minix was created by a university student?(true or false)with complete reason?
961790
False.\nAndrew S. Tanenbaum describes himself as teaching at the time he wronte MINIX and that he did it to have an operating system that was free from AT&T proprietary code.  See his history of the project at http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/.  The writing of this system seems to have been far past his graduate student days.
200315
Check this:\n\nhttp://burks.bton.ac.uk/burks/foldoc/14/131.htm
939873
Very VERY strange, Id like to know what the creator was taking....:D
983807
The first responder is absolutely correct, but you also must consider the fine group of folks who have boldly decided not to compute using Microsoft products.  ActiveX is solely a Windows technology, so your Linux and MAC pals are left in the cold when exclusively using ActiveX.
1097526
There have been universities in existence for several thousand years, dating back at least to the height of Ancient Greece.  I sincerely doubt that the name of the first university or its first student still exists anywhere in human knowledge.
4525
Well it's not a legal way too but I recommend downloading\n\nAzureus from Sourceforge (see sources) and searching for it on Mininova (see sources)
995254
There is indeed one in development that a researcher used on himself to test out embedded technologies.  There are number of news articles about it (well not really news since it was 1998)\n\nSee sources for links
907670
Miniaturization of computers is the only answer which fits.
1042790
It seems research on this has continued. Still sounds very preliminary though - experiments on small models or paper planes ;)  But maybe you'd like to check the links.
422570
These guys are pretty cool....\n\nhttp://www.polygfx.com/
945352
Then defend it... I say that there is no way that a random chance process could have formed life forming proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance  each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if \nthere were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process  was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.\nYou are an intelligent man alot smarter than a mere theist so I don't think I need to explain chirality more thoroughly. You just need to defend your statement... Too bad you can't now that you have this informant ion.....   Jim
477282
Nope. O2 XDA Mini S is wonderfull. But why in this section for a question such as this ????
416415
The name for the theory that everything was created 'as is' is the Omphalos theory. I'm not sure about the other, but it sounds like a variant of the 'tired light' theory.
93103
I am from Toronto...UofT(univesity of toronto) is the only university in the world with a bachlors degree in Nano Engineering (incl. Genetic Engineering). The req. are crazy though...have a look into it
1110238
BEST ANSWER GO TO WWW.MININOVA.NET
959096
Had one on my desktop ironically! lol  Check my sources for the link.
765737
Sorry man, I don't think it exists.\n\nYou could ask a question about it in a forum like this: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?s=fa26cf8c935c335ffe71eef12898653a&showforum=85