Fortran makes it really really easy to do complex matrix arithmetic. It also makes text manipulation a serious PITA. So, like so many other things, it's a trade-off between what a language makes easy to code and what you actually want to code.
You are right. However, with the arrival of numpy, I don't see the benefit of Fortran any more.
The MBA's still think you can describe a piece of software in Word, and then it's a trivial process to make the software that customers want. Informal language is desirable to humans because it supports leaving out details - which is exactly what makes it useless for programming a computer.
That's because software *is* the description of what the computer should do.
Only in some paradigms (procedural, functional programming). In logical programming, or SQL, you don't tell the computer what to do, you tell it what you want. Yet it is software.
You misunderstood. When a PolicyKit authorization dialog pops up, you give an application the right to configure the network (but no other root rights). So even if there is a virus embedded, it may not be able to do anything because it is locked in according to what it will need for the expected functionality.
I hate a fucking walled garden as much as the next guy, but this type of shit is why users will stay with one. Not that a walled garden can't be hijacked, hacked, or otherwise messed with, but by and large it is a cleaner place to be. It is a win-win, both or users who can't, won't, or are too dumb to be bothered with learning a little software/hardware safety, and with corporations who thrive on control and stifling competition.
You can have a "walled garden" for users (some Android companies have their Appstores), yet still allow people to leave on their own risk. It's not mutually exclusive. For instance you can install packages from repos in Linux, yet you can also download and install source packages with {./configure&&make&&make install;} if you don't mind the risk of screwing up your system. There is no need to lock out users from their phones.
Maybe you didn't mean "walled gardens" but cared-for repos anyway.
Terrorists use the air to transmit sound messages.
The terrorists air is not under US jurisdiction. The US government or US companies can choose who they want to provide a service to.
Twitter will probably not do anything until pushed -- and why do anything? If the organisations don't advocate terrorism on twitter but use it for other communication it could be a good thing -- getting some insight and so on.
I doubt that there is some coordination in China to clone specific social networks, microblogging services, and video portals. Every culture has their own dominant websites, just because they can integrate better with the people and know how to become popular. Google can't survive in South Korea for instance, because it doesn't play as nicely with the language+culture as Naver&Daum. Russia uses different services (VKontakte, Rutube), just look at the "World Map of Social Networks".
Sure, in China only compliant websites survive, but is that the driver?
With a good caching engine, dynamically generated webpages should be nearly as fast as a static page - the page it's self is parsed and cached, then only re-parsed if the input changes.
The Linux kernel can take a file and put it on the socket without Apache loading it even partially into memory. *This* is fast.
To see this cosmic event happening before our eyes. I know that it has already happened and we are seeing the light from the event finally reaching our eyes
But that's no different than seeing anything else. You cannot see the present, you can only see the past. That sunset? Eight minutes old. That red dot in the sky they call Mars? It's ten to twenty minutes in the past. That coffee cup you're reaching for? It's the image of that cup from the tiniest fraction of a second ago.
Seeing that event that happened so long ago is no different than seeing the sun from eight minutes ago, or the coffee cup from a tiny fraction of a second ago.
The misunderstanding is that there is something like synchronicity between places -- there isn't! You learn that in distributed systems as well as in special relativity. The only synchronicity that makes sense is to connect places by light rays. So you can say, something you see happens right now, as now is the light-cone you receive.
Not having RTFA, I wonder if they prefer a certain paint or type of wall to improve wireless connectivity. There have been reports that newer paints tend to decrease Wifi quality.
Well they can, just not individual photons or individual photon events. It's exactly the same as an oscilloscope -- you also don't see the shape of an individual pulse. You under-sample, and then add the samples together assuming it was always the same pulse.
Only open source your codebase if you want to outsource your entire company and any future profits to your competitors.
I think your criticism is valid, but your conclusion isn't. You should open source your code if you estimate that you will still be the driver of the development. Then, other companies will build up dependence on you, you will gain influence and importance.
How can you make sure you will still be the driver of the development?
a) You have skills and experience in your area and your codebase nobody else has and will have difficulties to develop. Then others will always rely on your work.
b) You continuously add value and innovate, so your codebase is the go-to point.
c) You outwork your competition with consistency. When their fork goes stale, people will abandon it.
The beauty of open sourcing is that keeping upstream with you (feature-wise) is extremely difficult for a competitor that has a separate closed-source codebase. This is only accelerated when other people add to your product (don't start with counting on that though).
Experienced users want it the way they got used to. Finding interfaces that new computer users can learn quickly and be productive in is difficult (you also need new test subject all the time). This story and the GNOME3 discussion on/. seems to be a case of "I want it like it has always been", not being interested in what could be done better. I know new ideas in UI development can make you very productive, a very good example is Mylyn.
