Touche! However, "and the less we tie software to a particular platform, the better," so what advantage is there to Linux over other OS's if everything that Linux does can be done by them as well, in a completely identical manner? It's a moral dilemma for me, with out other OS's providing their features to Linux, and Linux providing all their features to other OS's, Linux itself holds no individual advantage.
Of course, I'm getting bogged down in thinking of Linux as a distribution, not a kernel. Linux is a kernel; it's a core OS. The software that was developed FOR Linux, while significantly adding to its marketability, does not COMPRISE Linux. That might be considered a weakness of relying entirely on the Open Source movement (which I wholeheartedly believe in), in that any advantage that you hold, your competitors can very easily absorb... embrace and extend... frightening.
OSX is about flexibility. Jobs knew that butting heads with Gates is a losing strategy, OSX is an end run. He is uniting the NIX world.
Oh, I absolutely concur! It's a magnificent strategy for Jobs! Absolutely it will boost the market share of MacOS! But will it be at the detriment of Linux? Seriously, I doubt that this will pull many Windows users away, as the majority of them are set in their ways, and it isn't MacOS doing anything new that Windows does. Instead it is MacOS seeping in to a share of the market, and in fact, potentially completely blanketing it, that is currently proudly held by BSD/Linux, when they have greater right/authority/capacity to hold that share of the market, except for the fact that they don't have a marketing department.
Why is Microsoft the big OS right now? Marketing! Is MacOS (pre-X) better than Windows? In very many ways! Is Linux better than Windows? Also in very many ways! Is Windows better than either of them? Not in very many ways at all! My brother just exceeded 400 days uptime on his home server running RedHat. On Netcraft, of the top 50 uptimes, last I checked, only ONE was Windows, and it was a machine run by Microsoft, with the express purpose of proving Windows' uptime capacity, and not a machine that was being used in a production environment. So why is this inferior OS in possession of the largest share of the desktop environment, with an inferior less stable environment that Linux, and a less intuitive, more difficult to use interface than MacOS? You better have guessed it by now (I'm such a cynic), MARKETING. MacOS is absorbing a lot of the strategic advantage of BSD/Linux, and inserting it into their marketing machine under the name MacOS.
My concern is over whether this pushes BSD/Linux out of the picture, as they are about operational quality not visual quality while OSX focuses a lot more on visual quality (which has proven to be an exceptionally marketable aspect; translucent windows and a warping docking bar, wow, way better than some boring uptime!) and leaves the operational quality to the BSD programmers, who are pouring their hearts and souls in to a project, which Apple might, in the end, turn around and stab them in the heart with.
Very loose simile: It's like the greatest swordsmiths (Open Source programmers) on earth collectively working for years to create the greatest sword ever for a king (the public, and perhaps Apple), who kills the smith with it to prevent the smith from making a better one. Your greatest source of pride might very well be your undoing in an irony that belongs in fairy tales. (This is not to imply that Apple has its goal laid out to squash BSD, indeed, BSD is proving to be a great aid to them, thus the loosness of the simile.)
Your blind devotion to Linux and free software causes you to worry about the threat posed by a potentially better OS! The smart thing to do is *move* to that OS, as I and many others have already done!
Now that's flamebait:D. But I'll answer nonetheless. I'm not concerned about losing Linux to a superior OS, if OS>=X proves itself to be better than Linux, you'd better believe I'm gonna be in there with you. What I'm concerned about is a company with an inferior product but better marketing pushing the better product with inferior marketing out. Hello... VHS vs Beta (tried, but true example of marketing versus quality). "Let the best man win" doesn't qualify in the business world, it's, "Let the man with the most marketing dollars win."
I'm sorry if this is seen as flamebait, but isn't anyone else concerned that potentially all apps that run under Linux would migrate their way to another (commercial) OS with marketing power, and a desire to influence it? Couldn't this be a real threat to Linux? What if everything that ran under Linux suddenly started working under Windows? Wouldn't that reduce the marketability of Linux? If I were a corporation considering switching to a different environment, all be it a more stable one, when I only have people on staff who know the current environment, might I not be inclined to stay with the current environment given that the tools from the new one were available within the current one? Immediate costs would be reduced as there's less of a rollout, even if licensing in the long run is more expensive.
I think it's a great testament to Open Source that Apple chose to heavily base their OS on it; Apple decision makers aren't idiots, they know a good thing when they see it. But in the end, it takes a piece of the market owned wholly by *nices and allows a commercial entity to have a share of it.
Well done, I coulda done that once:) I'd even have told you about bouyancy, the curve of deceleration of the bullet as it encountered air resistance and approached terminal velocity, and the distribution of energy across the curve of the shield, given one hits the concave and one the convex sides. Geeze, I hated advanced physics.
I'd disagree with one thing though, the goose won't dissipate energy nearly so well as might be thought, it would rather be much more like the effect of its greatest cross-sectional area. Let's make that two things. It's not energy/cm^3 that's important, it's energy/cm^2 (forward surface area). Which, of course, actually makes your point all the more enforced, as the tip of a bullet is considerably smaller than the greatest cross sectional area of a goose. But now let's consider other things. The bullet will slow down rapidly once it leaves a gun, while the goose is operating at a fixed velocity (relative to the plane). The further the bullet travels, the less kinetic energy it still has to deliver. This is affected by both forward resistance (determined by the greatest cross-sectional area of the bullet, as well as some aerodynamic issues), as well as the drag caused by the vacuum it leaves behind it. Although a bullet may travel 700mph right out of the gun, I'd estimate that it's down to 500mph within 20 feet out of the gun. Acceleration toward terminal velocity (either positive acceleration or negative acceleration [called decceleration to laymen]) is an exponential calculation, therefore there is the greatest change early on. It's unlikely that the bullet is hitting the windshield at a full 700mph. Now the fact that the goose hits the convex side of the glass adds to the ability of the glass to bear the load, while the bullet hitting the convex side detracts from the ability to bear the load. Now the question comes in as to how brittle the glass is. If it has tremendous capacity to bear force, but no flexibility at all, the force will be absorbed entirely at the point of impact (or across area of impact considering the goose), while if it is more flexibile, the bullet's force will be quickly distributed across the glass, decreasing its momentary force per area. When talking about activities within this instantaneous of a time period (moment of impact) it's most apropriate to determine the difference in rigidity of the various kinds of glass, which with high level calculations would actually boil down to a spring constant k.
