Actually the test was pretty good.
The test was designed to test Vista`s compatibility, so the choice of games wasnt bad.
It included an old DOS-title, several Indie games (not optimized for Vista, but made for XP) and pretty recent well known game (CIV 4).
Im also pretty sure that DOS-compatibility is at least equal on linux as compared to Vista, based on my own experience.
I dont know about the coding quality of the indie games but i guess point is, Vista is not compatible to XP. Ok who would have guessed that?
And to find out that even a recent game such as CIV4 doesnt work without the latest patches and fiddling around, well talk about compatibility.
Also, by defining USA and Rebels as a maybe, they by definition must be more than 0% likely, therefore it's impossible to then list Russia or China as 100%. Not if it was cut in three different places.
Yes, you're free to choose for yourself what cause you want to help out. As you should be. And I'm free to try to persuade others to help a very worthwhile cause: http://folding.stanford.edu/
..and at first i thought protein folding was something like an expert form of origami.
is its shortsightedness.
While it may be mathematicly correct to say theres a, e.g., 90% chance that a election/whatsoever is rigged/fraud looking at the whole thing from the opposite side using the same statistics can yield interresting results.
E.g.:
"I am 90% sure the election is rigged, therefor i asumme the election is rigged."
Now take 50 elections (like states in the US).
"I use the same 90% certainty to determine wether a election is rigged or not."
The chance of beeing correct with every assumption is 0,9^50=0,005153775=0,5153775%.
Conclusion:
"I use statistics to prove veracity, thus i am, statisticly seen, a liar."
Personal vendettas have little or no impact on, say, Particle Physics. The following is a diff from the Particle physics page.
There is also a little known theory whereby the particles described may take the form of waves which upon refraction through various elementary gases/elements may make the waves appear to be of varrying colours. It is believed this is the origin of the phrase "Taste the Rainbow", most commonly heard on the advertisments for the popular candy "Skittles".
Well,
a) Someone must have come up with this theory, who? I dont know.
b) Why are they advertising for candy on a particle physics page?
"black helicopters?" Jeez.
Its an El Reg meme. You know, in soviet russia the overlords welcome memes.
Point is, it is a useful source of information. If you don't have the critical skills to determine where it is not useful, you should ask your Mom for help in using it.
That kinda misses the point, doesnt it?
If i already have all the knowledge on the topic that interrests me, whats the point of looking it up?
Let's not fan the flames, and that is what the linked article is: a flame. Don't do this to the staff of Wikipedia just because you may think they are "a bit snotty."
I dont consider the linked article a flame.
Of course, if you have been "in bed" with the/.-cabals you could have this post deleted and my ip blocked.
I dont want to discredit wikipedia, i do consider it usefull. But the stength of wikipedia, giving everyone the power to edit articles, is also its greatest weakness.
Wikipedia isnt a box ring, but if thats whats happening (two people undoing each others changes to the same article) thats a serious problem. Wikipedia will have to solve that problem. And banning one adversary wont solve the problem, they will only loose neutrality and be considered biased. I do think you realise the problem with people being allowed to edit their own (and adverseries) biographies on a project that would like to be an encyclopedia and like to be considered neutral.
Yeah, probably your right.
But given the fact that is slashdot i didnt want to hurt anyones feelings, given the fact that Tarvalds coined "Sex drugs and Linux" in his biography "Just for fun".
DISCLAIMER: I wellcome our new alien overlords who listen to rock and roll while reading kernel sources.
Ok, luckily "no longer needed" is about as precise a term as possible.
What next, the compiler decides the program is unnecesary because someone else already wrote a similiar program?
How is the compiler to know that memory is no longer needed?
Add a "i got a better guess what the programmer intends than himself"-feature? Please, do get realistic.
The main difference between a memory leak in C/C++ and what you describe is the following fact:
There is now way to access the memory in C/C++ once the last pointer has been cleared, BUT as long as some object still holds a reference to this "unneeded" memory you can still access it (and how is the compiler or VM to know that you dont wish to do that later?).
These are two fundamentaly different coding errors. The later beeing an error that can occur in C++ as well and no C++ coder would call it a memory leak (i wouldnt and i cant imagine a decent C++ coder would call it a memory leak).
This discussiom is GETTING SILLY.
That's just silly. A memory leak is a simple bug in the code--saying that "all unused memory will definitely always be freed (oh, provided there are no bugs in the code)" is true whether you have a garbage collector or not:-) IT IS NOT UNUSED!!!!
Sorry, but just how stupid are you guys???
If it where unused (no longer referenced) it would have been cleened up.
