The problem is the number of people who are into Illumos and want a portable Unix server is insignificant. All products came with fixed overheads (e.g. cost of tooling to start production), which have to be divided over the likely customer base. Small customer base == each customer pays a bigger share of the fixed overheads.
Basically, you want something to suit you and a small number of other people, but you won't pay for the cost of having something that "tailor made". You will only pay for the high-volume, lower-cost, more general product. So... that's all you get.
OpenVSwitch is a component in OpenSwitch. E.g. OpenSwitch uses OVSDB as its pub/sub configuration store, and also for other state. Other free software / open-source network projects like Quagga have been modified to take their config from that, and store their state to it. Tools like the CLI, the WebUI and REST API then can build on that OVSDB store.
Essentially, one of the aims of OpenSwitch is to build a cohesive API around a wide set of Linux networking tools and daemons, and build a broad community to make it happen.
Google Docs has the same behaviour for me as Evince on annoted-highlights: shows the highlight on the text, but doesn't show or provide anyway to view the associated annotation.
Edit: Remove IIRC - justed tested Google Docs again and that's the behaviour.
I have some people who send me corrections via PDF annotations and notes. Neither Evince nor XPDF fully support these. Highlighted annotations particularly, Evince shows the highlight but doesn't show the annotation text (no icon to show it, hovering doesn't do anything either). I need Adobe Acrobat Reader for that.
My Poppler is a bit out of date, though it's not clear to me whether more recent versions of Poppler support highlighted annotations fully:
The US funnelled hundreds of millions of $ through Pakistan to help fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The CIA also provided direct support, in training and weapons, etc.
Here's an Afghan with a Stinger missile (and there are lots of similar photos), not sold on the open market then, could realistically only have been acquired in bulk with US government assistance:
Yes, log^2(x) seems almost always to be used to mean [log(x)]^2 in the routing theory papers I tend to read.
I agree with you though that using log^2(x) for [log(x)]^2 is horridly ambiguous notation that should be avoided! (Which reminds me, I should go and check my thesis for this ;) ).
I think the table in IX is wrong about log^2(x) being the same as log(log(x)). For me, and my impression is for many others, log^2(x) means log(x)log(x).
Yeah, you can opt out of the ones at Schiphol. One time I got a security guard give me a talk about how safe they were, and why wouldn't I want to.
They're millimetre wave machines, I think, so they likely are safe (certainly not ionising), but there are some theorised mechanisms by which they could impart greater energy on cellular molecules than is otherwise believed to be the case.
What really annoys me is that if these were medical devices, they would require many years of design approval and safety trials, so that their safety wouldn't be assumed but assured (to a high probability) before they could be deployed. Their maintenance regimes would be heavily regulated. However, when it's for security (or rather for lining the pockets of well-connected vendors and contractors), then none of this needs to be done.
I download movies and TV shows using Bittorrent and index sites like TBP because of DRM. Often these DRM systems are not available for Linux, or if they are, they require installing some big blob of binary code. It is easier and more secure for me to use bittorrent.
I would happily use the legal services, if not for this DRM. Those services sometimes are even free (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I would happily pay for a subscription service (I pay subscriptions to a number of different of online sites, mostly journalism or data-organistion - I've no problem with that).
The industry standardising proprietary DRM in W3 will just ensure that I continue to support the distributed, end-user provided services which are DRM-free.
Yeah, it's language sugar to capture variables (including automatics) from an outer scope and make them available to an anonymous function. This may involve copying the variables to other storage (e.g. to heap) if the anonymous function will be run outside the context of its caller.
Also, the language may, if it provides some sugar to allow the anonymous function to appear to return to the caller, e.g. through async/yield/co-routine type semantics, also transparently copy back the variables to the callers' locations.
As per another commentator, 'lambdas', 'closures' and 'anonymous functions' are used equivalently by different people and/or fields.
As a C programmer primarily, I was long confused why higher-level programmers went on about "closures". They're nothing special, we do this kind of stuff in C all the time. We have to do it by hand ourselves, the language doesn't give us shortcuts. It's not really mysterious and we don't have fancy names for it. Sometimes I wonder if the reason some higher-level programmers treat these things so reverentially is, perhaps, because there is an element of mysticism to it, borne of lack of understanding of what is happening "under the hood"?
Basically, you want something to suit you and a small number of other people, but you won't pay for the cost of having something that "tailor made". You will only pay for the high-volume, lower-cost, more general product. So... that's all you get.