Overall I'd agree, the bullet has higher likelihood to break the glass than the goose unless the glass is specifically built to be flexible (which seems to me to be a high oxygen content, though I could be pulling that out of my ear, isn't SiO2 a polar bond, and therefore more flexible than Si2, which would be a double bond, and therefore rigid?) over rigid, in order to absorb such impacts.
But then again, perhaps the plane that hit a goose had an air bubble in the glass, or a tiny crack already.
How long do you think it'll take till a new release of one of these worms just spawns a new process for each attack? Now it might eventually bring your machine down, but the attacks keep going on till it does. The parent process could even kill the children after ten minutes just to help keep the machine viably attacking hosts.
A goose has a heck of a lot more mass than a bullet. More mass = greater inertia = greater force required to alter its state. You hit a 5lb (fairly light) goose at 500 mph, versus a 2 oz bullet, there's 40x more force. Most geese weigh 10-20lb. Now you're talking about a 80-160 scale difference. That's like being hit with a car or hit with a bike.
Now what I'd really like to see is a gun that shoots geese... that'd be deadly... Come here Bin Laden.... QUACK!!!
How does it prove him an idiot? Because his opinion differs from yours? How is it a troll? He makes a valid point, IF there was a awy to make the terrorists use the back doored crypto..... there isn't. Therefore his conclusion is moot. If you've taken a logic course, you know that for a => b (read: if a then b)
ab conclusion
TrueTrueTrue
FalseTrueTrue
TrueFalseFalse
FalseFalseTrue
in this case, "If there was a way" is a, and "I'd support it" is b. a is false, so the conclusion must be true, i.e. it doesn't matter what b is.
If you never took a logic course, this might be lost on you, so: Basically he's not saying that we SHOULD include crypto back doors. He's not saying we shouldn't, but he's not saying we should. His real point, as I interpret the implication, is that since we can't force terrorists to use an easy to crack form of crypto, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED TO VIOLATE PRIVACY.
It's not clearly stated, but that makes him neither a troll, nor an idiot.
Slashdot moderators: PLEASE don't mod people based on whether you agree with their oppinion. That's NOT what moderator status is for, it's for scrapping those who toss trash on the site (goatsex) and for recognising those who have something useful to say, regardless of whether you agree with it.
I think that's actually an issue with the version of Word, wherein it establishes itself as the default in-browser plugin for.doc files (like Acrobat does with.pdf files), as upgrading from Office 95 to 97 at work caused us a lot of troubles where our old Intranet sites that contained links to downloadable forms suddenly started containing links to in-browser forms that caused content to get lost when users changed the form and clicked the back button. Mime types are a wonderful thing, BTW, in case anyone's wondered.
Now this was quite some time ago, I presume that you're using more current versions of Word, so I'm guessing that you were also upgrading from IE 3.x to 6.0, perhaps off of a default install of something, no? Maybe not, but that's my experience.
I was actually responding to a comment that's been modded out of existance (sortof) so it looks like I'm replying to a comment that I'm not. The original comment was the text of the ALL YOUR BASE crap, replaced with ALL YOUR WTC instead. The context change makes my comment look inappropriate instead. Browse at -1 if you want to see what I was really replying to.
See the comment by fiziko that is also a reply to yours. Cheers to the guy who's making information available, but jeers to the one who makes fun of the situation.
It seems farily obvious that the study established a correlation between the two things, chess playing, and test scores, however, that does not establish a causal relationship. Playing chess, under that statement, does not provedly improve one's capacity to take tests. Rather it's likely that high test scores, and an affinity toward chess are derived from the same root cause... higher intelligence. Those who really enjoy chess do so because they love wrapping their mind around looking several moves into the future, and manipulating their opponent into things while avoiding being manipulated themselves. Individuals with IQ's of 8 can't do this, so chess is simply frustrating.
"if the old testemant is no longer valid then the ten commandments are no longer valid. The whole sabath thing is no longer valid"
Perhaps invalidated was the wrong word, it's not completely invalid, for example, it's still not right to steal, though certain sections are rather ammended with the New Testament. The ten commandments aren't contradicted by the New Testament, no where does Jesus say, "Thou shalt lust after thy neighbor's wife." Just because something is stated in the Old Testament, doesn't necessarily, therefore, invalidate it, but rather, it becomes subject to that which is stated in the New Testament.
"...commit genocide and unspeakable evil is just daffy. Besides which it didn't work..." Well, the jews of the time didn't become a mercenary nation. The fact is that they'd likely have committed the same genocide with or with out his intervention, these are people whose parents (yes, their parents, that recently) were slaves to the Egyptians, a rather ruthless bunch, and as such, much of the Egyptian culture would have been part of their heritage. They'd have taken the women as slaves (those who survived), killed the children nonetheless (that's how it was done in those days, children of slaves are only a burden, most especially if you're on a war party), and the slaves themselves would probably not have survived long for being underfed and mistreated. War slaves were often killed in those days for sport (ancient greek influence -- gladiators and all) or simply because their master was upset. The only life available to those few who would make it would be undeniably horrid. If God asked the Jews to kill the women and children, destroy their goods and land, then there is no financial benefit to these acts, and so the Jews wouldn't make a life of this sort of behavior.
True, the Jews still kill Palestinians today, that doesn't necessarily make it right, and I doubt many of these Jews are killing for profit, aside from the periodic hit man.
And as to your final point. We're not entitled to pick and choose which sections we "like" or find convenient. We do, however, have the liberty to read the Bible, and interpret it as closely to what we can divine of God's will as we can. If I choose to ignore "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain," because I find it inconvenient, then I've made a mockery of it. If, however, I determine that somehow that commandment was misguided, then that's within my right to interpret. We're not here to answer to one another, or to be holier than one another, but rather our purpose is to uphold the will of God to the best of our ability.
I can tell you that God would have preferred that no killing occurred, but mankind being as they are, they'll sometimes force the issue on him, because he will uphold certain principles that he laid down from the start. God doesn't want you to jump off a freeway overpass into oncoming traffic to commit suicide, but given that you're going to commit suicide, I'm thinking that he'd prefer you do it in the least overall damaging method possible, and go out in the desert with a gun.
