I think this really says something about the quality that Connectix is putting out. To emulate x86 that well is pretty amazing. Throw any old x86-based OS on VPC and it just works. That's cool.
Does anyone have more information on this? It's mentioned that the disk image is for VPC3. Is it possible to get this running on VPC2? Maybe I'll have to install another copy of VPC2 (I've got one running Win95) and try this myself.
Since a vote for a minor party will have basically no chance of being reflected in the overall representation in Congress or elsewhere, my only way of influencing politics at all is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" from the major parties.
Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really tired of hearing this. Comments like this strike me as being from someone who is just looking for an excuse to complain.
Hear, hear! I was going to say the same thing. When you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you are still voting for evil. Stop voting on politics and start voting on principle! If everyone would stand up for what they really believe in, instead of second-guessing how everyone else will vote and wondering if their vote is "wasted", maybe we'd actually make a difference.
I'm voting third party this year. Why don't you try it, too?
I concur. If the 12.1" screen could be 1024x768 (which should be quite legible on a LCD) I'd snap an iBook up in a heartbeat. Well, as soon as I could save the $1500 anyway. All the other specs are sweet. And if the PowerBooks could do 1152x864 I'd get one of those instead, even though it costs a bit more.
If you folks in the media would frame this issue properly, perhaps the general public would [...] take away those federal powers NOT enumerated in the US Constitution that they seem to think they have
Exactly! I say this over at Liberty Rally all the time, and every other chance I get. It's why I'll probably be voting Constitution this fall. Let's limit the gov't to the power it's actually supposed to have and we'll see our lives improve.
Arraying multiple 'scopes is a tough feat. The problem is this: to composite the image you have to know the distance between them in units comparable to what you're measuring — in this case, wavelengths of light which are measured in Ångstroms. Keck 1 and 2 do this, but they sit on the same mountain in Hawaii. The VLA and VLBA have been around awhile, but radio wavelengths are much longer than light.
Perhaps because the MacOS is designed with a more visually correct gamma than others. *shrug* And maybe Photoshop has its own built-in corrections on other platforms. Just an idea.
That's very interesting. I'd never thought of it that way before. IIRC, hearing works the same way. (Every octave is a doubling of frequency.)
I wonder, then, why the "named" colors (purple, darkred, snow, cornflowerblue, etc) in browsers tend to be more prolific above 0xF0 and much less under about 0x30. Did Netscape think we needed more variations of off-white colors than off-black ones?
Rumor is the cutoff for PR3 (nsbeta3 in Mozilla-speak) is middle of this month. So, I expect it to be released alongside the M18 or M19 milestone. Supposedly, PR3 is the last one before NN6 final.
So my speculation is that M20-22 will be what ships as NN6 final. The milestones out to 30 will be further features and refinements for 6.1, etc. Maybe M30 will be NN7. Probably somebody at Netscape realized the importance of getting a browser out the door, whether or not all the bells and whistles (like CSS2 and 3) are there.
Starting salaries for many college graduates I know are 60k+. This is in contrast to 1997 (when I last graduated) where the lucky ones were the ones who got ~40k salaries.
Maybe I better start looking for a different job, then. Hmmmm. Where does a guy look to find typical pay scales? Where did you get these numbers?
I think the title of this article is (somewhat) misleading. From reading the linked story it appears that the researcher only has copyright on certain deductions he made about the scrolls, and perhaps his translation. Well, duh! I don't have copyright on Homer's Iliad but if I write a scientific paper regarding the Iliad I have copyright on what I wrote. I don't see how this is any different.
The knowledge contained on the Scrolls, or any other ancient text, should be considered in the public domain. Sure, the Israeli gov't may choose to restrict access to the physical scrolls, but I suppose that's their perogative. (Maybe they worry about the fragments being physically damaged.) However, if the only access the outside world is given is through this one man's research, which he has copyright over, I don't think that's right. What about peer review? What happens if he's biased, or just wrong? If what this story is saying (and I believe it is) is that this guy has copyrighted the only authorized translation, the only thing that other researchers can work from, then that's a problem.
The scientist regrets the information being so open now. Aww, too bad. He can't keep it all to himself. Well, tough. I guess just as some businessmen are greedy for money, some scientists are greedy for knowledge and would like to deny anybody else a chance in order to aggrandize themselves. What happened to the idea of sharing information so that the common pool of knowledge could be increased by having more people work on the problem?
I think it's just another case of, "/. reported it, it must be true!" Nothing new to see here, move along.
OTOH, if this was George's doing, he's quite good at it. Kenny and Anthony are all that remain of the "good ol' days" of SW. George knows what SW fans would respond to.
I'm surprised you bother to reply to these AC's, Jeff. Personally, I don't think they're worth my time. If they didn't post as AC, maybe I'd consider it.
I support anonymous posting. Anonymity is necessary sometimes, when you need to say something that could get you in trouble and you fear reprisal. But I also believe you should stand behind your opinions, and that's hard to do when you're hiding your face.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Of course, no one has the right to force others to listen to him either, and to the AC's I'd say, "If you don't like my sig, turn off sig display in your preferences." Oh wait, AC's don't have display preferences, do they? Guess they have to live with it. Or log in. Or just ignore sigs.
There is no x86 version of OS X, nor will there be. Apple makes its money on hardware. Jobs does like to keeps his options open, however. You never know what might happen if the PPC coalition falls apart.
Darwin, OTOH, can run on x86. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of.
I can't wait until some lawyer figures out that all reading is covered by the DMCA since when you learn something you are making a copy into an electronic computer (your brain).
You'll be waiting a long time. Lawyers, by nature, comply with DMCA by not learning anything new.
OK, it was an obvious lame lawyer joke. So sue me.
Lucas has shown the way of the future - digital characters. First Jar-Jar and now R2-D2. Does anyone remember the commercial from just a few years back where they digitally resurrected the Duke (John Wayne, you remember him, right?) to promote something that could have been done just as well by someone else. Soon we won't need actors - we'll just resurrect our favorites and cast them into the parts. Ever wonder how Macauly(sp?) Culkin and Charlie Chaplin would look like together on screen? Soon you'll have your chance.
Very disappointing if you ask me. CGI can't capture the nuances that make acting an art. And even if it progresses enough that it can, so what? It's no longer an art, but science.
You're not serious, are you? That's an incredibly idealistic scenario. Sure, I'd like it too, but really...the big guys are just going to use UCITA to squash everyone else.
This has a (not so) vague hint of historical revisionism to it...
Actually, I've always thought that the popularly-touted notions that many of these early scientists (as well as many founders of the US) were not Christians to be historical revisionism.
To quote James Kennedy:
Modern science began, observes Francis Schaeffer, when the Aristotelian view of the universe was questioned scientifically. What was at stake in the Copernican revolution? Many modern secularists will tell you it was a biblical cosmology. In reality was was an Aristotelian cosmology that was shaken to the core by Copernicus. Only by imposing Aristotelian thought on the Bible did the Church mistakenly, misguidedly, censure Galileo in 1632. Schaeffer elaborates:
The foundation for modern science can be said to have been laid at Oxford when scholars there attacked Thomas Aquinas's teaching by proving that his chief authority, Aristotle, made certain mistakes about natural phenomena.... When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo (1564-1642), it was not because their teachign actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of the church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus with the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial.
Original sin was about disobeying God. Man was forbidden only one thing. Anything else would have been OK. It was a case of direct disobedience, plain and simple. In fact, Kennedy writes:
Another basic concept that led to science was the doctrine of sin. It became clear that man was sinful, and that man's sinfulness nad his total depravity were taken seriously for the first time. It was realized by the Reformers [...] that every faculty of man, including the mind, was depraved; therefore, human reason could not be depended on to come to all truth, as the Greeks so proudly supposed. [...] it was necessary for reason to be backed up with experimentation.