I dont like Java all too much (even if i did get some Certs there) but this i REDICOULUS BULLSHIT. Amen
That's just silly. A memory leak is a simple bug in the code--saying that "all unused memory will definitely always be freed (oh, provided there are no bugs in the code)" is true whether you have a garbage collector or not:-) Sorry, you are just silly.
If the memory is unused (no longer referenced) it will be freed.
And, dont get me wrong, im more into c and c++ currently (the help java used to provide me actually seems somewhat constraining), but nonetheless i cant deny their use.
Its definatly as bad as basic, and definataly hasnt the power of pure C (or C++) but its pretty useful (talking about java here, but pretty much the same applies to C# from a pure language perspective).
Decent programmers might understand that, but let's be honest, it's not like Java (and other GC languages) haven't been presented as if memory leaks were a thing of the past.
As a matter of fact, some people will probably still claim that it's technically not a memory leak, but instead an object life-span issue.
Then do please tell me how you define a memory leak.
How about a simple:
Memory that was allocated and is no longer referenced.
Unless you have a different definition there are no memory leaks in Java, or C# for that matter.
Obviously the objects mentioned were still referenced. Its a simple bug in their code, not a memory leak.
But why bother? The fact that he could not even be bothered to wear shoes, let alone a suit has probably set our position back miles. The fact is that first appearances count for a lot, and the first impression you would get of him when he took that stage is that he was just there are as joke and the ninjas were just part of it Lets start with an old experience of mine, dont worry ill get to the point soon enough.
Quite a few years ago, when i was on a Karate training course, the trainer, who happened to be a renowned euorpean champion corrected one of my techniques. Even so i was still pretty green behind my ears back then i was sure that the way my local teacher showed me the technique wasnt inferior (acutally more or less a simple style question) so i refused to comply.
The master told me thats ok, but if hes sees me doing it differently once then its wrong.
Next day i did my next belt test exam under that guy.
Obviously enough he wouldnt have minded letting me fail (maybe even prefered) and eyed me really closely.
So let me tell you.
You DON`T earn respect by sniffeling and being conform.
Obviously enough itll be harder if you stand up to your own opinions and standards.
But its definatly more pleasing in the long run.
in WORD Now, obviously, if you were to send a stink bomb via a postal package,
would you send the package to your friends or enemies?
WORD format nicely specifies the intended recipients.
I just don't get why J2ME development has to be so complicated: weird acronyms, half a dozen versions, different packages which may or may not be supported on any particular device, applications that sometimes run and sometimes don't, installers that sometimes work and sometimes don't, etc.
Its not that complicated.
If you want to stick to the least common demoninator stick to MIDP1.0/CLDC1.0. That will work fine everywhere.
Should be pretty fair to assume you will have MIDP2.0 and either CLDC1.0 or 1.1 on every recent phone.
Sure, there are a lot of optional APIs. Some device might not be powerfull enough to support 3D, others lack integrated GPS. But fussing around about that is about as stupid as saying "Damn PCs, some have printers, some have webcams but theres just no common ground".
That said, i do have some things i dont like about J2ME. Its a bit to high level for some really neat tricks. I tried mixing several channels into one digital output. The only way to do this was to create a wav-file including header during runtime since no low-level DSP access is available. Unluckily the intialisation of the wav file took about 0.2s every time so no chance of mixing music plus realtime soundeffects.
I know, such low level access would break the Java security concept, but it is bothersome to be denied neat features that can be done with direct operating system access.
So one is required to say for what something is best for, but not for what something is good for?
Maybe you want to think about this a bit more?
Not really.
I dont have a problem with the scheduler.
I think most people dont have a problem either.
My guess would be that less than 1% of the people using the kernel would need something better, but i think they would actually mean something more specialised for a certain scenario.
So i think its fair enough to say the scheduler is good enough (though you may add "for common load scenarios and uses", if you want to be pedantic).
I wasn't aware we'd completely solved problems of responsiveness vs throughput, or of normal vs soft realtime vs hard realtime.
Hard realtime usually implies severe perfomance penalties. People who really need something like that probably dont use a vanilla kernel.
If we don't keep scheduling modular, an artificial limit on the performance of the system will be created. Sure, CFS is a viable option, but why should we think it is the best ?
Torvalds usually doesnt care about something being the best. Its supposed to be good enough.
Using the word best requires you to say for what, otherwise you might as well use a word such as coolest, most geeky, most whatsoever.
Since Torvalds usually cares a lot about efficiency i guess that a plugable scheduler would be less performant.
