I am no authority on homosexuality. All I really know is that I meet a lot of gay folks here in Berkeley, and they are every bit as nice as anyone else.

Nor am I a genetics expert. But I know enough to hold a discussion.

You are right that there may be no genetic connection with homosexuality, because it doesn't seem to be inherited in general. But there are intriguing differences such as digit ratio, and we know that many developmental differences can have a genetic factor. Who knows what we will find?

I think the flaw with your argument is that you are assuming that homosexuals don't breed. Not true, and there may also be factors increasing the success of their offspring such as small, educated and relatively affluent families.

Next, do not assume that direct reproductive success is the only possible pro-survival factor. The contribution of homosexuals to the reproductive success of their close genetic relatives or even their community may be a pro-survival factor for genes like their own.

There are others whose opinions are far more principal to that question than yours.

Those who ignore history are bound to make really big fools of themselves on Slashdot.

Go away, troll.

Assange's narcissism facilitated this - the kid got put to work after the Wikileaks schism, and there surely was not enough manpower to properly vet the new guys. Longest lasting fallout is probably talent that would otherwise have gotten involved now have to wonder whether they are talking to just Wikileaks, or Wikileaks and the FBI/NSA/CIA.

You can tell people I'm your "elmer", the person who inspired you to get your license, then.

Buckey Balls were an adult product and you saw what happened to them. Say good-by to your beloved tiny ships in bottles, they're going next!

I wasn't saying that all of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux users would install it immediately in their mission critical systems on Wall Street, either.

But we can give you a significant number of users of a real kernel for your experiment.

The OS is mostly replaced about every 5-10 years.

That's why we have Linux. You can get a real OS implementation in users hands immediately. You only need these poor half measures for the Microsoft version.

I have no objection to protocol experiments that are 100% Open Source implementations. I wouldn't trust one that was not, and an Open Standard is just instructions for people who make implementations.

But it seems that a lot of this might belong in a system facility rather than the browser and server. I don't know if it makes sense to put all of TLS in the kernel, but at least it could go in its own process. Using UDP is fine for an experiment, but having 200 different ad-hoc network stacks each tied into their own application and all of them using UDP is not.

My (old) pennies are worth 2 cents ...

That's what I wondered too, actually....

The only way the phrase "still, beating hearts" makes any sense at all is if you take away the comma, so it refers to "still beating hearts", or rather, hearts that are still beating.

Of course, that doesn't make sense in context that he used the expression because unless one is some sort voodoo master from the Temple of Doom, you're not going to have a heart that's still beating once it has been removed from a body.

But then again, he might not have ever intended to be taken so seriously.

Well, you may not like Apple much longer either: http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/25/new-apis-in-ios-7-allow-developers-to-detect-blinking-and-smiling-in-photos/

What you want exists under the Part 5 rules, which you can read here. That is a separate radio service that allows experimentation for commercial purposes and other things that would not fit in Amateur radio. You have to file notices, but you can do what you want, and on a lot of different frequencies.

The Part 97 rules for the Amateur Sevice create a pretty good balance between the needs of all of the various users of Amateur radio. It's not really designed for all sorts of experimentation without limit, it's more for experimentation by individuals with explicitly non-profit and personal motivation.

Funny thing...I've done testing with directly connected computers using Fiber Channel. I didn't just pull the number out of thin air. And yes, you can do a little to adjust that; however, it's primarily the result of TCP's default control algorithm - Additive Increase, Multiplicative Decrease - which again, you can change. There has been proposals for Multiplicative Increase, Muliplicative Decrease algorithsms too, and you can certainly set those up in your Linux Kernel (and BSDs); but support for them is not very great in the wild.

We really don't miss you on ham radio! Thank you for self-selecting not to be heard there.

Uhh..no. All streaming services typically use UDP. You don't care if a frame is dropped, but you do care about the performance for the end-user. You cannot get that with TCP. You may be surprised to find YouTube, et al use UDP for the actual streaming. You may also be surprised to find that networks and IP stacks are just as optimized for UDP - they can't really tell the difference. TCP and UDP both build on top of the IP stack, whether IPv4 or IPv6.