It was Andrew Tanenbaum who showed the initiative to create a UNIX compatible royalty free OS for the purpose of teaching, Torvalds Linux is surely a derivative of that initiative if not a direct derivative of the Minix book which inspired him. Torvalds deserves a lot of credit for Linux but i think Tanenbaum deserves to have the credit for enabling so many people to learn about UNIX like systems without paying absurd amounts to AT&T.

Do you think every crime is as black and white as the premise... don't you have the slightest bit of imagination?

Their motive is unknown, and their apparent ignorance of the target's value suggests they are very unlikely to be professional criminals... hmm, petty criminals jacking a truck, how many sorry stories could possibly fit that picture. But by all means feel free to stick with your 3 year old perception of the through and through evil "bad guy" living it up in his evil layer with all the mountains of monies he stole. Or is it the ignorant degenerate that deserves to die? who's morals are we judging again?

According to whom?... you have no knowledge of the perpetrator's intent, and as a matter of probability the majority of "lethal weapon" wielding criminals will not only lack intent or willingness to kill but also hot have a lethal weapon at all... All that is needed is the appearance of a threat, most people are not willing to bet their life on the higher probability of a false threat... that's why it works, how do you know they weren't using toy guns? can you kill someone with a toy gun or a banana under a jacket? are you still certain that they deserve to die for wielding a "lethal weapon"?

I don't know who they are or why they did it or if there was a real potential to cause lethal harm... and my point is that nether do you. Unknown motives should not default to "Super Villain" and breaking the law or being ignorant !== "morally bankrupt moron that deserves to die", not all crime is committed out of greed..."

Then i suppose that means using a lower density fluid like hydrogen would also decrease the shock tolerance? unless it's possible to compensate by changing other characteristics such as actuator stiffness and length.

They spent 10 years researching how to reliably seal it into an enclosure...

Also it is not under the same requirements of a compressed gas canister. The whole point of using helium is for the advantages of it's fluid dynamics compared to a normal air mixture, that's why it's not pressurised.

I've always wondered why they didn't just use a near vacuum enclosure, but i suppose it's much easier to not deal with pressure difference and use a super low resistance fluid instead at the same atmospheric pressure.

This question makes as much sense as asking if free screen wash with a $100,000 car is any threat to a free online recipe for home made screen wash.

(Excluding the esoteric and technically illegal hackintosh route) Free OS X vs Free Linux is a stupid comparison... one runs on almost all consumer hardware and the other only runs on a very specific brand of hardware. It's free because you pay for the hardware that it runs on...

Thanks, informative

DDoS Time, Peanut Butter DDoS Time... Peanut Butter DDoS Peanut Butter DDoS Peanut Butter DDoS with a Zombie Army!

How is this similar to an argument for a machine gun... With a robot you can choose not to shoot in the face of doubt even when being fired upon, my argument centers around the removal of personal risk, the argument for an automatic weapon cannot. Just sounds like your dismissing my argument rather than addressing it.

I would argue that developing forms of robotics for the battlefield (autonomous or not) has a huge potential to reduce hostility. Decision making on the battlefield in person has to take into consideration enemies, civilians and friendlies, and a naturally increased hostility is present due to the personal risk involved. With robots you can forget about the personal risk forget about friendlies and concentrate on separating civilians from hostiles, it makes combat one dimension simpler.

Also robots can be sent into situations that would be suicidal, plain immoral, or not physically possible for human soldiers... go down this street with enemies hiding amongst civilians and don't shoot until you get really close because your more likely to kill a civilian, that's not really a situation you can send a human into successfully without ether huge risk to civilians or a huge risk to friendlies.

It's a sharp tool that can be used far more accurately than a blunt one such as a bomb. Something that is likely to stop stupid military decisions like preemptive strikes with massive civilian casualties, because there is another option.

I'm not saying i trust the hands of whoever these tools end up in, but the potential for good is as great as the potential for bad as with most technology.