The Bible is most certainly open to interpretation (ask Catholics, Baptists, Bretheren, even Muslims about the meaning of certain passages). I guarantee you someone has the closest interpretation toward God's will over someone else, but it's up to each of us to discern it as accurately as we can, not on the basis of convenience. You're welcome to interpret it what ever way you want. I believe if you truly believe that you are interpreting it correctly, after much thought and devotion, then you are with out sin should you follow that... you're essentially doing the best that you can. If you somehow seriously determine that God wants you to pick up a gun and shoot some people, then you're probably suffering from some psychological delusion, but you're also not doing something that you know to be wrong.
I suppose that this is birthed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bible. The Bible, first off, wasn't actually written "by God," as in, it wasn't his hand scribing the letters. What it was was God-inspired men who wrote the Bible, and there were many of them, spanning a millennium. God does not smack you upside the head with knowledge, as in, "He who doest take the integral of x^2 shall get 2x," nor does he wish to provide unrefutable proof of his existance in such a manner as to satisfy all of mankind that there clearly, and without room for contradiction exists this diety. That defeats some of his fundamental intentions, which is to have believers who choose to believe in him, rather than have no option. This is why mankind was provided the opportunity to choose. Otherwise we're atomatons.
Many would state that the Bible is completely infallible. I disagree with that. As I said, it was written by God-inspired men, and as such, they were subject to the same limitations that we now are, which is, specifically, fallibility.
"kill the homosexuals and exile anybody who wears clothes made out of two different materials". "god is about venagance because he tells us to kill them, kill their wives, kill their children, kill their animals and salt the earth so that not even their plants survive."
Excellent selections, which I say not because I agree with them, but rather that they're a sumbling point for many Christians (for others, it's a way of life -- yeesh:/). Both these pseudo-passages come from the Old Testament, sometimes also referred to as the Old Law, Old Covenant, Old Lotsa-other-stuff. My point hinges on the word Old, as in not current. We're no longer called on to exile the earth and salt the homosexuals (well, it was something like that, hehe). With the New Testament (insert appropriate aka's here), the old was invalidated, in favor of turn the other cheek. I have a hard time believing that God, the God of love, and turn-the-other-cheek philosophy commanded men to kill women and children, livestock, burn the place to the ground, and salt the earth (yeah, that's how it went).
Some scholars would state that the reason God commanded such a brutal ending to the Israelite enemies was because he knew that they soldiers couldn't be trusted to not rape and pillage. Given that God wanted these offenders purged from the planet, this is likely the most humane manner for this to occur, the women are spared a repeated raping, the children, a life of poverty and exile, given that they could survive at all. But probably the most important point, said scholars would argue, is that it prevented the Israelite soldiers from performing these actions for the wrong reasons; they won't get spoils, they won't get women, they won't get children, they won't get land, they get NOTHING, and so it is more of a chore commanded by God than anything else, and motivations are "pure."
Now on to my oppinion; we're talking about a God here (based on the assumption that God exists, which is integral to my explanation) who can rain brimstone on Soddom and Gammorah (sp?), who can wipe out civilizations with a flood, who could actually wiggle his pinky toe, and a civilization would dissapear as though it never existed. This is the God who gave Gideon a plan that caused confusion among his enemy such that they ran around and killed each other, with out even one of his significantly smaller army having had to kill one person. It seems to me that human motivation had something to do with this. Imagine, if you will, being God listening in on the Jewish war council. They've announced within the council their intent to overthrow their enemies in battle. You're God, you've given mankind the right to choose, and so you will not stop them from carrying out their decision, doing so violates a principle that you've put forth, the right to choose, regardless whether it's the right or wrong decision. What you can do, however, is temper them, prevent them from becoming a mercenary nation, by removing the standard attractions to said occupation. You work in their hearts, and lead them to your will of salting the earth, etc. etc. The people quickly grow a distaste for killing, they lose brothers and friends, and gain nothing. Ultimately, at the cost of a smaller amount of brutality, you prevent far more. You can certainly see how Jewish historians might consider this to be God leading them to kill, as there was divine intervention on some level.
Yes, the Bible has many contradictions, birthed from the fallibility of the many men who wrote it, and the fact that it's a set of laws, then a set of revised laws. The revised laws will unavoidably contradict the original laws, hence the fact that they're revised. The original law was laid down for a civilization of selfish people with motivations that did not necessarily jive with God's will, and made up of selfish individuals who would bend only so far before they'd turn completely away. Knowing this, God made certain allowances, and provided the time to eventually set the law straight, which is certainly prefferable to Him pushing them too far to start with, and causing them to lose faith and turn away.
"the bible is full of vile and despicable acts" -- No doubt! The Bible does not, however, command us to do these things in the New Testament, it commands us to love our neighbors, homosexual and poly-fiber wearers and all! No where in the New Testament does it say "Thou shalt bomb abortion clinics," or "Thou shalt stone thy neighbor whom you suspect might be committing smoe offense." There are zealots, as there will always be. There are those who are convinced that their specific interpretation calls them to behave in some otherwise inappropriate manner. Take, for example, the family who refused to take their children to the hospital when they were sick, because they were relying on faith to heal the children. Do you suspect that the God we're talking about here would be the sort of God who is inclined to give you whatever you want simply because you want it badly enough? I think most certainly not, the sage (but non-biblical) saying "God helps those who help themselves" applies; even in the Bible, he never worked miracles for those who sat passively by and waited for Him to do everything, He's not OUR servant, we're His.
"Do onto others what has been done to you." It's actually "Do unto others what you'd have done to you," otherwise we end up with everyone in the world being pretty evil kind of folks. I'm not even sure that this is specifically Biblical, but it's sage nonetheless. Yes, I'd agree with that, and if I duked a guy on the chin, I'd certainly prefer that he not duke me back, thus, turn the other cheek (that was sort-of a joke BTW).
To reiterate, the Bible is fallible IMO, it was written by fallible men, who were subject to their fallible societies. The Bible is actually a collection of writings that at some point, some group of fallible men decided held some real messages from God. If God were the type to plop advanced linear algebra into the minds of men who probably could do division at best, they why would he use a book at all, rather than plop a belief right into our minds, along with complete understanding of his will? Because he gives us the choice to believe in Him, rather than be forced to, and so be automotous. It's inevitable that we do wrong, it's part of our nature, and with that inevitability comes the inevitablility of some of the Bible's authors having been motivated to write certain things or behave in certain manners that were not divine in origin.
