Re: Kernel upgrade time
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 07:33:22 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 09:44:26AM +0200, Johann Spies wrote:
>>>On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:03:33PM -0800, Tom wrote:
>>>>God, I hate dicking with the kernel.
>>>Did God answer you on this complaint?
>>God uses Windows. Didn't you know that?
> God doesn't use base-2 computing systems; He uses base-4 systems; and
> they're not based on silicon, but on dexoyribonucleic acids. And instead
> of grouping the operands as bytes, He groups them as codons (triplets).
> And by the judicious use of noops (mistaken until recently as "junk
> DNA"), the code does some really neat regulation processes, preventing
> the overproduction of proteins in certain cases. And I've heard that by
> shifting the start bit, a routine can take on an entirely different
> function (thus having two modules on one bit of code - which is an
> incredible concept), but I'm not sure about this one. And the code sits
> on, and reproduces, its own machine on which to run. Really awesome
> programming and machine design. We _wish_ we could do a tenth as well
> with our systems. Maybe some day -- "like father, like son" (or daughter
> - no sexism intended here, folks).
Nevertheless, He did write the original specification for binary comms
with a suggestion for error handling:
"let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation"
-- James 5:12, KJV
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
- Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense, Winner of British Plain
English Campaign's 2003 "Foot in Mouth" award.