That's funny! Seriously, though, Java 2 v1.3 combined with Sun's Java3D implementation is suitable for writing games with high quality 3D graphics and sound. Java 2 v1.3 code often runs nearly as fast as C++ compiled code. The catch is that the 1.3 version (actually 1.3 release candidate 1) implementation with hardware 3D acceleration is only supported on Windows platforms, not even on Sun's own Solaris OS! Sun claims that the JDK 1.3 for Linux will be out sometime late in 2000.
Hmm... I think you probably clicked "y" for "emulate NT network reliability" in the Networking Options. The new kernel can also emulate AOL 5.0 networking behavior by choosing "n" for "TCP/IP networking."
I have also found myself in similar situations where I really needed to punch it when passing because I misjudged the speed of oncoming traffic. Since I own a fast car (94 Camaro Z28), I have never had any problem getting around in time. However, I disagree that it would be unsafe to limit a vehicle's speed. In fact, limiting a vehicle's speed would probably increase safety since people would decide to pass less often. For example, when I visited my parents over Christmas, I had to drive my mom's Ford Explorer (0-60 in about 14 sec!). I just didn't pass people when driving. It took a little longer to get where I was going, but I got there safely. By the way, even this slow-as-hell Explorer was able to get up to freeway speed in time on entrance ramps, so I don't get the merging with traffic argument either. All I can see this proposal doing is taking some of the fun out of driving, which is the real reason why people are opposed to it.
>>Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module. While Audiusa.com is fully prepared for Y2K and beyond, we wanted to keep our databases clear of the millennium madness everyone seems to be talking about. Full service will be restored on January 1st.
Or, translated into plain English:
Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module. We at Audi don't know how to run a secure web site. We keep our database records on our web server. Full service will be restored on January 1st, 1900.
Hmm... Your reasoning appears to be: Alpha is faster than Intel's CPUs today, so Alpha will be beating Intel for years to come. Well, forgive me, but I don't see the logic here. The EPIC architecture behind the Itanium is a radical departure from the RISC architecture that the Alpha is based on. EPIC allows for *much* more ILP than a traditional RISC design can achieve. I really don't see any way to significantly improve the performance of the Alpha other than further increasing the clock rate. Simply adding more integer and FP units is not going to cut it since the architecture does not allow the compiler to make parallelism explicit to the CPU. EPIC does. However, I suspect that it will take Intel some time before they have the compiler technology required to take full advantage of this architecture. I would be willing to bet that by the time Intel is on the Itanium II or III, that they will be trouncing all over the Alpha.
We should not boycott Amazon, but instead be lobbying to have improvements made in the way in which patents are issued. Amazon never should have been allowed to get a patent for such an obvious idea in the first place. If the law is on their side (and it appears to be), then I really can't blame them. Note that this is different from less clear cut cases, where the company that is suing is not necessarily in the right (legally speaking), such as the eToys lawsuit (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/01/21562 08&mode=thread).
Actually, it is not in Intel's best interests to have the Celeron be too successful. Intel just wants them sell enough to fight off the competition. Same goes for these new uP's. The Celeron 400 Mhz chip in my computer costs about 75$. A Pentium III 700 Mhz chip costs ten times as much, but is only twice as fast (on specint95, specfp95). If more people realized this, Celeron sales would start cutting into Pentium III sales. And of course Intel would prefer to sell expensive chips instead of cheap ones. Fortunately for Intel, they have done an excellent job of convincing computer manufacturers not to put Celerons in their high end machines, so that consumers will make the association: Celeron == low performance.
CORBA is not slow, it is just that most of the ORB implementations are. There is now a very high performance CORBA implementation called Tao by Doug Schmidt et al at:
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html
In fact, this implementation has such low latencies, that it is now the network that is the bottleneck.
http://www.javasoft.com/pr/1998/11/pr981102-01.htm l
where sun promised to port JDK 1.2 to Linux, over a year ago! Sun has not yet provided a reference implementation for Linux. All we have is the blackdown JDK 1.2 prerelease which is buggy and *so* slow. Based on the above announcement, I wouldn't expect a BeOS JDK from Sun anytime soon, if ever. All I can say is don't get your hopes up when you read about Sun porting JDK to another OS. Sun has a reputation for making vapor announcements, with the above link as evidence.
