...I'm sure they're using SCO UnixWare wherever possible, so dive right in, boys, I'm sure you won't/. them! After all, it's *much* more reliable than Linux, right??
Conway's Game of Life is also turing complete; therefore, you can regard this PostScript hack as proof that PostScript is turing complete as well, since you could implement a turing machine on top of Life, on top of PostScript.....:)
I just assumed it had something to do with their instant messaging service, you know, err... MSN... Messenger. (or is it.NET Messenger? Windows Messenger? Something...)
It's a ports-like system, not a direct port of ports. (whew, that's a mouthful)
I find it to be quite handy, and it has some advanced features, (like USE flags!) but I haven't used FreeBSD's ports system, so I can't really tell you what's different or which is better.
But hey, if you have a spare box, try it out, or compare the two.:)
Final Fantasy I was number 15, and Final Fantasy V was number 12? But those were my favorites! They should have asked more people who actually *played* some of these games, and not just the last three or so...:)
Document Not Found -- fix the link. Or better yet, don't link to Yahoo!
Anyhow, yes, it's very expensive to get a good education these days; I was lucky in that I went to an in-state public school, but still ended up with $20k of loans. And for what? Bad job prospects.
I feel for anyone graduating into today's bleak economy, I really do. We private citizens can't just perpetually borrow money like our governments do...
ping -c5 greatlakes.owo.com PING central-ae6.owo.com (159.153.226.29): 56 octets data 64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=15.9 ms 64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=15.6 ms 64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=15.6 ms 64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=17.2 ms 64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=19.5 ms
I was basing my Biology comment on the statistics in the MIT article regarding the ratio of men/women in various degree programs and universities.
Stereotypes have power if people believe them; if a woman grows up learning that "men are better at X and women are better at Y", then she might get discouraged when she's trying to do X, give up, and do Y instead. That's why I stressed building self-esteem in my post.
Statistics are tricky things; it's also possible that working adults are going back to school to switch careers, and therefore the ratios for the majors are somewhat skewed. Then again, it could also have to do with the local job market, or any number of other things. That's why we have studies on these issues in the first place, instead of merely anecdotes.
But yes, people can grow out of such attitudes, and ignoring the stereotypes is a very good step to take. I never paid attention to them in the first place, but I might have changed my mind if I cared about being "popular" a whole lot...
The way I see it, there are two problems at work here. The only problem that needs to be fixed is that of turning away qualified women who otherwise would be interested in and qualified for Computer Science. The skills that need the most work are math and self-esteem--women need to be taught early to be confident in themselves and their abilities, and this should help them to better succeed in all fields.
The other problem is ancient, and possibly imaginary; you can blame it on nature vs. nurture, society, or whatever you like, but the fact is that people do what they like, and if less women are interested in Computer Science, then there will be less women in Computer Science.
For example, what sort of comments do you think we would get if slashdot ran an article that said "We need more men in Biology; what is the problem, are men not prepared for biology, are they driven away by all the women in the field, or are they just not interested"?
The fact of the matter is, I was never that interested in biology; I might have been more interested in it if it had been more concrete, if we knew more about how things actually worked. However, I was fascinated with computers practically from the moment I laid eyes on them, and I seem to have a natural aptitude for them as well.
Therefore, people who are already predisposed to a given field are not a problem at all, and no effort should be given in trying to change their minds to equal out some demographic notion of equality, on either side of the fence. Believe in yourself, figure out what *you* want to do, and then go do it.
There's a lot more information about this here, if you're interested, guys. I'm going to wade through the MIT paper, and when I get back, I hope to hear a lot of informed, intelligent discussion.
(Yes, I know it's slashdot; I can dream, can't I?:)
...and you know what? Even though I was a kid, they sucked back then. I might read them now for the sheer entertainment value, but certainly not out of nostalgia. If I wanted that, I'd read the other comics I read back then, like Archie and Richie Rich and Casper and... well, absolutely anything else.:)
PHP indeed borrowed a lot of language features from Perl, but its syntax is strictly C-like; no required braces, no embedded regexps, no magical, one-character variables, etc., etc.
I agree with you that PHP's functions are awkward, but I'm sure you can find a way to implement namespaces in PHP--PHP has classes, it has hashes, and it has an eval() function, so you can probably figure something out. What I really hate is how PHP handles variables and scoping--that's really criminal. Also, anonymous subroutines and closures would be nice to have...