I think you missed the point of what I'm saying. These scientists pursued their work because of God's rationality. Without their belief in that, the scientific work would not have been done.
Yes, he was smart enough to understand that the odds of that occurring by random chance are so exceedingly small as to be negligible. It's more believable to say that an invisible, omnipotent Being made it that way. Yet you'll continue to believe the nigh-impossible just so that you don't have to recognize God.
First, your link doesn't work. Second, if I lived in a garage it wouldn't make me a car. Going to a "church" doesn't make you a Christian. 1 John 2:5-6 says, "But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." The popular corollary is, "They'll know we are Christians by our love." If it don't look like love, it probably ain't Christian! Jesus did not advocate racism/intolerance. He did advocate love, even for "outsiders" like the Samaritans (woman at the well), sinners (woman caught in adultery), sick and diseased (lepers), insane (demon-possessed man), etc.
*shrug* Whatever. You're missing the point. The Bible doesn't seem to say anything directly about universal gravitation and planets in elliptical orbits either, but it didn't stop Newton and Kepler from studying it.
The same Cyril that invented the Cyrillic alphabet that made it possible for entire cultures to be literate? Mobs are hardly ever rational, and they often act without the authorization of their supposed leader.
How do we know what God's will and God's moral standards are? It's really only through humans. There's the bible [...], which I'm sure you'll acknowledge was written by people, and [...] through the clergy.
I agree with the first and disagree with the second. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God revealed to man. I believe that this is self-evident in the Bible itself. Over 60 books by a couple dozen different authors over hundreds of years, and yet there is a consistent theme through it all. That didn't just happen by itself. There was a Guiding Hand, there was an Inspiration. (Hint: that's God.) Clergy may expound on what it says, and offer new ways to make it accessible to new generations, but the authority is still the Bible. If what clergy says disputes the Bible, the Bible wins.
I assure you that the "Thou shalt not murder" idea has been around for much longer than these particular religions.
Here I suppose I can agree that you're correct. I suppose "Judaism" didn't start at least until the time of God's covenant with Abraham, but God has frowned on murder since at least the time of Cain and Abel, the 2nd generation of human beings. What I'm saying is that God's standard hasn't changed, regardless of when it was codified. If all cultures share these same basic tenets, it sounds as if all cultures may share that common root, just as the Bible claims they do.
Christian morals are more of a reflection of the society than vice versa.
I disagree. If Christian morals changed with society, they wouldn't be Christian morals any more. The standard of morality is the same now as it was thousands of years ago, because God doesn't change. Your "morals" may be a reflection of society, but that has no bearing on the morality standard described in the Bible.
Historians tell us that virtually every great civilization down through history has gone through two phases. First, there is the phase of its ascendancy until it reaches the pinnacle of its power, where it will last for a little while. Then begins a period of descent and finally a plunge into oblivion. [...]
Historians tell us that during the periods of ascendancy, every one of these nations and kingdoms adhered to a period of moral strictness; there was a societal frown upon sexual promiscuity, even laws that restrained it. Becasue of the strict moral code of the people, they grew strong and their nations prospered.
After reaching prosperity and success, the moral codes were relaxed, ignored, and finally abrogated. Th epeople began to enter into sexual expression, freedom, immorality, and promiscuity, adn the nations plunged into the sea of oblivion. One after another, with no exception, this happened to every nation of antiquity.
The eminent historian Edward Gibbon made it absolutely plain in his monumental work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire when he said that one of the principal reasons for the dissolution of the Roman Empire was the prior dissolution of the families within it. It is not just a maxim that the family is the building block of the nation. As the Romans were soon to discover, the collapse of families was not just a private matter. In fact, when the Goths and Visigoths and all barbarians swept like a tidal wave across the Roman Empire, killing and pillaging, people discovered that marriage was a very public matter after all. As goes the home, so goes the nation.
I don't want civilization to collapse, and I believe that maintaining a moral standard is a way to prevent that.