Aha! Of course! When written that way you're absolutely right, I'm considerably more used to dealing with multiple powers when written on paper, where there's no confusion based on the orientation/size, etc. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a mathematician, I just play one on TV [actually I only ever had Calc 2]) I wonder, given that the original number was intended to be a power, how it was intended, (6^6)^6 or 6^(6^6)
Interesting point, however, what you actually see is a focus suggestion. Don't get caught up with a specific number, that's not the point of the passage (this is what the author to whom you responded is saying, it's as he said, "you can't focus on one small piece"). He's not saying "this piece of the Bible is inconvenient, so we shall ignore its existance." And besides, there's some discussion on whether the actual number is "666" versus 6^6^6 (see post below about a 36,000 digit number) versus perhaps this being no more than a demonstration used for literary purposes. Furthermore, "Chrisitans" are a wide and diverse group of people. Some people may choose to do what you suggest and dismiss something because of its inconvenience. I do not, nor do those whom I hold respect for. Some programmers may choose to name all their variables "a1, a2, a3, a4," some mechanics may choose to replace the carbuerator with every oil change. That doesn't make it right, that doesn't make it recommended practice, and that most certainly doesn't make all individuals who belong to that class guilty of the same thing.
6^6 = 46,656
46,656^6 = 10,314,424,798,490,535,546,171,949,056
(that)^6 = 1.2041208676482351082020900568573e+168 (169 digits)
(I believe if you raise it to the 6th again, you get something with like 1009 digits, again for 6054 digits, and again for the number you're talking about, though I calculated 36324)
36,306 digits is a really huge number, it's actually 6^6^6^6^6^6^6, that's six, raised to the 6th, raised to the 6th a full 6 times.
But this doesn't invalidate your point of them still not wanting to copy down a rather trivial 169 digits, as the specific number really isn't what's important in this passage, although it's what everyone focuses on.
I agree with Brazil in this matter, people are dieing due to a patent on a daily basis, this is a clear cut case where a patent violation is in the sake of humanitarianism.
The problem here though is this: patents exist for a reason, and it's not necessarily to let patent holders get fat pockets and laugh their way to the bank at the misfortune of the poor schmoes who have to shell out for the patented product. Especially given pharmaceuticals, the reality is (I've been an IT guy in pharmaceuticals since I was 18, and my mother has been a scientist working for them since she graduated college) that developing drugs for use in humans costs billions of dollars. I'm not exaggerating, billions, even if you only wanted to get a different kind of sugar pill approved, billions. The studies take many years, the insurance costs once you enter the clinical phase (testing the drug in actual humans) are amazing, there are hundreds of people working on the target drug the whole time, and these are people who make $50,000 for the simplest tasks, let alone when you get a pathologist, who may well make several million a year (pathologists are to doctors what doctors are to us, the go to school for twice as long. It was discovered that one of the pathologists at my company made more than one of the executive board). There is not a company in the world that has the capacity to fork out billions of dollars in research for a drug, then sell it at cost, or slightly above cost. They need to make up this capital, as the drug industry is like a loaded version of Vegas... more likely than not, you're going to get burned, except that the issue here is the continuation of your company, and jobs for all of its employees.
If we go willy-nilly violating patents on drugs, companies will stop researching drugs, as they are guaranteed to take a bath if they cannot control the market early on. The people who produce drugs outside of the people who research that drug have comparably next to zero cost in the production, they operate with out overhead, and as a matter of fact, the percentage pure profit on generic drugs (when compared to total sales of a drug by the pharmaceutical who researched it) is tremendously greater.
If you take away a company's ability to control their product after so much initial overhead, they won't do it, because in the end, regardless of any humanitarian mission statement, companies are there for one reason... to bring profit to their stockholders. If the stockholders are not getting a profit, they'll sell, and the company will go under, and now there's no AIDS drug at all, instead of an expensive one (assuming that the company closed prior to research completion). You can't create a company with the expectation to lose money like that, you simply won't get investors.
Lampreyware is so long, and not scuzzy-sounding enough, how about Leachware? Rolls off the tongue (and fingertips) a little easier. Plus, you know the intelligence of most media-types, they probably don't know what a lamprey is, but a leach, dang nab, dey knows what dey is.
DISCLAIMER: The previous comment was not intended to be offensive toward any Redneck-Americans, or any other ethnic minority, rather, it was focused toward some ethnic minority to which you, nor any of your friends, acquaintances, or associates are not a part of, whatever that minority may be (perhaps the Media-Americans).
Pretty sweet, as in having to write two hunks of code for most useful things (on the client side), one for IE, and one for Netscape? A standard javascript would have been a nice language, and if you could depend on the client having this standard language, then you could classify it as a pretty sweet language.
The fact is that javascript, as a technology, can only be depended on in the following situations:
Corporate Intranets, where you know EXACTLY what everyone's browser and security settings are (which, for those of you who've done this stuff will know, really doesn't hold true, but you can just fsck over the non-stands)
Completely aesthetic functionality. Functionality that doesn't break the site if it's missing... i.e., you should be able to destroy anything between <script> and </script>, or anything beginning with javascript: and have the site still be usable.
Completely redundant functionality. i.e. stuff that may make the site a bit easier to use (popup information about links, perhaps, or tree views that don't require a page reload), in which case you're now writing a version of the code for IE, a version of the code for NS, and a version of the code for non-js. 3x code writing = a lot more work, and a lot more chance for bugs.
Javascript, as a client language, could have been awesome, but the fact is that it's really only has limited usefulness on a well programmed website.
... Unless you happen to fall into category 1, then you can do sweet stuff and write your code only once.
A guy I worked with once (he was later fired) was supposed to demonstrate the functionality of a database-driven website that he had written (an online community sort of thing) back when this was still a relatively new concept. His resume listed this sort of thing as his specialty. The client arrived, and he started demonstrating by logging in, and voila, the home page customized itself to his account. He went to the preferences page and clicked a few options, and voila, the home page was different now. That's when the client noticed that his name was misspelled. "Oops, must have typed it in to the database wrong, hehe." He started showing the pages again, and each time the client would ask to see a particular link, he'd blow it off and click somewhere else instead. My co-workers and I were passing around looks. Then I noticed that his name was once again spelled correctly at the top of the page.