I never really wanted to write as much PHP as I have, but I don't think it's difficult to be a competent PHP programmer--it's just like being a competent programmer. Just because a lot of people aren't doesn't necessarily mean that it's a problem with PHP. I admit that I'd rather be doing all this in Perl, though, because some of PHP's 'features' and version incompatibilities are a real pain sometimes. Maybe *that's* why it's hard to find competent PHP programmers...
There are tons of templating engines for PHP; I've basically hacked together my own solution as well. I haven't compared them, but doing everything in pure PHP seems pretty simple to me; it has an include() function, and that's really 99% of what you need.
So I agree with you that PHP has some serious problems, but I think I disagree with you about exactly what those problems are.:)
That looks even more impressive when you realize that that's only a cluster of 32 processors on RedHat, as opposed to, say, a cluster of 272 processors... Although once you adjust for that, the results, and the relative processor speed, the RedHat system only has like a 7% performance edge here. (take all ad-hoc benchmarks with a large grain of salt:)
1. Pick a patent at random 2. Add "on the web" or "on the internet" after it 3. Patent 4. Sue 5. ??? 6. PROFIT!!
I'm going to do them all one better... I'm going to look at all the emerging technologies out there, and all the successful web/internet patents, and then tack on my buzzword.
1. Pick a web/internet patent at random 2. Add "Java" or "XML" or "SOAP" or after it 3. Patent 4. Sue 5. ??? 6. PROFIT!!
THEN, I'll patent the method of adding on a useless claim to a patent in order to stifle innovation or gouge inventors, and I'll REALLY rack up the dough!
pb root # which [ which: no [ in (/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/3.2:/opt/intel/compiler60/ia32/bin:/opt/rar/bin:/opt/RealPlayer8:/usr/X11R6/bin:/opt/blackdown-jdk-1.3.1/bin:/opt/ blackdown-jdk-1.3.1/jre/bin:/usr/qt/3/bin:/usr/qt/ 2/bin) pb root # type [ [ is a shell builtin pb root # which test/usr/bin/test pb root # type test test is a shell builtin
I never noticed that before! I suppose if I ever ran into a problem with that I would symlink (or more likely hardlink) [ to test.
But seeing as how Linux was originally modeled after SunOS, I'd say your point is better served as a generic SysV vs. BSD argument instead of a Linux vs. BSD argument. There are far stranger Unix variants out there than Linux... like SCO, HP/UX, ULTRIX, AIX, etc., etc.:)
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
This is how you send messages back in time. Always remember this, and you can use this to make tons of money and fix any mistakes you may have made. If you don't like how things are going... send another message!
P.S. Keanu Reeves stays just as cool as he was in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Too bad the rest of us grew up...
Maybe they are if you tell them you're running FreeBSD; there are zealots everywhere. Stupid, uninformed zealots that ignore and exterminate rational thought and parrot back their zealotrous crap.
My personal favorite moronic Linux-bashing comment from the *BSD zealot crowd is that "Linux isn't Unix"; this has to be one of the stupidest fallacies ever, unless these self-same morons are willing to admit that "FreeBSD isn't Unix" either (which they aren't).
First, the only "UNIX" out there is from SCO, because they own the trademark. So we aren't talking about "UNIX", but rather "Unix". If you read books like "The Design of the Unix Operating System", then you might get the impression that Unix is more like an API that can be copied and implemented; this is what Linux did.
However, the *BSD zealots actually interpret "Unix" as meaning "Derived from original AT&T UNIX source code". However, they conveniently forget that by law, any free *BSD variant must contain no proprietary AT&T UNIX source code, and therefore it must contain just as much of this code as Linux does, which is to say... none.
Incidentally, while Linux was gaining popularity, FreeBSD was taking the time to reimplement the missing AT&T code; if Linus Torvalds had had a free copy of FreeBSD to hack on, he might never have had to write Linux in the first place.
It's amusing that the fact that *BSD "isn't a Unix" as per the *BSD Zealot definition is possibly one of the main reasons that Linux became such a success. Too bad it isn't a Unix, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
...I'm sure they're using SCO UnixWare wherever possible, so dive right in, boys, I'm sure you won't /. them! After all, it's *much* more reliable than Linux, right??
Conway's Game of Life is also turing complete; therefore, you can regard this PostScript hack as proof that PostScript is turing complete as well, since you could implement a turing machine on top of Life, on top of PostScript..... :)
I just assumed it had something to do with their instant messaging service, you know, err... MSN... Messenger. (or is it .NET Messenger? Windows Messenger? Something...)
