This sounds like a garbled reference to Kernighan's Why Pascal is Not My Favorite Programming Language. The title is drily amusing, and the points made in the article are technically true, but I can't help thinking that the dissing of Pascal is a bit disingenuous and/or missing the point. The language wasn't even designed for system programming, but as a teaching aid. Its popularity far outside the original remit just underscores the dearth of sane high-level languages at the time.

Anyway, Wirth didn't tweak Pascal; he designed a completely new language, Modula-2, which, by the way, happened before Kernighan's article.

Hurricane Electric is great, but note this item in their FAQ:

That's protocol 41, not port, and support for any non-garden-variety protocol in the cheaper routers/APs is notably spotty. Who knows what POS you're going to end behind at your next hotel?

There still are niches where a powerful calculator is desirable for field work. Surveying is one -- search for "hp-50g surveying" to see for yourself. Yes, there are specialized data collectors, usually running WinCE (shudder), but a suitably outfitted HP-50g is a very worthwhile alternative.

They photographed it alongside a metric ruler? Blasphemy!

Or maybe Vista?

(This seems oddly appropriate.)

Hyperbole much? Recognizing IPv6 addresses is not that different from recognizing IPv4 ones, especially if you assign local parts manually, which you should do for the servers instead of relying on autoconfiguration, for reasons which should be obvious. So, 2001:db8:0:1001::4 is...?

• 2001:db8::/32 is your organization's prefix. You're supposed to know it by heart.
• 0:1001 is, say, Accounting. You know your network's addressing plan, right?
• ::4 is their print server.

With a bit of practice, parsing the IPv6 addresses you deal with frequently will become second nature. If it doesn't, then maybe you're not such a hot network admin.

Also: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

How desperate, and appropriate.

That's what the nuclear-capable nations' militaries hoped for, but it didn't turn out that way. As already stated in a number of posts above (and argued in TFA), the distinction between tactical and strategic nukes is very difficult to make. Nuclear weapons are simply too powerful (and too dirty, regardless of the size) to be useful in a tactical setting.

One party which seems to have recently realized this is, wonder of wonders, North Korea. There are strong indications that their designed yield was about 4 kT. A piddly tac nuke, right? Well, as mentioned in the discussion after the referenced article, imagine those 4 kT going off in the heart of Seoul or Tokyo...

They didn't sign anything -- see this article. Missile launch ban is the consequence of the UNSC Resolution 1874, adopted after the North's second nuclear test. I don't think that the North is irrational -- just quite determined to preserve the regime and prepared to play provocative moves to that end.

Thank you for reminding me. I'll be twitching for the rest of the day. Funny how much outright crap one can remember -- I thought those neurons have long died off out of sheer disgust.

For the mercifully uninitiated, SCO Unix had a baroque system of little configuration files, object modules, a severely handicapped C compiler, and a similarly crippled linker for the purpose of modifyng kernel parameters and installing third-party drivers, both of which required re-linking the whole kernel (sysctl? dynamic data structures? run-time linkable modules? never heard. OK, it was the early '90s, but still.)

SCO, in their infinite wisdom, tried to make driver installation "user friendly": you would unpack the archive, start the installation script, and a few minutes later reboot to a freshly built kernel. Of course this failed to account for buggy scripts, weird configurations, and cargo-cult admins, any of which could make an unholy mess of the system and/or render it unbootable. I've had the dubious pleasure of cleaning up a number of such messes.

Criticality -- the point at which a fuel assembly can sustain a nuclear chain reaction by itself.

Critical mass -- the smallest mass of fuel for which the criticality is reached; depends on geometry, density, temperature etc.

So the GP's usage is correct. To be really precise, one could note that weapon fuel should go from subcritical to prompt critical to achieve explosion, but that would be nitpicking in this context.

O'RLYEH?