The clients eventually left, only mildly impressed since he follow any of their suggestions on using the site while in the meeting, and I got suspicous. I tapped in to his computer (honestly, if you're wearing a Flyers tie, don't make your password "Flyers") and grabbed the files. I realized there was no database connectivity in here at all! It was all static pages that could only be browsed in one path, and the changes you made just actually linked you to a page statically programmed to show the changes. That's why his name had changed spelling!
Slashdot Mirror
Touche! However, "and the less we tie software to a particular platform, the better," so what advantage is there to Linux over other OS's if everything that Linux does can be done by them as well, in a completely identical manner? It's a moral dilemma for me, with out other OS's providing their features to Linux, and Linux providing all their features to other OS's, Linux itself holds no individual advantage.
Of course, I'm getting bogged down in thinking of Linux as a distribution, not a kernel. Linux is a kernel; it's a core OS. The software that was developed FOR Linux, while significantly adding to its marketability, does not COMPRISE Linux. That might be considered a weakness of relying entirely on the Open Source movement (which I wholeheartedly believe in), in that any advantage that you hold, your competitors can very easily absorb... embrace and extend... frightening.
Oh, I absolutely concur! It's a magnificent strategy for Jobs! Absolutely it will boost the market share of MacOS! But will it be at the detriment of Linux? Seriously, I doubt that this will pull many Windows users away, as the majority of them are set in their ways, and it isn't MacOS doing anything new that Windows does. Instead it is MacOS seeping in to a share of the market, and in fact, potentially completely blanketing it, that is currently proudly held by BSD/Linux, when they have greater right/authority/capacity to hold that share of the market, except for the fact that they don't have a marketing department.
Why is Microsoft the big OS right now? Marketing! Is MacOS (pre-X) better than Windows? In very many ways! Is Linux better than Windows? Also in very many ways! Is Windows better than either of them? Not in very many ways at all! My brother just exceeded 400 days uptime on his home server running RedHat. On Netcraft, of the top 50 uptimes, last I checked, only ONE was Windows, and it was a machine run by Microsoft, with the express purpose of proving Windows' uptime capacity, and not a machine that was being used in a production environment. So why is this inferior OS in possession of the largest share of the desktop environment, with an inferior less stable environment that Linux, and a less intuitive, more difficult to use interface than MacOS? You better have guessed it by now (I'm such a cynic), MARKETING. MacOS is absorbing a lot of the strategic advantage of BSD/Linux, and inserting it into their marketing machine under the name MacOS.
My concern is over whether this pushes BSD/Linux out of the picture, as they are about operational quality not visual quality while OSX focuses a lot more on visual quality (which has proven to be an exceptionally marketable aspect; translucent windows and a warping docking bar, wow, way better than some boring uptime!) and leaves the operational quality to the BSD programmers, who are pouring their hearts and souls in to a project, which Apple might, in the end, turn around and stab them in the heart with.
Very loose simile: It's like the greatest swordsmiths (Open Source programmers) on earth collectively working for years to create the greatest sword ever for a king (the public, and perhaps Apple), who kills the smith with it to prevent the smith from making a better one. Your greatest source of pride might very well be your undoing in an irony that belongs in fairy tales. (This is not to imply that Apple has its goal laid out to squash BSD, indeed, BSD is proving to be a great aid to them, thus the loosness of the simile.)
Now that's flamebait
I'm sorry if this is seen as flamebait, but isn't anyone else concerned that potentially all apps that run under Linux would migrate their way to another (commercial) OS with marketing power, and a desire to influence it? Couldn't this be a real threat to Linux? What if everything that ran under Linux suddenly started working under Windows? Wouldn't that reduce the marketability of Linux? If I were a corporation considering switching to a different environment, all be it a more stable one, when I only have people on staff who know the current environment, might I not be inclined to stay with the current environment given that the tools from the new one were available within the current one? Immediate costs would be reduced as there's less of a rollout, even if licensing in the long run is more expensive.
I think it's a great testament to Open Source that Apple chose to heavily base their OS on it; Apple decision makers aren't idiots, they know a good thing when they see it. But in the end, it takes a piece of the market owned wholly by *nices and allows a commercial entity to have a share of it.
Well done, I coulda done that once :) I'd even have told you about bouyancy, the curve of deceleration of the bullet as it encountered air resistance and approached terminal velocity, and the distribution of energy across the curve of the shield, given one hits the concave and one the convex sides. Geeze, I hated advanced physics.
I'd disagree with one thing though, the goose won't dissipate energy nearly so well as might be thought, it would rather be much more like the effect of its greatest cross-sectional area. Let's make that two things. It's not energy/cm^3 that's important, it's energy/cm^2 (forward surface area). Which, of course, actually makes your point all the more enforced, as the tip of a bullet is considerably smaller than the greatest cross sectional area of a goose. But now let's consider other things. The bullet will slow down rapidly once it leaves a gun, while the goose is operating at a fixed velocity (relative to the plane). The further the bullet travels, the less kinetic energy it still has to deliver. This is affected by both forward resistance (determined by the greatest cross-sectional area of the bullet, as well as some aerodynamic issues), as well as the drag caused by the vacuum it leaves behind it. Although a bullet may travel 700mph right out of the gun, I'd estimate that it's down to 500mph within 20 feet out of the gun. Acceleration toward terminal velocity (either positive acceleration or negative acceleration [called decceleration to laymen]) is an exponential calculation, therefore there is the greatest change early on. It's unlikely that the bullet is hitting the windshield at a full 700mph. Now the fact that the goose hits the convex side of the glass adds to the ability of the glass to bear the load, while the bullet hitting the convex side detracts from the ability to bear the load. Now the question comes in as to how brittle the glass is. If it has tremendous capacity to bear force, but no flexibility at all, the force will be absorbed entirely at the point of impact (or across area of impact considering the goose), while if it is more flexibile, the bullet's force will be quickly distributed across the glass, decreasing its momentary force per area. When talking about activities within this instantaneous of a time period (moment of impact) it's most apropriate to determine the difference in rigidity of the various kinds of glass, which with high level calculations would actually boil down to a spring constant k.
Overall I'd agree, the bullet has higher likelihood to break the glass than the goose unless the glass is specifically built to be flexible (which seems to me to be a high oxygen content, though I could be pulling that out of my ear, isn't SiO2 a polar bond, and therefore more flexible than Si2, which would be a double bond, and therefore rigid?) over rigid, in order to absorb such impacts.
But then again, perhaps the plane that hit a goose had an air bubble in the glass, or a tiny crack already.