... but what would happen if you forgot to "plug in" a scheduler?
Back to single tasking ala DOS?
Being able to choose which (if any) security module to plug in seems to make a lot more sense.
Wrong,
v3 does not ensure anything v2 didnt!
V3 adds chains (which may be good under certain circumstances) but i dislike.
Actually the main reason i dislike v3 is that is easily understood for a non-"OS-Freak".
V2 is easily understood, but v3 includes weird clauses which noone without "inside" knowledge would understand. Period.
How is this an issue? If KDE2 uses the GPL2, it clearly says "or any future version", which makes it forward compatible with the GPL3, which means it can be mixed with other GPL3 software. I see nothing in the linked article that contradicts this. Well, personaly im getting slightly concerned about this "or any future version".
Sure, i only do a small unimportant OS project (ok, maybe i help here and and there sometimes).
But this "any future version" does pose a bit of a problem.
How do i know if GPL34.5 pretty much contradicts my ideas (or the ideas of GPL2, for that case)?
Just take a completly stupid chance of "you may sue the creator for any reason whatsoever" of being added to any later release.
I dont like the idea of having a "i own your ass" clause and thats exactly what the "or any later release" implies.
I WONT be going to v3 (and either imply v2 or choose another license).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the test was pretty good.
The test was designed to test Vista`s compatibility, so the choice of games wasnt bad.
It included an old DOS-title, several Indie games (not optimized for Vista, but made for XP) and pretty recent well known game (CIV 4).
Im also pretty sure that DOS-compatibility is at least equal on linux as compared to Vista, based on my own experience.
I dont know about the coding quality of the indie games but i guess point is, Vista is not compatible to XP. Ok who would have guessed that?
And to find out that even a recent game such as CIV4 doesnt work without the latest patches and fiddling around, well talk about compatibility.
is its shortsightedness. While it may be mathematicly correct to say theres a, e.g., 90% chance that a election/whatsoever is rigged/fraud looking at the whole thing from the opposite side using the same statistics can yield interresting results.
E.g.:
"I am 90% sure the election is rigged, therefor i asumme the election is rigged."
Now take 50 elections (like states in the US).
"I use the same 90% certainty to determine wether a election is rigged or not."
The chance of beeing correct with every assumption is 0,9^50=0,005153775=0,5153775%.
Conclusion:
"I use statistics to prove veracity, thus i am, statisticly seen, a liar."
I know its uncool to RTFA, especially if its 5 pages long, but that (complaining and trying to resolve the issue) happened.
a) Someone must have come up with this theory, who? I dont know.
b) Why are they advertising for candy on a particle physics page?
Its an El Reg meme. You know, in soviet russia the overlords welcome memes.
Point is, it is a useful source of information. If you don't have the critical skills to determine where it is not useful, you should ask your Mom for help in using it.
That kinda misses the point, doesnt it?
If i already have all the knowledge on the topic that interrests me, whats the point of looking it up?
Let's not fan the flames, and that is what the linked article is: a flame. Don't do this to the staff of Wikipedia just because you may think they are "a bit snotty."
I dont consider the linked article a flame.
Of course, if you have been "in bed" with the
I dont want to discredit wikipedia, i do consider it usefull. But the stength of wikipedia, giving everyone the power to edit articles, is also its greatest weakness.
Wikipedia isnt a box ring, but if thats whats happening (two people undoing each others changes to the same article) thats a serious problem. Wikipedia will have to solve that problem. And banning one adversary wont solve the problem, they will only loose neutrality and be considered biased. I do think you realise the problem with people being allowed to edit their own (and adverseries) biographies on a project that would like to be an encyclopedia and like to be considered neutral.
Yeah, probably your right.
But given the fact that is slashdot i didnt want to hurt anyones feelings, given the fact that Tarvalds coined "Sex drugs and Linux" in his biography "Just for fun".
DISCLAIMER: I wellcome our new alien overlords who listen to rock and roll while reading kernel sources.
Cont blow your cover again xobo-1456!
I have your IP logged in our vessel!
Well, you have no chance of guessing what reply i got when i called 555-ROFL to sign up....
What reason could a highly superior intelligent life form have to visit underveloped countries, err, planets?
Probably just sex and drugs...
Ok, luckily "no longer needed" is about as precise a term as possible.
What next, the compiler decides the program is unnecesary because someone else already wrote a similiar program?
How is the compiler to know that memory is no longer needed?
Add a "i got a better guess what the programmer intends than himself"-feature? Please, do get realistic.
