unmatched by other ethernet switching devices. That is, seeing every damned packet crossing a given segment. If you want to be able to snoop on *all* the traffic on a segment then you can't rely on a switch because it's keeping you from all the stuff not directed to your host. So if you're feeling snoopy, you want a hub.
Now, in real life where people don't have a need to snoop, switches are a big win. But my home network sure as hell uses a hub. I don't care if it slows down one or two machines, I want to make sure I can see all the traffic there is, whether it's hitting the router or not.
(Actually, my Nortel is a layer 3 (and 4 sorta) switch so it's not really a hub and I can configure any arbitrary port to receive traffic from all the others. So I lied a little. But if I didn't have my studly switch then I'd be using a hub. Because I'm suspicious.)
Sure it works great. Unless you care about POSIX sigcontext. In which case the SPARC/UltraSPARC Linux kernel sucks like a Hoover. And yes, the SPARC kernel developers know about it, and no they don't give a damned. It's the only version of the Linux kernel with a broken sigcontext implementation.
Oh, and GCC still doesn't support all of UltraSPARC's 64-bit instructions. And no, Linux distros for UltraSPARC don't come compiled 64-bit. And last I checked (a couple months ago) I still couldn't get glibc to compile in 64-bit mode on Linux/UltraSPARC. It just choked somewhere in the middle of the build due to broken code generated by GCC.
Linux kicks ass over Slowlaris and SunOS when run on 32-bit SPARC processors. But when it comes to 64-bit UltraSPARCs it simply bites. And nobody seems to care enough about the lack of performance or support to make it better.
But Linux/UltraSPARC does make a good web server or the like. An Ultra 5 doesn't cost too much more than a similarly rated PC and is essentially immune to all r00tkits because the script kiddies don't have tools for Linux/UltraSPARC. For Linux/x86 yes, and for Solaris/UltraSPARC, but not for Linux on an UltraSPARC. You just get a weird message in your logs and the program in question just dies quietly.
> Even a source archive that requires the 'make install' to be run as root has the same problem.
//cs right now running my own operating system that I wrote for it in Integer BASIC (can't trust that Applesoft BASIC, it doesn't come built in). As soon as I'm done reading the DIX Ethernet standard I might even let them do things like networking.
That's why I don't use 'make install'. I read the code before I compile it, do a pro tem security audit (especially if it's from those OpenBSD Canadian Communist freaks, you can't trust those sneaky bastards), wrap all library and syscalls so they leave audit trails when executed, and finally use 'gcc -save-temps' so I can read the output from the assembler to see that it doesn't insert any secret calls that are embedded in the C library or in the compiler.
I tell ya, it's getting harder and harder nowadays. Reading through the latest rev of the GNU LibC took me a couple of months. Couldn't compile anything new until I finished it.
I'm all in favor of Ximian partnering with someone like Microsoft. It just gives me more reason to tell my users that they can't use any code except that which I have personally reviewed. They're all using Apple
America has some of the best, fastest, largest, and most powerful supercomputers on earth. Why aren't these being used by the scientific community? A couple of reasons... Any supercomputing installation that receives funding from the Federal government (ie, most installations) is required to allocate some percentage of available runtime (I think it's about 30% or somesuch) to the Department of Defense for classified research. I discovered this when using the University of Alaska Fairbanks's 'triforce' of Crays at the Arctic Regional Supercomputing Center.
So what is all that time allocated to the DoD spent on? And why are the nation's largest supercomputers not used for general scientific research, such as weather, genetic research, high-energy physics? Because the most important thing for America to be spending its supercomputing cycles on is the modeling of nuclear weapons. Since we're not allowed to blow up small tropical islands anymore because Japanese fishermen don't like being randomly irradiated (you'd think they'd be used to it by now, after all didn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki make the point that they'd forever be our test subjects?), we spend as much of our cycles as possible modeling those explosions in massive chunks of supercomputing time.
Maybe someday we'll be able to save the Known Universe from invasion by evil aliens because of our advanced understanding of the explosion of nuclear weapons. We'll be happy we didn't waste our valuable supercomputing cycles on something so silly as modeling climatological systems, processing astronomical data, working on cosmological models of the Universe, or dissecting the world of quantum mechanics. After all, having big guns is what makes America great!
You can't do anything underground anywhere north of about the 60th degree line. This is because of permafrost. Permafrost is a layer of frozen ground anywhere from a meter or two to hundreds of meters deep. Permafrost is permanently frozen, even on the days when the ambient air temperature at ground level is well above 40 degrees C (72 degrees F).
Permafrost is totally unworkable. This is why the Alaska Pipeline is raised for well over half of its length. They would have buried it if they could, it would have been much cheaper and would have posed less risk for disaster. But the existence of permafrost made this completely impossible.
I have personally seen bulldozers whose blades are bent and twisted from trying to dig down a foot or two into the frozen ground.
The other nasty problem with permafrost, aside from it being unworkable, is that if you do manage to bury something within it the heat differential between the ground and the buried object is great enough at times to cause melting. Melted permafrost causes heaves and sinkholes to form as the thawing ground expands and contracts under thermal pressure. The ingenious solution that the pipeline engineers had for this problem (since even a raised pipeline needs buried supports) was to fill the support pylons with ammonia and put radiator fins at the tops of the pylons up in the air. The ammonia circulates from the bottom of the pylons where it heats up, then through convection raises to the radiator fins where it cools and then convects downward. This prevents the permafrost from melting.
It is absolutely impossible to bury anything in the Arctic. Everything that is buried is either destroyed from the melting and refreezing process, or the ground itself can't be dug without high explosives.
As for local geothermal energy, most of the Arctic is a barren treeless plain of nothing but wet, swampy muskeg and mosquitoes, with almost no major geological activity. There are thermokarsts, pingoes, and sinkholes caused by the freeze/thaw cycle, the occasional earthquake from shifting tectonic plates, and the slow but steady upthrust of the Arctic mountain ranges. Little in the way of exploitable energy sources, except for the obvious petrochemicals.
Also, buried buildings stand a much *higher* risk from earthquakes in some areas, particularly because the surrounding earth has a tendency to collapse in on itself due to relatively low-density soil. Burying in bedrock alleviates this, of course, but increases the development expense dramatically.
As far as actually building a networked computer processing center on the Arctic Slope, the whole idea is ridiculous. There isn't enough bandwidth as it is (the whole state has perpetually suffered from connectivity shortages and transient outages since its inception), the cost of moving people into the location is not economically feasible (the only reason the Oil companies have people up there is because they have to, not because it's cheap), the projected average cost of development in that region is higher than the projected average cost of development on the Moon (the Oil companies often joke about this, that they'd rather drill for oil on the moon because it'd be cheaper with less environmental constraints), and the permitting process for development in the region can take decades.
Obviously this announcement was just a marketing ploy to make this company's stock price increase. There can't be any content involved here. Particularly because the story only made the Anchorage Daily News, not a real newspaper. It sounds to me like the article was bought and paid for, which is typical for the Daily News (who is often a mouthpiece for the local government and development companies).
Let's just go back to the ANWR debate. At least that one has some realism to it. This is just Silicon Valley hucksters selling vaporous hype.
(If you're wondering, I'm a lifelong Alaskan. I've seen this BS over and over. This is just like the Point Mackensie Tidal Power Plant Bridge, the Copper River Highway and the Million Dollar Bridge, the Wrangell Highway, the Nome to Siberia Tunnel, and the Delta Barley Project. Another giant project envisioned on a whim from someone with too much money, doomed to failure.)