It's a ports-like system, not a direct port of ports. (whew, that's a mouthful)
:)
I find it to be quite handy, and it has some advanced features, (like USE flags!) but I haven't used FreeBSD's ports system, so I can't really tell you what's different or which is better.
But hey, if you have a spare box, try it out, or compare the two.
Final Fantasy I was number 15, and Final Fantasy V was number 12? But those were my favorites! They should have asked more people who actually *played* some of these games, and not just the last three or so... :)
Document Not Found -- fix the link. Or better yet, don't link to Yahoo!
Anyhow, yes, it's very expensive to get a good education these days; I was lucky in that I went to an in-state public school, but still ended up with $20k of loans. And for what? Bad job prospects.
I feel for anyone graduating into today's bleak economy, I really do. We private citizens can't just perpetually borrow money like our governments do...
ping -c5 greatlakes.owo.com
PING central-ae6.owo.com (159.153.226.29): 56 octets data
64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=15.9 ms
64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=15.6 ms
64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=15.6 ms
64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=17.2 ms
64 octets from 159.153.226.29: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=19.5 ms
I was basing my Biology comment on the statistics in the MIT article regarding the ratio of men/women in various degree programs and universities.
Stereotypes have power if people believe them; if a woman grows up learning that "men are better at X and women are better at Y", then she might get discouraged when she's trying to do X, give up, and do Y instead. That's why I stressed building self-esteem in my post.
Statistics are tricky things; it's also possible that working adults are going back to school to switch careers, and therefore the ratios for the majors are somewhat skewed. Then again, it could also have to do with the local job market, or any number of other things. That's why we have studies on these issues in the first place, instead of merely anecdotes.
But yes, people can grow out of such attitudes, and ignoring the stereotypes is a very good step to take. I never paid attention to them in the first place, but I might have changed my mind if I cared about being "popular" a whole lot...
The way I see it, there are two problems at work here. The only problem that needs to be fixed is that of turning away qualified women who otherwise would be interested in and qualified for Computer Science. The skills that need the most work are math and self-esteem--women need to be taught early to be confident in themselves and their abilities, and this should help them to better succeed in all fields.
The other problem is ancient, and possibly imaginary; you can blame it on nature vs. nurture, society, or whatever you like, but the fact is that people do what they like, and if less women are interested in Computer Science, then there will be less women in Computer Science.
For example, what sort of comments do you think we would get if slashdot ran an article that said "We need more men in Biology; what is the problem, are men not prepared for biology, are they driven away by all the women in the field, or are they just not interested"?
The fact of the matter is, I was never that interested in biology; I might have been more interested in it if it had been more concrete, if we knew more about how things actually worked. However, I was fascinated with computers practically from the moment I laid eyes on them, and I seem to have a natural aptitude for them as well.
Therefore, people who are already predisposed to a given field are not a problem at all, and no effort should be given in trying to change their minds to equal out some demographic notion of equality, on either side of the fence. Believe in yourself, figure out what *you* want to do, and then go do it.
There's a lot more information about this here, if you're interested, guys. I'm going to wade through the MIT paper, and when I get back, I hope to hear a lot of informed, intelligent discussion.
:)
(Yes, I know it's slashdot; I can dream, can't I?
...and you know what? Even though I was a kid, they sucked back then. I might read them now for the sheer entertainment value, but certainly not out of nostalgia. If I wanted that, I'd read the other comics I read back then, like Archie and Richie Rich and Casper and... well, absolutely anything else. :)
I think that's a well-known Welsh browser, actually.
:)
Are you sure you weren't searching English-only?
Go here, and use the time you saved to work on your google searching skills.
PHP indeed borrowed a lot of language features from Perl, but its syntax is strictly C-like; no required braces, no embedded regexps, no magical, one-character variables, etc., etc.
:)
I agree with you that PHP's functions are awkward, but I'm sure you can find a way to implement namespaces in PHP--PHP has classes, it has hashes, and it has an eval() function, so you can probably figure something out. What I really hate is how PHP handles variables and scoping--that's really criminal. Also, anonymous subroutines and closures would be nice to have...
I never really wanted to write as much PHP as I have, but I don't think it's difficult to be a competent PHP programmer--it's just like being a competent programmer. Just because a lot of people aren't doesn't necessarily mean that it's a problem with PHP. I admit that I'd rather be doing all this in Perl, though, because some of PHP's 'features' and version incompatibilities are a real pain sometimes. Maybe *that's* why it's hard to find competent PHP programmers...
There are tons of templating engines for PHP; I've basically hacked together my own solution as well. I haven't compared them, but doing everything in pure PHP seems pretty simple to me; it has an include() function, and that's really 99% of what you need.