How long do you think it'll take till a new release of one of these worms just spawns a new process for each attack? Now it might eventually bring your machine down, but the attacks keep going on till it does. The parent process could even kill the children after ten minutes just to help keep the machine viably attacking hosts.
A goose has a heck of a lot more mass than a bullet. More mass = greater inertia = greater force required to alter its state. You hit a 5lb (fairly light) goose at 500 mph, versus a 2 oz bullet, there's 40x more force. Most geese weigh 10-20lb. Now you're talking about a 80-160 scale difference. That's like being hit with a car or hit with a bike.
Now what I'd really like to see is a gun that shoots geese... that'd be deadly... Come here Bin Laden.... QUACK!!!
How does it prove him an idiot? Because his opinion differs from yours? How is it a troll? He makes a valid point, IF there was a awy to make the terrorists use the back doored crypto..... there isn't. Therefore his conclusion is moot. If you've taken a logic course, you know that for a => b (read: if a then b)
ab conclusion
TrueTrueTrue
FalseTrueTrue
TrueFalseFalse
FalseFalseTrue
in this case, "If there was a way" is a, and "I'd support it" is b. a is false, so the conclusion must be true, i.e. it doesn't matter what b is.
If you never took a logic course, this might be lost on you, so: Basically he's not saying that we SHOULD include crypto back doors. He's not saying we shouldn't, but he's not saying we should. His real point, as I interpret the implication, is that since we can't force terrorists to use an easy to crack form of crypto, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED TO VIOLATE PRIVACY.
It's not clearly stated, but that makes him neither a troll, nor an idiot.
Slashdot moderators: PLEASE don't mod people based on whether you agree with their oppinion. That's NOT what moderator status is for, it's for scrapping those who toss trash on the site (goatsex) and for recognising those who have something useful to say, regardless of whether you agree with it.
I think that's actually an issue with the version of Word, wherein it establishes itself as the default in-browser plugin for .doc files (like Acrobat does with .pdf files), as upgrading from Office 95 to 97 at work caused us a lot of troubles where our old Intranet sites that contained links to downloadable forms suddenly started containing links to in-browser forms that caused content to get lost when users changed the form and clicked the back button. Mime types are a wonderful thing, BTW, in case anyone's wondered.
Now this was quite some time ago, I presume that you're using more current versions of Word, so I'm guessing that you were also upgrading from IE 3.x to 6.0, perhaps off of a default install of something, no? Maybe not, but that's my experience.
I was actually responding to a comment that's been modded out of existance (sortof) so it looks like I'm replying to a comment that I'm not. The original comment was the text of the ALL YOUR BASE crap, replaced with ALL YOUR WTC instead. The context change makes my comment look inappropriate instead. Browse at -1 if you want to see what I was really replying to.
See the comment by fiziko that is also a reply to yours. Cheers to the guy who's making information available, but jeers to the one who makes fun of the situation.
creative, but not appropriate, sorry man, if I could, I'd mod you down.
I really want to know, but it's not been reported on yet.
the mall turns out to have been false. Probably a mistake related to someone mistaking the location of the Pentagon
It seems farily obvious that the study established a correlation between the two things, chess playing, and test scores, however, that does not establish a causal relationship. Playing chess, under that statement, does not provedly improve one's capacity to take tests. Rather it's likely that high test scores, and an affinity toward chess are derived from the same root cause... higher intelligence. Those who really enjoy chess do so because they love wrapping their mind around looking several moves into the future, and manipulating their opponent into things while avoiding being manipulated themselves. Individuals with IQ's of 8 can't do this, so chess is simply frustrating.
"if the old testemant is no longer valid then the ten commandments are no longer valid. The whole sabath thing is no longer valid"
Perhaps invalidated was the wrong word, it's not completely invalid, for example, it's still not right to steal, though certain sections are rather ammended with the New Testament. The ten commandments aren't contradicted by the New Testament, no where does Jesus say, "Thou shalt lust after thy neighbor's wife." Just because something is stated in the Old Testament, doesn't necessarily, therefore, invalidate it, but rather, it becomes subject to that which is stated in the New Testament.
"...commit genocide and unspeakable evil is just daffy. Besides which it didn't work..." Well, the jews of the time didn't become a mercenary nation. The fact is that they'd likely have committed the same genocide with or with out his intervention, these are people whose parents (yes, their parents, that recently) were slaves to the Egyptians, a rather ruthless bunch, and as such, much of the Egyptian culture would have been part of their heritage. They'd have taken the women as slaves (those who survived), killed the children nonetheless (that's how it was done in those days, children of slaves are only a burden, most especially if you're on a war party), and the slaves themselves would probably not have survived long for being underfed and mistreated. War slaves were often killed in those days for sport (ancient greek influence -- gladiators and all) or simply because their master was upset. The only life available to those few who would make it would be undeniably horrid. If God asked the Jews to kill the women and children, destroy their goods and land, then there is no financial benefit to these acts, and so the Jews wouldn't make a life of this sort of behavior.
True, the Jews still kill Palestinians today, that doesn't necessarily make it right, and I doubt many of these Jews are killing for profit, aside from the periodic hit man.
And as to your final point. We're not entitled to pick and choose which sections we "like" or find convenient. We do, however, have the liberty to read the Bible, and interpret it as closely to what we can divine of God's will as we can. If I choose to ignore "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain," because I find it inconvenient, then I've made a mockery of it. If, however, I determine that somehow that commandment was misguided, then that's within my right to interpret. We're not here to answer to one another, or to be holier than one another, but rather our purpose is to uphold the will of God to the best of our ability.
I can tell you that God would have preferred that no killing occurred, but mankind being as they are, they'll sometimes force the issue on him, because he will uphold certain principles that he laid down from the start. God doesn't want you to jump off a freeway overpass into oncoming traffic to commit suicide, but given that you're going to commit suicide, I'm thinking that he'd prefer you do it in the least overall damaging method possible, and go out in the desert with a gun.
The Bible is most certainly open to interpretation (ask Catholics, Baptists, Bretheren, even Muslims about the meaning of certain passages). I guarantee you someone has the closest interpretation toward God's will over someone else, but it's up to each of us to discern it as accurately as we can, not on the basis of convenience. You're welcome to interpret it what ever way you want. I believe if you truly believe that you are interpreting it correctly, after much thought and devotion, then you are with out sin should you follow that... you're essentially doing the best that you can. If you somehow seriously determine that God wants you to pick up a gun and shoot some people, then you're probably suffering from some psychological delusion, but you're also not doing something that you know to be wrong.