On a related note, Apple has always used silly analogies ("Desktop", "Trash", Eject by dropping to trash). I hope I offended everyone now.
Sorry if I am wrong here, but are you not just producing wild theories here? Surely you don't know what Stuxnet intended to do, so how could you rule that it could not have caused a nuclear catastrophe?
Nobody uses Fahrenheit for scientific stuff. Kelvin doesn't have degrees. So it's Celsius, although the difference between Kelvin and Celsius is negligible OVER 9000!!!!
Actually, in radio astronomy you can't really say it's photons. The wavelengths are centimeters to meters (a pretty large photon), and you get wave-effects everywhere. It's not true that this or other radio telescopes are no match for Hubble. This satellite links up with ground-based telescopes and does VLBI. The baseline of VLBI -- equivalent to the aperture diameter for optical telescope -- is the distance between the linked telescopes. If you want to have a telescope as powerful as Hubble, you need to compare diameter/wavelength (Hubble example: 2.4m/440nm = 5e6). So for radio (e.g. 21 cm), you need a baseline of 1050 km. Ground-based VLBI networks, like the Australian LBA (3300km Perth-Sydney, 5500km Perth-Auckland) or the European EVN, the VLBA (8000km) reach these lengths. This brings you down to milliarcsecond resolutions, incidentally similar to the optical VLT interferometer. RadioAstron will be on an "orbit that extends between 10,000 and more than 300,000 kilometres from Earth".
So yes, it will be a match for Hubble by a factor of 100. However, this comparison is not really helpful, as optical and radio telescopes see different things and probe different physical processes. To understand the universe, information from all wavelengths is relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortran makes it really really easy to do complex matrix arithmetic. It also makes text manipulation a serious PITA.
So, like so many other things, it's a trade-off between what a language makes easy to code and what you actually want to code.
You are right. However, with the arrival of numpy, I don't see the benefit of Fortran any more.
The MBA's still think you can describe a piece of software in Word, and then it's a trivial process to make the software that customers want. Informal language is desirable to humans because it supports leaving out details - which is exactly what makes it useless for programming a computer.
That's because software *is* the description of what the computer should do.
Only in some paradigms (procedural, functional programming). In logical programming, or SQL, you don't tell the computer what to do, you tell it what you want. Yet it is software.
arXiv stores papers, not data. It is expected that what you put there has been accepted in a journal.
Check out this great and inspiring talk by the Tor project: 28c3: How governments have tried to block Tor
There are more Tor users in Iran (second-largest IIRC) now than in Germany!
This is going to be a golden age for Iranian hackers ... just imagine the magnitude of bugs reimplementing the internet!
Aside from the fact that the average person might not have a computer. And that they might get beaten/imprisoned/killed for hacking.
It's not the Iranians, it's their government.
hmm ... lilupophilupop.com is unreachable for me.
You misunderstood. When a PolicyKit authorization dialog pops up, you give an application the right to configure the network (but no other root rights). So even if there is a virus embedded, it may not be able to do anything because it is locked in according to what it will need for the expected functionality.
Which is why sudo is being replaced by a policy-based system (some users may have package install rights, network configure rights etc.).
I hate a fucking walled garden as much as the next guy, but this type of shit is why users will stay with one. Not that a walled garden can't be hijacked, hacked, or otherwise messed with, but by and large it is a cleaner place to be. It is a win-win, both or users who can't, won't, or are too dumb to be bothered with learning a little software/hardware safety, and with corporations who thrive on control and stifling competition.
You can have a "walled garden" for users (some Android companies have their Appstores), yet still allow people to leave on their own risk. It's not mutually exclusive.
For instance you can install packages from repos in Linux, yet you can also download and install source packages with {./configure&&make&&make install;} if you don't mind the risk of screwing up your system. There is no need to lock out users from their phones.
Maybe you didn't mean "walled gardens" but cared-for repos anyway.
Terrorists use the air to transmit sound messages.
The terrorists air is not under US jurisdiction. The US government or US companies can choose who they want to provide a service to.
Twitter will probably not do anything until pushed -- and why do anything? If the organisations don't advocate terrorism on twitter but use it for other communication it could be a good thing -- getting some insight and so on.
I think what you are looking for -- developed by PR-minded astronomers at the "Planetary Habitability Laboratory" -- is this classificattion
1.1 Earth Similarity Index (ESI)
1.2 Standard Primary Habitability (SPH)
1.3 Habitable Zones Distance (HZD)
1.4 Planetary Class (pClass)
1.5 Habitable Class (hClass)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potential_habitable_exoplanets
The website has deceptive exoplanet icons as well -- http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
I doubt that there is some coordination in China to clone specific social networks, microblogging services, and video portals. Every culture has their own dominant websites, just because they can integrate better with the people and know how to become popular. Google can't survive in South Korea for instance, because it doesn't play as nicely with the language+culture as Naver&Daum. Russia uses different services (VKontakte, Rutube), just look at the "World Map of Social Networks".
