Comment Re:WW2 (Score 2) 591
They used hydrogen cyanide (in the form of Zyklon B) and carbon monoxide (from engine exhaust) in their extermination camps. The labor camps didn't try to kill people efficiently.
They used hydrogen cyanide (in the form of Zyklon B) and carbon monoxide (from engine exhaust) in their extermination camps. The labor camps didn't try to kill people efficiently.
Cool! How many unicorns have you seen since?
Windows NT was based on a modified VMS design combined with microkernel ideas. But it never was based on or even inspired by Mach.
And while OS X does use Mach it isn't Mach - it just uses it for some functionality, not as a kernel proper.
Oh and your idea that either of them uses a generic IPC design is wrong too. QNX does though.
Aah, I remember back in the late 80's and early 90's everyone had a boner for microkernels. IBM even gave it a try, attempting to port OS/2 over to a microkernel so they could run it on Intel and PowerPC platforms. At one point, IBM's strategy was that they were going to build OS/2 around a microkernal and then just run THAT on all their hardware, with multi-user and security features added or removed as needed. Well, very long story, very long, they never could get it to work.
Depends on what you mean by that. They couldn't simply port stuff to the new microkernel, AIX, OS/400 etc. wasn't suitable to move to the new kernel. One of the big problems IIRC was endianess.
When the grand unified theo^H^H^H^HOS didn't work out it all fell apart. This in combination with the failure of PPC as a new personal computer platform, the disinterest of others to use the Workplace OS kernel, the failure of Taligent and a lot of other things made sure the project was canceled.
But OS/2 was ported and ran on the microkernel so that part of the project did succeed.
These days you don't see the same hype around microkernals that you did back then. So we should probably warn the HURD team: If your boner for microkernals lasts more than 25 years, you should probably consult a physician.
QNX, Nemesis, K42 and L4 based systems shows that to be false.
What? QNX isn't inspired by Minix - it was released 5 years before Minix!
It wasn't HDD manufacturers "making up" those prefixes, in fact they tend to like the older non-binary prefixes or (in some cases) mixing binary and decimal prefixes into a mess.
What is there to explain? Their native language is Spanish, just as some other US groups have French or other languages as their native language.
Both dark energy and dark matter have been verified in _several_ ways making those two very hard to replace by other mechanisms. Not impossible but anything pointing to another mechanism would be a proper paradigm shift, something that is extremely unlikely.
TL;DR Both dark energy and dark matter have solid evidence and is very unlikely to be disproved.
Then maybe you should try reading about it? It isn't a neo-aether.
Yes but on the other hand it doesn't lack potential.
Most airplane accidents requires a lot of smaller errors to happen, often a combination of human error and mechanical error.
IIRC the protocol already states that there should always be two or more people in the cockpit.
I'm not saying these guys didn't goof up in some way, or if they were right, it's just that sometimes the old paradigm of how everyone believes things work is just plain wrong.
I'll give one example from when I was in high school. As any programmers among the readers know, the slowest form of sort is the bubble sort.
Wrong. It is commonly the slowest _real_ sorting algorithm but for some data it is very fast. Sorted or almost sorted data are the best cases for it.
We figured out how to make it faster than all other types of sorts. We kind of freaked when our trick not only worked, but it made it the fastest. We then tested it and worked out an algorithm to keep it at it's fastest.
For generic data that is simply impossible.
The old paradigm that bubble sorts are the slowest sorts got destroyed, so it's always going to be possible that old accepted assumptions about how things work can be overturned, even if it requires certain specific parameters. (Of course crap code will F anything, so that's not what we're talking about.)
Either you forgot to list limitations to the problem that make your assumptions above right for that _specific_ problem or you are completely wrong.
The idea that those who talks (or in this case: posts to facebook) about suicide just wants attention is bullshit. As is your idea of "true" suicidal people - most of them can't plan ahead. Most suicide attempts are impulsive.
Instead of regurgitating myths try reading some.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