I suppose that this is birthed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bible. The Bible, first off, wasn't actually written "by God," as in, it wasn't his hand scribing the letters. What it was was God-inspired men who wrote the Bible, and there were many of them, spanning a millennium. God does not smack you upside the head with knowledge, as in, "He who doest take the integral of x^2 shall get 2x," nor does he wish to provide unrefutable proof of his existance in such a manner as to satisfy all of mankind that there clearly, and without room for contradiction exists this diety. That defeats some of his fundamental intentions, which is to have believers who choose to believe in him, rather than have no option. This is why mankind was provided the opportunity to choose. Otherwise we're atomatons.
:/). Both these pseudo-passages come from the Old Testament, sometimes also referred to as the Old Law, Old Covenant, Old Lotsa-other-stuff. My point hinges on the word Old, as in not current. We're no longer called on to exile the earth and salt the homosexuals (well, it was something like that, hehe). With the New Testament (insert appropriate aka's here), the old was invalidated, in favor of turn the other cheek. I have a hard time believing that God, the God of love, and turn-the-other-cheek philosophy commanded men to kill women and children, livestock, burn the place to the ground, and salt the earth (yeah, that's how it went).
Many would state that the Bible is completely infallible. I disagree with that. As I said, it was written by God-inspired men, and as such, they were subject to the same limitations that we now are, which is, specifically, fallibility.
"kill the homosexuals and exile anybody who wears clothes made out of two different materials".
"god is about venagance because he tells us to kill them, kill their wives, kill their children, kill their animals and salt the earth so that not even their plants survive."
Excellent selections, which I say not because I agree with them, but rather that they're a sumbling point for many Christians (for others, it's a way of life -- yeesh
Some scholars would state that the reason God commanded such a brutal ending to the Israelite enemies was because he knew that they soldiers couldn't be trusted to not rape and pillage. Given that God wanted these offenders purged from the planet, this is likely the most humane manner for this to occur, the women are spared a repeated raping, the children, a life of poverty and exile, given that they could survive at all. But probably the most important point, said scholars would argue, is that it prevented the Israelite soldiers from performing these actions for the wrong reasons; they won't get spoils, they won't get women, they won't get children, they won't get land, they get NOTHING, and so it is more of a chore commanded by God than anything else, and motivations are "pure."
Now on to my oppinion; we're talking about a God here (based on the assumption that God exists, which is integral to my explanation) who can rain brimstone on Soddom and Gammorah (sp?), who can wipe out civilizations with a flood, who could actually wiggle his pinky toe, and a civilization would dissapear as though it never existed. This is the God who gave Gideon a plan that caused confusion among his enemy such that they ran around and killed each other, with out even one of his significantly smaller army having had to kill one person. It seems to me that human motivation had something to do with this. Imagine, if you will, being God listening in on the Jewish war council. They've announced within the council their intent to overthrow their enemies in battle. You're God, you've given mankind the right to choose, and so you will not stop them from carrying out their decision, doing so violates a principle that you've put forth, the right to choose, regardless whether it's the right or wrong decision. What you can do, however, is temper them, prevent them from becoming a mercenary nation, by removing the standard attractions to said occupation. You work in their hearts, and lead them to your will of salting the earth, etc. etc. The people quickly grow a distaste for killing, they lose brothers and friends, and gain nothing. Ultimately, at the cost of a smaller amount of brutality, you prevent far more. You can certainly see how Jewish historians might consider this to be God leading them to kill, as there was divine intervention on some level.
Yes, the Bible has many contradictions, birthed from the fallibility of the many men who wrote it, and the fact that it's a set of laws, then a set of revised laws. The revised laws will unavoidably contradict the original laws, hence the fact that they're revised. The original law was laid down for a civilization of selfish people with motivations that did not necessarily jive with God's will, and made up of selfish individuals who would bend only so far before they'd turn completely away. Knowing this, God made certain allowances, and provided the time to eventually set the law straight, which is certainly prefferable to Him pushing them too far to start with, and causing them to lose faith and turn away.
"the bible is full of vile and despicable acts" -- No doubt! The Bible does not, however, command us to do these things in the New Testament, it commands us to love our neighbors, homosexual and poly-fiber wearers and all! No where in the New Testament does it say "Thou shalt bomb abortion clinics," or "Thou shalt stone thy neighbor whom you suspect might be committing smoe offense." There are zealots, as there will always be. There are those who are convinced that their specific interpretation calls them to behave in some otherwise inappropriate manner. Take, for example, the family who refused to take their children to the hospital when they were sick, because they were relying on faith to heal the children. Do you suspect that the God we're talking about here would be the sort of God who is inclined to give you whatever you want simply because you want it badly enough? I think most certainly not, the sage (but non-biblical) saying "God helps those who help themselves" applies; even in the Bible, he never worked miracles for those who sat passively by and waited for Him to do everything, He's not OUR servant, we're His.
"Do onto others what has been done to you." It's actually "Do unto others what you'd have done to you," otherwise we end up with everyone in the world being pretty evil kind of folks. I'm not even sure that this is specifically Biblical, but it's sage nonetheless. Yes, I'd agree with that, and if I duked a guy on the chin, I'd certainly prefer that he not duke me back, thus, turn the other cheek (that was sort-of a joke BTW).
To reiterate, the Bible is fallible IMO, it was written by fallible men, who were subject to their fallible societies. The Bible is actually a collection of writings that at some point, some group of fallible men decided held some real messages from God. If God were the type to plop advanced linear algebra into the minds of men who probably could do division at best, they why would he use a book at all, rather than plop a belief right into our minds, along with complete understanding of his will? Because he gives us the choice to believe in Him, rather than be forced to, and so be automotous. It's inevitable that we do wrong, it's part of our nature, and with that inevitability comes the inevitablility of some of the Bible's authors having been motivated to write certain things or behave in certain manners that were not divine in origin.