Sure, in China only compliant websites survive, but is that the driver?
Comparisons with Chernobyl are varying. Prof. Kodoma estimated 10-40 times Chernobyl (video has transcript and CC).
With a good caching engine, dynamically generated webpages should be nearly as fast as a static page - the page it's self is parsed and cached, then only re-parsed if the input changes.
The Linux kernel can take a file and put it on the socket without Apache loading it even partially into memory. *This* is fast.
To see this cosmic event happening before our eyes. I know that it has already happened and we are seeing the light from the event finally reaching our eyes
But that's no different than seeing anything else. You cannot see the present, you can only see the past. That sunset? Eight minutes old. That red dot in the sky they call Mars? It's ten to twenty minutes in the past. That coffee cup you're reaching for? It's the image of that cup from the tiniest fraction of a second ago.
Seeing that event that happened so long ago is no different than seeing the sun from eight minutes ago, or the coffee cup from a tiny fraction of a second ago.
The misunderstanding is that there is something like synchronicity between places -- there isn't! You learn that in distributed systems as well as in special relativity. The only synchronicity that makes sense is to connect places by light rays. So you can say, something you see happens right now, as now is the light-cone you receive.
Not having RTFA, I wonder if they prefer a certain paint or type of wall to improve wireless connectivity. There have been reports that newer paints tend to decrease Wifi quality.
Well they can, just not individual photons or individual photon events.
It's exactly the same as an oscilloscope -- you also don't see the shape of an individual pulse. You under-sample, and then add the samples together assuming it was always the same pulse.
Only open source your codebase if you want to outsource your entire company and any future profits to your competitors.
I think your criticism is valid, but your conclusion isn't. You should open source your code if you estimate that you will still be the driver of the development. Then, other companies will build up dependence on you, you will gain influence and importance.
How can you make sure you will still be the driver of the development?
a) You have skills and experience in your area and your codebase nobody else has and will have difficulties to develop. Then others will always rely on your work.
b) You continuously add value and innovate, so your codebase is the go-to point.
c) You outwork your competition with consistency. When their fork goes stale, people will abandon it.
The beauty of open sourcing is that keeping upstream with you (feature-wise) is extremely difficult for a competitor that has a separate closed-source codebase. This is only accelerated when other people add to your product (don't start with counting on that though).
Experienced users want it the way they got used to. /. seems to be a case of "I want it like it has always been", not being interested in what could be done better. I know new ideas in UI development can make you very productive, a very good example is Mylyn.
Finding interfaces that new computer users can learn quickly and be productive in is difficult (you also need new test subject all the time).
This story and the GNOME3 discussion on
On a related note, Apple has always used silly analogies ("Desktop", "Trash", Eject by dropping to trash). I hope I offended everyone now.
Sorry if I am wrong here, but are you not just producing wild theories here? Surely you don't know what Stuxnet intended to do, so how could you rule that it could not have caused a nuclear catastrophe?
There was an analysis by German researchers that he bases his information on.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-deciphered-stuxnet/all/1
http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html
Nobody uses Fahrenheit for scientific stuff. Kelvin doesn't have degrees. So it's Celsius, although the difference between Kelvin and Celsius is negligible OVER 9000!!!!
seriously, you do not want to use a programming language without object orientation for GUI programming.
GNOME does use OOP.
If you don't like the syntax of GObject (understandable), just use Vala. It compiles to C (no performance loss).
Actually, in radio astronomy you can't really say it's photons. The wavelengths are centimeters to meters (a pretty large photon), and you get wave-effects everywhere.
It's not true that this or other radio telescopes are no match for Hubble. This satellite links up with ground-based telescopes and does VLBI. The baseline of VLBI -- equivalent to the aperture diameter for optical telescope -- is the distance between the linked telescopes. If you want to have a telescope as powerful as Hubble, you need to compare diameter/wavelength (Hubble example: 2.4m/440nm = 5e6). So for radio (e.g. 21 cm), you need a baseline of 1050 km. Ground-based VLBI networks, like the Australian LBA (3300km Perth-Sydney, 5500km Perth-Auckland) or the European EVN, the VLBA (8000km) reach these lengths. This brings you down to milliarcsecond resolutions, incidentally similar to the optical VLT interferometer.
RadioAstron will be on an "orbit that extends between 10,000 and more than 300,000 kilometres from Earth".
So yes, it will be a match for Hubble by a factor of 100. However, this comparison is not really helpful, as optical and radio telescopes see different things and probe different physical processes. To understand the universe, information from all wavelengths is relevant.
If your logo or name is a trademark, yes. That's why no distribution can redistribute a modified Firefox with the same name & logo.