You are not clearly representing my (or the CP's) position. The CP does not advocate giving special rights to homosexual persons (or to any special interest group). Everyone has the right to marry, to enter into that time-honored man-woman relationship that is the basis of the family. The CP believes that the family unit is the basis of good government. A government that intends to endure and look after the best interests of its citizens in the long-term should not endorse something that it believes is counter to good government! Of course, you may not agree with this POV, but I suppose you can take it up with Edward Gibbon and argue the findings of his research.
In fact I'd say that you may not agree with anything in the CP's platform, but the CP believes these Biblical principles are the best foundation for sound government, and they have the authority of history to prove it. They aren't out to say, "follow the Bible cuz the Bible sez so!" You may dispute that theory. OK, fine. Try to dispute the evidence. In fact, I'll give you two references, not published by the CP, to use. (I've been quoting from them because they're applicable in this thread.) What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? and What If The Bible Had Never Been Written? by Dr. James Kennedy. He looks at the world at the time of Christ and extrapolates how the world would have been different if Judeo-Christian ethics had not propogated by the the spread of Christianity throughout the world. You can probably find or request them at your local public library.
I'll ignore the absurd yet valid question to how having a penis makes one more effective at shooting a gun.
Having a penis has nothing to do with it. If you think that's the only difference between men and women, you better reread some physiology texts. The male musculature is designed to be much stronger than the female. It can run faster, farther, and carry more. These are traits that are directly applicable to serving in a combat position.
Even if a female does pass the same tests as a male (which they are not currently because the US military grades on different curves by gender), she will be in a minority because fewer female are going to pass because of these physiological differences. If you introduce females to a bunch of male soldiers in combat conditions, the combat effectiveness will be degraded. Why? The men will be thinking about sex instead of combat! I'm sure you realize that women and men think differently, so I'll spare you the armchair psychology.
Of course, my firm opinion is that NO ONE should serve in the military in a combat capacity.
I agree, but the world is not the ideal place of total safety that we'd all like it to be. Until that time, I'm glad that my country keeps a standing army to protect me from those that would like to infringe on my safety and liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
It's in the BSD section, obviously, but since Darwin is the "Apple brand" of BSD the topic is Apple. Both are applicable.
I think this really says something about the quality that Connectix is putting out. To emulate x86 that well is pretty amazing. Throw any old x86-based OS on VPC and it just works. That's cool.
Does anyone have more information on this? It's mentioned that the disk image is for VPC3. Is it possible to get this running on VPC2? Maybe I'll have to install another copy of VPC2 (I've got one running Win95) and try this myself.
~$200 million too much for the NEA, there.
Hear, hear! I was going to say the same thing. When you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you are still voting for evil. Stop voting on politics and start voting on principle! If everyone would stand up for what they really believe in, instead of second-guessing how everyone else will vote and wondering if their vote is "wasted", maybe we'd actually make a difference.
I'm voting third party this year. Why don't you try it, too?
Slow with technology? What the heck does that mean?
This isn't exactly what I'd call slow to push the envelope. I don't want to start a flame fest, but geez, get some facts.
I concur. If the 12.1" screen could be 1024x768 (which should be quite legible on a LCD) I'd snap an iBook up in a heartbeat. Well, as soon as I could save the $1500 anyway. All the other specs are sweet. And if the PowerBooks could do 1152x864 I'd get one of those instead, even though it costs a bit more.
Exactly! I say this over at Liberty Rally all the time, and every other chance I get. It's why I'll probably be voting Constitution this fall. Let's limit the gov't to the power it's actually supposed to have and we'll see our lives improve.
Interesting! This issue (among others) is why I consider myself a Constitutionalist.
Arraying multiple 'scopes is a tough feat. The problem is this: to composite the image you have to know the distance between them in units comparable to what you're measuring — in this case, wavelengths of light which are measured in Ångstroms. Keck 1 and 2 do this, but they sit on the same mountain in Hawaii. The VLA and VLBA have been around awhile, but radio wavelengths are much longer than light.