O_o strange, thanks for pointing it out. I was repeating what i read from Wikipedia on the BSD page a long time ago, but it appears to still be there: BSD

Where does this myth come from then, and how did it end up being passed of as fact on wikipedia? perhaps you could correct it for us being as you know the whys and hows. I'm being sincere, no sarcasm here :)

Wow, never new that info was retained in the sources, interesting :)

Yeah i was a bit confused at the temporary switch in 2006 - 2007 in the timeline that suggested Darwin was the main development branch... i always viewed Darwin as the excerpt that Apple occasionally kept up to date.

It feels wrong, and you put into words exactly why it's wrong. I wish i hadn't posted so soon.

Reciting it however doesn't make you any less unreasonable than your government.

Many politicians are completely blind to the difference between Laws, Morality, and Reason, using the former as a synonym for both the later, they are not able to entertain hypothetical thinking about law, because they are ether unable or unwilling to question them. Don't be as single minded as those people, your government is no more concrete than mine.

That's what i thought, but i don't know much about the early OS X before 10.4 ... did it have everything you define as inherited from rhapsody in 10.3? if so perhaps i should ask the author to add a link between the two offending nodes.

I had a look through this timeline tracing from the origin at NeXTSTEP 0.8, and now my brain is slightly melted O_o... but I managed to find all of the inheritance from other systems (excluding integrations between derivatives of itself like Darwin, OS X Server, OS X and iOS etcetera):

• 1988, NeXTSTEP 0.8, inherited from: 4.3 BSD, Mach 2.0
• 1989, NeXTSTEP 1.0, inherited from: Mach 2.5
• 1996 - 1997, OPENSTEP, inherited from: None
• 1997, Rhapsody DR1, inherited from: 4.4 BSD lite 2
• 1998, Rhapsody DR2, inherited from: NetBSD 1.3
• 1999, Mac OS X DR1, inherited from: Mach 3, FreeBSD 3.1
• 1999, Mac OS X DR2, inherited from: FreeBSD 3.2
• 2002, Mac OS X 10.1.5, inherited from: FreeBSD 4.5
• 2003, Mac OS X 10.3 beta, inherited from: FreeBSD 4.8, FreeBSD 5.1
• 2004, Mac OS X 10.4 beta, inherited from: FreeBSD 5.2.1

So it looks like mostly FreeBSD and a little of the old Mach, I think NetBSD was used as a means for porting between architectures more than a literal inheritance. interesting how the last bit of FreeBSD was way back in 2004 from FreeBSD 5 (The timeline goes all the way up to present with OS X Mavericks). of course there are probably newer bits of FreeBSD used that are only known internally to Apple.

Not having looked this closely at the OS X part of this timeline before i found the transition between OPENSTEP and OS X quite confusing... according to the timeline Rhapsody (what OPENSTEP turned into after Apple started working on it) directly became Mac OS X Server and Darwin, but OS X was not derived from any of them itself and seems to be directly linked to Mach 3.

Then the timeline proceeds with Mac OS X as what appears to be where all of the development is taking place (including inheriting from FreeBSD), with Darwin and OS X Server only ever taking from OS X like mirrors. Then suddenly in 2006 this model changes and the OS X 10.5 beta inherits from Darwin 9.0 beta, when OS X 10.5 and Darwin 9 mature the model goes Darwin -> Mac OS X -> Mac OS X Server... Then in 2007 during the OS X 10.7 beta the model changes again when the server branch is eradicated all together and gets integrated into OS X and OS X gets integrated into Darwin so the model goes OS X -> Darwin again but without the server.

This suggests OS X didn't inherit from Rhapsody at all until the period between 2006 and 2007, not sure if this is true or not, but interesting none the less. Also makes you wonder how much of the original OPENSTEP was inherited, perhaps it's more that it was not publicly disclosed how much of the technologies became proprietary Apple technologies at the beginning of OS X rather than a lack of direct inheritance at the beginning.