So I agree with you that PHP has some serious problems, but I think I disagree with you about exactly what those problems are.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Fox News itself, just against the people who take it too seriously.
And I could say the same many times over about Rush, too. I find him to be quite entertaining, unlike some of his fans, who are just... creepy.
FAIR AND BALANCED
...until you realize they might be serious...
GOD BLESS FOX NEWS!
Seriously, though... if you're in the right frame of mind, it can be damn funny.
nah. No way they could be serious!
That looks even more impressive when you realize that that's only a cluster of 32 processors on RedHat, as opposed to, say, a cluster of 272 processors... Although once you adjust for that, the results, and the relative processor speed, the RedHat system only has like a 7% performance edge here. (take all ad-hoc benchmarks with a large grain of salt :)
RHIDE has a great info viewer built into it, especially if you liked the TurboVision-style help systems found in obsolete Borland products.
:)
I still find myself using man or searching google instead, though... I wish info would die too.
1. Pick a patent at random
2. Add "on the web" or "on the internet" after it
3. Patent
4. Sue
5. ???
6. PROFIT!!
I'm going to do them all one better... I'm going to look at all the emerging technologies out there, and all the successful web/internet patents, and then tack on my buzzword.
1. Pick a web/internet patent at random
2. Add "Java" or "XML" or "SOAP" or after it
3. Patent
4. Sue
5. ???
6. PROFIT!!
THEN, I'll patent the method of adding on a useless claim to a patent in order to stifle innovation or gouge inventors, and I'll REALLY rack up the dough!
Oh. Except that Amazon has prior art here. D'oh!
You mean to say that Linux doesn't do that now? Gee, I must be using the wrong distro or something...
Also, I think MS had it right with Win2K; XP is also quite stable, but as you mentioned, it is also incredibly annoying by default.
pb root # which [t /bin:/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/3.2:/opt/intel /compiler60/ia32/bin:/opt/rar/bin:/opt/RealPlayer8 :/usr/X11R6/bin:/opt/blackdown-jdk-1.3.1/bin:/opt/ blackdown-jdk-1.3.1/jre/bin:/usr/qt/3/bin:/usr/qt/ 2/bin) /usr/bin/test
:)
which: no [ in (/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/op
pb root # type [
[ is a shell builtin
pb root # which test
pb root # type test
test is a shell builtin
I never noticed that before! I suppose if I ever ran into a problem with that I would symlink (or more likely hardlink) [ to test.
But seeing as how Linux was originally modeled after SunOS, I'd say your point is better served as a generic SysV vs. BSD argument instead of a Linux vs. BSD argument. There are far stranger Unix variants out there than Linux... like SCO, HP/UX, ULTRIX, AIX, etc., etc.
Although you'll also see articles like this out there.
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
This is how you send messages back in time. Always remember this, and you can use this to make tons of money and fix any mistakes you may have made. If you don't like how things are going... send another message!
P.S. Keanu Reeves stays just as cool as he was in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Too bad the rest of us grew up...
Maybe they are if you tell them you're running FreeBSD; there are zealots everywhere. Stupid, uninformed zealots that ignore and exterminate rational thought and parrot back their zealotrous crap.
My personal favorite moronic Linux-bashing comment from the *BSD zealot crowd is that "Linux isn't Unix"; this has to be one of the stupidest fallacies ever, unless these self-same morons are willing to admit that "FreeBSD isn't Unix" either (which they aren't).
First, the only "UNIX" out there is from SCO, because they own the trademark. So we aren't talking about "UNIX", but rather "Unix". If you read books like "The Design of the Unix Operating System", then you might get the impression that Unix is more like an API that can be copied and implemented; this is what Linux did.
However, the *BSD zealots actually interpret "Unix" as meaning "Derived from original AT&T UNIX source code". However, they conveniently forget that by law, any free *BSD variant must contain no proprietary AT&T UNIX source code, and therefore it must contain just as much of this code as Linux does, which is to say... none.
Incidentally, while Linux was gaining popularity, FreeBSD was taking the time to reimplement the missing AT&T code; if Linus Torvalds had had a free copy of FreeBSD to hack on, he might never have had to write Linux in the first place.
It's amusing that the fact that *BSD "isn't a Unix" as per the *BSD Zealot definition is possibly one of the main reasons that Linux became such a success. Too bad it isn't a Unix, eh?
I guess you don't think that Stac, Symantec, or WordPerfect got screwed. Well, each to his own, I guess.