Hey! Don't be so hard on the guy. Maybe he only has a 256k video card. Or something. And maybe if pigs had wings, they could fly. ;-)
Really? After reading the sample conversation, it seems the bane of your existence is actually clueless clients that don't understand web publishing.
But yeah, I know what you mean.
Perhaps because the MacOS is designed with a more visually correct gamma than others. *shrug* And maybe Photoshop has its own built-in corrections on other platforms. Just an idea.
That's very interesting. I'd never thought of it that way before. IIRC, hearing works the same way. (Every octave is a doubling of frequency.)
I wonder, then, why the "named" colors (purple, darkred, snow, cornflowerblue, etc) in browsers tend to be more prolific above 0xF0 and much less under about 0x30. Did Netscape think we needed more variations of off-white colors than off-black ones?
Rumor is the cutoff for PR3 (nsbeta3 in Mozilla-speak) is middle of this month. So, I expect it to be released alongside the M18 or M19 milestone. Supposedly, PR3 is the last one before NN6 final.
So my speculation is that M20-22 will be what ships as NN6 final. The milestones out to 30 will be further features and refinements for 6.1, etc. Maybe M30 will be NN7. Probably somebody at Netscape realized the importance of getting a browser out the door, whether or not all the bells and whistles (like CSS2 and 3) are there.
Maybe I better start looking for a different job, then. Hmmmm. Where does a guy look to find typical pay scales? Where did you get these numbers?
I think the title of this article is (somewhat) misleading. From reading the linked story it appears that the researcher only has copyright on certain deductions he made about the scrolls, and perhaps his translation. Well, duh! I don't have copyright on Homer's Iliad but if I write a scientific paper regarding the Iliad I have copyright on what I wrote. I don't see how this is any different.
The knowledge contained on the Scrolls, or any other ancient text, should be considered in the public domain. Sure, the Israeli gov't may choose to restrict access to the physical scrolls, but I suppose that's their perogative. (Maybe they worry about the fragments being physically damaged.) However, if the only access the outside world is given is through this one man's research, which he has copyright over, I don't think that's right. What about peer review? What happens if he's biased, or just wrong? If what this story is saying (and I believe it is) is that this guy has copyrighted the only authorized translation, the only thing that other researchers can work from, then that's a problem.
The scientist regrets the information being so open now. Aww, too bad. He can't keep it all to himself. Well, tough. I guess just as some businessmen are greedy for money, some scientists are greedy for knowledge and would like to deny anybody else a chance in order to aggrandize themselves. What happened to the idea of sharing information so that the common pool of knowledge could be increased by having more people work on the problem?
I think it's just another case of, "/. reported it, it must be true!" Nothing new to see here, move along.
OTOH, if this was George's doing, he's quite good at it. Kenny and Anthony are all that remain of the "good ol' days" of SW. George knows what SW fans would respond to.
I'm surprised you bother to reply to these AC's, Jeff. Personally, I don't think they're worth my time. If they didn't post as AC, maybe I'd consider it.
I support anonymous posting. Anonymity is necessary sometimes, when you need to say something that could get you in trouble and you fear reprisal. But I also believe you should stand behind your opinions, and that's hard to do when you're hiding your face.
Of course, no one has the right to force others to listen to him either, and to the AC's I'd say, "If you don't like my sig, turn off sig display in your preferences." Oh wait, AC's don't have display preferences, do they? Guess they have to live with it. Or log in. Or just ignore sigs.
There is no x86 version of OS X, nor will there be. Apple makes its money on hardware. Jobs does like to keeps his options open, however. You never know what might happen if the PPC coalition falls apart.
Darwin, OTOH, can run on x86. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of.
You'll be waiting a long time. Lawyers, by nature, comply with DMCA by not learning anything new.
OK, it was an obvious lame lawyer joke. So sue me.