Yes, it looks like a very stylish purse! I'll stick with my ThinkPad. However, this may be just what we need to increase the number of female Linux users... All Apple needs to do now is add a small compartment to store your personal belongings.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny! Seriously, though, Java 2 v1.3 combined with Sun's Java3D implementation is suitable for writing games with high quality 3D graphics and sound. Java 2 v1.3 code often runs nearly as fast as C++ compiled code. The catch is that the 1.3 version (actually 1.3 release candidate 1) implementation with hardware 3D acceleration is only supported on Windows platforms, not even on Sun's own Solaris OS! Sun claims that the JDK 1.3 for Linux will be out sometime late in 2000.
Hmm... I think you probably clicked "y" for "emulate NT network reliability" in the Networking Options. The new kernel can also emulate AOL 5.0 networking behavior by choosing "n" for "TCP/IP networking."
I have also found myself in similar situations where I really needed to punch it when passing because I misjudged the speed of oncoming traffic. Since I own a fast car (94 Camaro Z28), I have never had any problem getting around in time. However, I disagree that it would be unsafe to limit a vehicle's speed. In fact, limiting a vehicle's speed would probably increase safety since people would decide to pass less often. For example, when I visited my parents over Christmas, I had to drive my mom's Ford Explorer (0-60 in about 14 sec!). I just didn't pass people when driving. It took a little longer to get where I was going, but I got there safely. By the way, even this slow-as-hell Explorer was able to get up to freeway speed in time on entrance ramps, so I don't get the merging with traffic argument either. All I can see this proposal doing is taking some of the fun out of driving, which is the real reason why people are opposed to it.
Or, translated into plain English:
Sorry, we have temporarily disabled this module. We at Audi don't know how to run a secure web site. We keep our database records on our web server. Full service will be restored on January 1st, 1900.
Hmm... Your reasoning appears to be: Alpha is faster than Intel's CPUs today, so Alpha will be beating Intel for years to come. Well, forgive me, but I don't see the logic here. The EPIC architecture behind the Itanium is a radical departure from the RISC architecture that the Alpha is based on. EPIC allows for *much* more ILP than a traditional RISC design can achieve. I really don't see any way to significantly improve the performance of the Alpha other than further increasing the clock rate. Simply adding more integer and FP units is not going to cut it since the architecture does not allow the compiler to make parallelism explicit to the CPU. EPIC does. However, I suspect that it will take Intel some time before they have the compiler technology required to take full advantage of this architecture. I would be willing to bet that by the time Intel is on the Itanium II or III, that they will be trouncing all over the Alpha.
We should not boycott Amazon, but instead be lobbying to have improvements made in the way in which patents are issued. Amazon never should have been allowed to get a patent for such an obvious idea in the first place. If the law is on their side (and it appears to be), then I really can't blame them. Note that this is different from less clear cut cases, where the company that is suing is not necessarily in the right (legally speaking), such as the eToys lawsuit (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/01/21562 08&mode=thread).
Actually, it is not in Intel's best interests to have the Celeron be too successful. Intel just wants them sell enough to fight off the competition. Same goes for these new uP's. The Celeron 400 Mhz chip in my computer costs about 75$. A Pentium III 700 Mhz chip costs ten times as much, but is only twice as fast (on specint95, specfp95). If more people realized this, Celeron sales would start cutting into Pentium III sales. And of course Intel would prefer to sell expensive chips instead of cheap ones. Fortunately for Intel, they have done an excellent job of convincing computer manufacturers not to put Celerons in their high end machines, so that consumers will make the association: Celeron == low performance.
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html
In fact, this implementation has such low latencies, that it is now the network that is the bottleneck.
http://www.javasoft.com/pr/1998/11/pr981102-01.htm l
where sun promised to port JDK 1.2 to Linux, over a year ago! Sun has not yet provided a reference implementation for Linux. All we have is the blackdown JDK 1.2 prerelease which is buggy and *so* slow. Based on the above announcement, I wouldn't expect a BeOS JDK from Sun anytime soon, if ever. All I can say is don't get your hopes up when you read about Sun porting JDK to another OS. Sun has a reputation for making vapor announcements, with the above link as evidence.
The big deal about 1GHz+ processors is now I can use the microwave radiation from my cpu to make popcorn, cook Hotpockets, etc...
Yes, it looks like a very stylish purse! I'll stick with my ThinkPad. However, this may be just what we need to increase the number of female Linux users... All Apple needs to do now is add a small compartment to store your personal belongings.