It is­n't so much, but it's a lot to me :-)

Thanks to all the read­er­s!

I im­ple­ment­ed a (hope­ful­ly) rea­son­able open/save log­ic, sup­port­ing en­cryp­tion, com­pres­sion, ( and en­crypt­ed com­pres­sion ;-) atom­ic saves.

Since al­most ev­ery app can use this, why not make it a mod­ule?

Good ar­ti­cle at IBM De­vel­op­er­work­s.

How­ev­er, I would use dcop "kon­q*" in­stead of dcop kon­q*, or else stuff may fail :-)

While I won´t claim to be a Ph D. in math­e­mat­ic­s, and not event a self pro­claimed Pla­ton­ist Philoso­pher as Dr. Hatch­er

But I know what´s wrong with his proof.

While it does­n´t fall in­to the in­fi­nite re­gress, it falls in­to some­thing sim­i­lar.

Since the uni­verse is a com­pos­ite and can not be the cause of its com­po­nents, there must be an ex­ter­nal cause... ok.

By def­i­ni­tion, if there is the uni­verse and Dr. Hatcher´s G el­e­men­t, then there is a sec­ond metau­ni­verse, con­tain­ing G and our uni­verse.

In that metau­ni­verse, G can not be cre­at­ed by the metau­ni­verse, since it´s a com­po­nent of it. So there must be a G´ which cre­at­ed G.

If we de­cide, as he did, that G is self­-cre­at­ed in­stead, why can´t ev­ery quark be self­-cre­at­ed?

Why can´t there be just a dozen quark­s, mov­ing through time, and we see him many times be­cause he crossed our po­si­tion in time many times?

Are you will­ing to have a quark as your god? :-)

Gen­tium. Very read­able. Free us­age.