Lucas has shown the way of the future - digital characters. First Jar-Jar and now R2-D2. Does anyone remember the commercial from just a few years back where they digitally resurrected the Duke (John Wayne, you remember him, right?) to promote something that could have been done just as well by someone else. Soon we won't need actors - we'll just resurrect our favorites and cast them into the parts. Ever wonder how Macauly(sp?) Culkin and Charlie Chaplin would look like together on screen? Soon you'll have your chance.
Very disappointing if you ask me. CGI can't capture the nuances that make acting an art. And even if it progresses enough that it can, so what? It's no longer an art, but science.
You're not serious, are you? That's an incredibly idealistic scenario. Sure, I'd like it too, but really...the big guys are just going to use UCITA to squash everyone else.
Actually, I've always thought that the popularly-touted notions that many of these early scientists (as well as many founders of the US) were not Christians to be historical revisionism.
To quote James Kennedy:
I agree with the first and disagree with the second. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God revealed to man. I believe that this is self-evident in the Bible itself. Over 60 books by a couple dozen different authors over hundreds of years, and yet there is a consistent theme through it all. That didn't just happen by itself. There was a Guiding Hand, there was an Inspiration. (Hint: that's God.) Clergy may expound on what it says, and offer new ways to make it accessible to new generations, but the authority is still the Bible. If what clergy says disputes the Bible, the Bible wins.
Here I suppose I can agree that you're correct. I suppose "Judaism" didn't start at least until the time of God's covenant with Abraham, but God has frowned on murder since at least the time of Cain and Abel, the 2nd generation of human beings. What I'm saying is that God's standard hasn't changed, regardless of when it was codified. If all cultures share these same basic tenets, it sounds as if all cultures may share that common root, just as the Bible claims they do.
I disagree. If Christian morals changed with society, they wouldn't be Christian morals any more. The standard of morality is the same now as it was thousands of years ago, because God doesn't change. Your "morals" may be a reflection of society, but that has no bearing on the morality standard described in the Bible.
To again quote Dr. James Kennedy:
I don't want civilization to collapse, and I believe that maintaining a moral standard is a way to prevent that.
You are not clearly representing my (or the CP's) position. The CP does not advocate giving special rights to homosexual persons (or to any special interest group). Everyone has the right to marry, to enter into that time-honored man-woman relationship that is the basis of the family. The CP believes that the family unit is the basis of good government. A government that intends to endure and look after the best interests of its citizens in the long-term should not endorse something that it believes is counter to good government! Of course, you may not agree with this POV, but I suppose you can take it up with Edward Gibbon and argue the findings of his research.
In fact I'd say that you may not agree with anything in the CP's platform, but the CP believes these Biblical principles are the best foundation for sound government, and they have the authority of history to prove it. They aren't out to say, "follow the Bible cuz the Bible sez so!" You may dispute that theory. OK, fine. Try to dispute the evidence. In fact, I'll give you two references, not published by the CP, to use. (I've been quoting from them because they're applicable in this thread.) What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? and What If The Bible Had Never Been Written? by Dr. James Kennedy. He looks at the world at the time of Christ and extrapolates how the world would have been different if Judeo-Christian ethics had not propogated by the the spread of Christianity throughout the world. You can probably find or request them at your local public library.
Having a penis has nothing to do with it. If you think that's the only difference between men and women, you better reread some physiology texts. The male musculature is designed to be much stronger than the female. It can run faster, farther, and carry more. These are traits that are directly applicable to serving in a combat position.
Even if a female does pass the same tests as a male (which they are not currently because the US military grades on different curves by gender), she will be in a minority because fewer female are going to pass because of these physiological differences. If you introduce females to a bunch of male soldiers in combat conditions, the combat effectiveness will be degraded. Why? The men will be thinking about sex instead of combat! I'm sure you realize that women and men think differently, so I'll spare you the armchair psychology.
I agree, but the world is not the ideal place of total safety that we'd all like it to be. Until that time, I'm glad that my country keeps a standing army to protect me from those that would like to infringe on my safety and liberty.