The main difference between a memory leak in C/C++ and what you describe is the following fact:
There is now way to access the memory in C/C++ once the last pointer has been cleared, BUT as long as some object still holds a reference to this "unneeded" memory you can still access it (and how is the compiler or VM to know that you dont wish to do that later?).
These are two fundamentaly different coding errors. The later beeing an error that can occur in C++ as well and no C++ coder would call it a memory leak (i wouldnt and i cant imagine a decent C++ coder would call it a memory leak).
That's just silly. A memory leak is a simple bug in the code--saying that "all unused memory will definitely always be freed (oh, provided there are no bugs in the code)" is true whether you have a garbage collector or not
Sorry, but just how stupid are you guys???
If it where unused (no longer referenced) it would have been cleened up.
I dont like Java all too much (even if i did get some Certs there) but this i REDICOULUS BULLSHIT. Amen
If the memory is unused (no longer referenced) it will be freed.
And, dont get me wrong, im more into c and c++ currently (the help java used to provide me actually seems somewhat constraining), but nonetheless i cant deny their use.
Its definatly as bad as basic, and definataly hasnt the power of pure C (or C++) but its pretty useful (talking about java here, but pretty much the same applies to C# from a pure language perspective).
Then do please tell me how you define a memory leak.
How about a simple: Memory that was allocated and is no longer referenced.
Unless you have a different definition there are no memory leaks in Java, or C# for that matter.
Obviously the objects mentioned were still referenced. Its a simple bug in their code, not a memory leak.
... for halloween.
BTW, does the x-ray trick also work with female clothing?
Quite a few years ago, when i was on a Karate training course, the trainer, who happened to be a renowned euorpean champion corrected one of my techniques. Even so i was still pretty green behind my ears back then i was sure that the way my local teacher showed me the technique wasnt inferior (acutally more or less a simple style question) so i refused to comply.
The master told me thats ok, but if hes sees me doing it differently once then its wrong.
Next day i did my next belt test exam under that guy.
Obviously enough he wouldnt have minded letting me fail (maybe even prefered) and eyed me really closely.
So let me tell you.
You DON`T earn respect by sniffeling and being conform.
Obviously enough itll be harder if you stand up to your own opinions and standards.
But its definatly more pleasing in the long run.
would you send the package to your friends or enemies?
WORD format nicely specifies the intended recipients.
...will Leopard be certified Linux-compatible?
Its not that complicated.
If you want to stick to the least common demoninator stick to MIDP1.0/CLDC1.0. That will work fine everywhere.
Should be pretty fair to assume you will have MIDP2.0 and either CLDC1.0 or 1.1 on every recent phone.
Sure, there are a lot of optional APIs. Some device might not be powerfull enough to support 3D, others lack integrated GPS. But fussing around about that is about as stupid as saying "Damn PCs, some have printers, some have webcams but theres just no common ground".
That said, i do have some things i dont like about J2ME. Its a bit to high level for some really neat tricks. I tried mixing several channels into one digital output. The only way to do this was to create a wav-file including header during runtime since no low-level DSP access is available. Unluckily the intialisation of the wav file took about 0.2s every time so no chance of mixing music plus realtime soundeffects.
I know, such low level access would break the Java security concept, but it is bothersome to be denied neat features that can be done with direct operating system access.
Not really.
I dont have a problem with the scheduler.
I think most people dont have a problem either.
My guess would be that less than 1% of the people using the kernel would need something better, but i think they would actually mean something more specialised for a certain scenario.
So i think its fair enough to say the scheduler is good enough (though you may add "for common load scenarios and uses", if you want to be pedantic).
Hard realtime usually implies severe perfomance penalties. People who really need something like that probably dont use a vanilla kernel.
If we don't keep scheduling modular, an artificial limit on the performance of the system will be created. Sure, CFS is a viable option, but why should we think it is the best ?
Torvalds usually doesnt care about something being the best. Its supposed to be good enough.
Using the word best requires you to say for what, otherwise you might as well use a word such as coolest, most geeky, most whatsoever.
Since Torvalds usually cares a lot about efficiency i guess that a plugable scheduler would be less performant.
... but what would happen if you forgot to "plug in" a scheduler?
Back to single tasking ala DOS?
Being able to choose which (if any) security module to plug in seems to make a lot more sense.
Wrong,
v3 does not ensure anything v2 didnt!
V3 adds chains (which may be good under certain circumstances) but i dislike.
Actually the main reason i dislike v3 is that is easily understood for a non-"OS-Freak".
V2 is easily understood, but v3 includes weird clauses which noone without "inside" knowledge would understand. Period.