I remember all that.
In fact, I bought a bunch of those HP workstations when they sold them off.
I got a bunch of the C180s from the CS dept. and a few C240s (probably from the Engineering labs) to play with at home.
I learned basic HP-UX admin, SAM on them. CDE wasn't terrible.
I used one with Debian Linux on it for my webserver for years--since non-x86 adds an extra layer of protection from exploits--a buffer overflow full of x86 instructions won't do anything on a PA-Risc cpu except properly crash--not provide access.

This isn't quite right, it's actually 1 - (1 - 1/6) ^ 2 or 30.5%, not quite 1/3rd.

For the astronomical calculation it would be 1 - (1 - [drake equation odds]) ^ 2 trillion ... which is essentially 1.

While that's correct, we're not calculating the same odds:
The odds of rolling a 6 with one die is 1/6.
The odd of rolling a 6 with two dice rolls is 2 x 1/6 or 1/3.
The odds of sentient life evolving once, somewhere, given one galaxy is the Drake equation result.
The odds of sentient life evolving once, somewhere, given our current estimate of 2 trillion galaxies in the know universe is the Drake equation result x 2 trillion...
so the odds there is another sentient species somewhere in the universe is 12 orders of magnitude higher than the odds we exist at all in just our own galaxy, which is pretty damn near close to 1.

using speaker phone and the mute button?

By what metric do you judge agriculture a huge success and thus an indicator that we are omnivores?

The onset of agriculture is what has brought on the "diseases of civilization", namely metabolic syndrome. Chronic disease. When the "everything" in moderation also includes toxins that cause chronic disease I wouldn't consider that a good indicator that we should continue doing something--just because we have been--just because we've still managed to reproduce despite doing it.

The thing that actually works best is ingesting *zero* toxins and instead only ingesting the foods that we evolved to eat which will not make us sick (animals). Sure, we can *tolerate* plant matter, but we should not subsist on it alone nor in large quantities nor frequently/regularly. We simply do not need them at all--and eating them regularly does make us sick. Some people more than others, and some quicker than others.

Wrong again. Facultative carnivore is indeed the correct term. You can always look it up before attempting to correct my already correct grammar and responding with a weak, ad hominem retort.

Humans are primates that evolved to hunt, not forage.

We have developed numerous features conducive to hunting that separates us from other species: feet, hips, shoulders, jaw, sweat glands, and the fact that our breathing is independent of our gait (unlike cats whose respiration is coordinated with their motion), and of course lets not forget our increased cranial capacity.

We've devolved in our capacity to really process plant matter at all, let alone efficiently enough to subsist on--we likely never had a rumen and for all intents and purposes now have only a vestigial, non-functional caecum.

While we are not obligate carnivores, thus plants don't usually kill us instantly, we do not thrive on plant matter.

Plant fats are MUFAs (oleic acid) or PUFAs (arachidonic acid) which have been shown to cause all sorts of adverse affects in humans, whereas animal fats are SFA (lauric acid) are the exact fat profile our bodies thrive on without any adverse affects.

Phytotoxins, leptins, oxylates, and numerous other plant compounds cause chronic disease in humans and even acute symptoms in a considerable percentage.

No, we are not omnivores, all caps doesn't make it "truer".
We are in fact facultative carnivores.
The only reason plant eaters need to eat a variety of things is because none of those things has all the required nutrients by itself... exactly the opposite of meat. Meat has 100% of all the nutrients we need, all in one place.
There are numerous studies, and a large, growing population of humans demonstrating as much--both ancestral/historical and current.

It's not just processed sugar. It's any and all *carbs* that are the problem.
Every carb of any kind is first reduced to a monosaccharide in the gut before being dumped into the bloodstream. Processed sugars get there quicker--but the rest all get there just the same. The body does an "oh shit" reaction and produces insulin to signal every mechanism available to reduce that "blood glucose" (which actually refers to any monosaccharide in the blood, not just glucose). This includes changing the metabolic regulation in cells to burn that instead of lipids, triggers the liver to pull it and repackage it into chylomicrons which get put into the blood, triggers the adipose cells to store the lipids from the chylomicrons.
Dietary fat, OTOH, gets pulled out of the gut into the lymphatic system, packaged into a chylomicron, and then put into the blood. Absent any elevated blood glucose level, metabolic regulation will have cells burning the lipids from these instead of glucose. Adipose cells will be triggered to release lipids as necessary to continue to provide fuel as needed--not store more of it.
One of the biproducts in the liver from metabolizing some monosaccharides (fructose is one) is formaldehyde--same as with processing ethanol--long term affect is fatty liver/pickled liver.

If we just all went back to eating just meat we'd all be the healthier for it.
We do not have the physiology to effectively digest plant matter--and besides being primarily carbs, most, if not all, plants are toxic to us in one form or another. (Plants are masters of chemical warfare, since they have no limbs to fight off predation they create both pesticides and planticides--several of which we know can cause us numerous issues.)

Carnivore WOE is ideal--contains 100% of our nutritional needs, with 0% of any natural toxins or anything else causing side effects, systemic inflammation, metabolic syndrome, insulinemia, gout, IBS, fibromyalgia, etc.

1 - a universal time. - UTC would be the perfect unit to use as reference for everything.
2 - noon-time - the time in UTC when it's noon at a specific location (longitude) on a specific date.

You simply ask someone where they are in the world, and given any date on the calendar we can simply calculate when in UTC is noon for them.

Schedule meetings either absolutely with UTC or relative to someone's "noon-time".
Business hours can be noon-4 to noon+5 if they want equivalent of 8am to 5pm. (or maybe "4bn" "5an" before/after noon---or just -4 +5 since there's only one relative point)

This way we have both an absolute system and a local-relative system--but just *1* local relative system that works everywhere, year round. Since it inherently tracks noon it already replaces the purpose of DST--all without ever having to change timezone or the reading on your clock twice a year.

Clocks would of course show either UTC or local noon time.

I realize that "noon time" kind-of-sort-of sounds like timezones, but timezones have some limitations:
- they are not uniform
- they don't track the earth-sun relation year-round--thus the desire by some for DST

If we created "noon zones":
- 24 geographically even divisions around the globe
- they are not static--they track the earth-sun relation and noon is computed for each calendar day

Create more than 24 if you want to avoid big hour jumps. Or, don't create any zones at all, just always share longitude and calculate noon-time accurately everywhere.

s/Seattle/Raccoon City/

A leprechaun riding atop a unicorn handing out buckets of gold.

If they pull it all off in a single language, more power to them.

If only that actually worked--because that's exactly what I did with DirecTV. When their billing system runs it captures the billing information--even if it's a full two weeks prior to the actual draft date. Within that window you apparently *cannot* successfully alter what it will do--despite attempts to do so, and despite it saying that it *did* and *would* alter its behavior according to your changes. In short, some systems just suck--and the customer suffers (and pays) for it.

OpenRC++

openrc init scripts are fairly straight forward.
Coupled with gentoo's baselayout, and the config file layout is fairly normalized also.

Yes, but this technology does not need any refresh cycles--so the only changes it would incur are actual data value changes. But the point still stands, RAM access in typical high-load server process is going incur lots of changes--too many even for this technology to touch as a viable replacement even without refresh cycles.