Aha! Of course! When written that way you're absolutely right, I'm considerably more used to dealing with multiple powers when written on paper, where there's no confusion based on the orientation/size, etc. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a mathematician, I just play one on TV [actually I only ever had Calc 2]) I wonder, given that the original number was intended to be a power, how it was intended, (6^6)^6 or 6^(6^6)
Interesting point, however, what you actually see is a focus suggestion. Don't get caught up with a specific number, that's not the point of the passage (this is what the author to whom you responded is saying, it's as he said, "you can't focus on one small piece"). He's not saying "this piece of the Bible is inconvenient, so we shall ignore its existance." And besides, there's some discussion on whether the actual number is "666" versus 6^6^6 (see post below about a 36,000 digit number) versus perhaps this being no more than a demonstration used for literary purposes. Furthermore, "Chrisitans" are a wide and diverse group of people. Some people may choose to do what you suggest and dismiss something because of its inconvenience. I do not, nor do those whom I hold respect for. Some programmers may choose to name all their variables "a1, a2, a3, a4," some mechanics may choose to replace the carbuerator with every oil change. That doesn't make it right, that doesn't make it recommended practice, and that most certainly doesn't make all individuals who belong to that class guilty of the same thing.
6^6 = 46,656
46,656^6 = 10,314,424,798,490,535,546,171,949,056
(that)^6 = 1.2041208676482351082020900568573e+168 (169 digits)
(I believe if you raise it to the 6th again, you get something with like 1009 digits, again for 6054 digits, and again for the number you're talking about, though I calculated 36324)
36,306 digits is a really huge number, it's actually 6^6^6^6^6^6^6, that's six, raised to the 6th, raised to the 6th a full 6 times.
But this doesn't invalidate your point of them still not wanting to copy down a rather trivial 169 digits, as the specific number really isn't what's important in this passage, although it's what everyone focuses on.
I agree with Brazil in this matter, people are dieing due to a patent on a daily basis, this is a clear cut case where a patent violation is in the sake of humanitarianism.
The problem here though is this: patents exist for a reason, and it's not necessarily to let patent holders get fat pockets and laugh their way to the bank at the misfortune of the poor schmoes who have to shell out for the patented product. Especially given pharmaceuticals, the reality is (I've been an IT guy in pharmaceuticals since I was 18, and my mother has been a scientist working for them since she graduated college) that developing drugs for use in humans costs billions of dollars. I'm not exaggerating, billions, even if you only wanted to get a different kind of sugar pill approved, billions. The studies take many years, the insurance costs once you enter the clinical phase (testing the drug in actual humans) are amazing, there are hundreds of people working on the target drug the whole time, and these are people who make $50,000 for the simplest tasks, let alone when you get a pathologist, who may well make several million a year (pathologists are to doctors what doctors are to us, the go to school for twice as long. It was discovered that one of the pathologists at my company made more than one of the executive board). There is not a company in the world that has the capacity to fork out billions of dollars in research for a drug, then sell it at cost, or slightly above cost. They need to make up this capital, as the drug industry is like a loaded version of Vegas... more likely than not, you're going to get burned, except that the issue here is the continuation of your company, and jobs for all of its employees.
If we go willy-nilly violating patents on drugs, companies will stop researching drugs, as they are guaranteed to take a bath if they cannot control the market early on. The people who produce drugs outside of the people who research that drug have comparably next to zero cost in the production, they operate with out overhead, and as a matter of fact, the percentage pure profit on generic drugs (when compared to total sales of a drug by the pharmaceutical who researched it) is tremendously greater.
If you take away a company's ability to control their product after so much initial overhead, they won't do it, because in the end, regardless of any humanitarian mission statement, companies are there for one reason... to bring profit to their stockholders. If the stockholders are not getting a profit, they'll sell, and the company will go under, and now there's no AIDS drug at all, instead of an expensive one (assuming that the company closed prior to research completion). You can't create a company with the expectation to lose money like that, you simply won't get investors.
Lampreyware is so long, and not scuzzy-sounding enough, how about Leachware? Rolls off the tongue (and fingertips) a little easier. Plus, you know the intelligence of most media-types, they probably don't know what a lamprey is, but a leach, dang nab, dey knows what dey is.
DISCLAIMER: The previous comment was not intended to be offensive toward any Redneck-Americans, or any other ethnic minority, rather, it was focused toward some ethnic minority to which you, nor any of your friends, acquaintances, or associates are not a part of, whatever that minority may be (perhaps the Media-Americans).
The fact is that javascript, as a technology, can only be depended on in the following situations:
- Corporate Intranets, where you know EXACTLY what everyone's browser and security settings are (which, for those of you who've done this stuff will know, really doesn't hold true, but you can just fsck over the non-stands)
- Completely aesthetic functionality. Functionality that doesn't break the site if it's missing... i.e., you should be able to destroy anything between <script> and </script>, or anything beginning with javascript: and have the site still be usable.
- Completely redundant functionality. i.e. stuff that may make the site a bit easier to use (popup information about links, perhaps, or tree views that don't require a page reload), in which case you're now writing a version of the code for IE, a version of the code for NS, and a version of the code for non-js. 3x code writing = a lot more work, and a lot more chance for bugs.
Javascript, as a client language, could have been awesome, but the fact is that it's really only has limited usefulness on a well programmed website.A guy I worked with once (he was later fired) was supposed to demonstrate the functionality of a database-driven website that he had written (an online community sort of thing) back when this was still a relatively new concept. His resume listed this sort of thing as his specialty. The client arrived, and he started demonstrating by logging in, and voila, the home page customized itself to his account. He went to the preferences page and clicked a few options, and voila, the home page was different now. That's when the client noticed that his name was misspelled. "Oops, must have typed it in to the database wrong, hehe." He started showing the pages again, and each time the client would ask to see a particular link, he'd blow it off and click somewhere else instead. My co-workers and I were passing around looks. Then I noticed that his name was once again spelled correctly at the top of the page.
The clients eventually left, only mildly impressed since he follow any of their suggestions on using the site while in the meeting, and I got suspicous. I tapped in to his computer (honestly, if you're wearing a Flyers tie, don't make your password "Flyers") and grabbed the files. I realized there was no database connectivity in here at all! It was all static pages that could only be browsed in one path, and the changes you made just actually linked you to a page statically programmed to show the changes. That's why his name had changed spelling!
Ok, not too impressive, but true =)
export PS1="(\# \[\033[0;31m\]\u@\h \[\033[0;34;1m\]\w\[\033[0;37m\])\n> "
looks like this: (with <COLOR> indicating its color, DUH)
<Normal>(46 <RED>mightye@tux <BLUE>/var/log<Normal>)
>