Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Tannenbaum's predictions... (Score 1) 83

by TheRaven64 (#47425531) Attached to: Prof. Andy Tanenbaum Retires From Vrije University
Predicting that x86 would go away was more wishful thinking than anything else. At the time, Intel had just switched from pushing the i960 to pushing the i860 and would later push Itanium as x86 replacements (their first attempt at producing a CPU that it was impossible to efficiently compile code for, the iAPX432, had already died). Given that Intel was on its second attempt to kill x86 (the 432 largely predated anyone caring seriously about x86), it wasn't hard to imagine that it would go away soon...

Comment: Re:A great writer (Score 1) 83

by TheRaven64 (#47425431) Attached to: Prof. Andy Tanenbaum Retires From Vrije University
I found Modern Operating Systems better than the Minix book. The Minix book tells you exactly how a toy OS works in detail. Kirk McKusick's Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD OS (new version due out in a month or two) tells you how a real modern OS works in detail. Modern Operating Systems gives you a high-level overview of how modern operating systems work and how they should work. If you want to learn about operating systems, I'd recommend reading the FreeBSD D&I book and Tanenbaum's Modern Operating Systems and skipping the Minix book (which was also a bit too heavy on code listings for my tastes).

Comment: Re:Does this mean the death of Minix3? (Score 1) 83

by TheRaven64 (#47425395) Attached to: Prof. Andy Tanenbaum Retires From Vrije University

I feel it necessary to point out, though, that OS X is not a microkernel system comparable to Minix

While this is true, it's worth noting that a lot of the compartmentalisation and sandboxing ideas that most of the userland programs on OS X employ (either directly or via standard APIs) have roots in microkernel research. OS X is in the somewhat odd situation of having userspace processes that are a lot more like multiserver microkernels than its kernel...

Comment: Re:Life on Mars? (Score 1) 250

The fermi paradox, plus the lack of reason to establish a colony in this solar system combined with the difficulty of leaving this solar system. It would be much, much easier to have colonies on the bottom of the ocean than to have them on the moon or Mars (and of course, Venus is brutal).

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see much reason for hope.

Comment: Re:Bitcoin isn't money but it's still a financial (Score 1) 104

You clearly don't understand Bitcoin (as your description of it so eloquently conveys) if you think its primary purpose is to launder money.

He didn't say that (just as the primary purpose of laundry detergent isn't to launder money, it's to wash clothes. LTR). He said the reason Silk Road used it is to launder money. There's a difference.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 251

by phantomfive (#47422527) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

The criteria of the test were defined, the criteria of the test was passed. Please share your superior intellect and explain to my poor retard self how it has not passed.

Because the results are not reproducible. The logical conclusion is that there was some problem with the experiment.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito