Uh? If history is an indication, the future belongs to: 1-x86-64 2-low power RISCs, such as ARM for embedded target and even in this space if Intel build 0.5W x86 as they've planned to do, x86 may won again a lot of marketshare.. 3-special purpose vectors CPU: GPUs, Cell.
The only one you could consider to have 'hardware implemented datatypes' is type 3 if one consider vectors and textures as datatypes.
> Emulating Firefox's limited and rather poor tab management is not exactly a goal.
Well it should be! There are much more FF users than Opera's users, so if it want to grow (IE users are not a likely target: if they wanted/were capable to switch they would have already done so).
And no, Opera's tab management is *not* simple, for someone used to FF it's too complex. And as you cannot configure to Opera to emulate correctly FF tab management, so it's very annoying for FF users.
For the tab order, I agree that it is a purely personnal preference point of view, but you do agree with me that once you're used to one way, it very annoying to change to a browser with a different way..
As for keeping the current pages open of Opera, I definitely agree that it is a very nice feature (that plus the Ctrl+F11 reflowing of webpage), and that FF developpers should put it by default not relegate it in the purgatory of extensions.. In that FF is very sad: it lacks many things by default and users says just use extension XXX for your need (no thanks I have better things to do than playing with extensions), but as soon as you complain about some problem in FF (say memory leaks), then users say that it is surely a problem caused by an extension (not true in the case of memory leaks/poor behaviour with many tabs opened)..
I wouldn't call Opera's tab management flexible: it cannot be configured fully emulate Firefox's tab management. It's just different, it tries to be intelligent, but I prefer dumb and *simple* management.
You can configure Opera such as 'ctrl w' close the tab, and go to the next tab in windows order, but I haven't found how to do the same thing on closing a tab with the mouse:-(
I like a lot Opera: it's much faster than FF, it has the 'Ctrl+F11' set to reflow a webpage to avoid horizontal scrolling, it remembers open tab if you quit the application or if it crash. All this by default, no need to waste your time managing extensions.
But I also hate Opera, it's tab management is *stupid* when you're used to FF, there is an option in Opera9 which is supposed to make it work like FF, but it doesn't work..
I remember that an IBM researcher wrote IBM with gold atoms using an atomic force microscope, quite a long time ago.. Why brings using laser tweezers to do the same thing?
It doesn't seem simpler.. Maybe the temperature used can be higher? Or maybe it works with different atoms that can be used with an AFM? Or maybe it's easier to automate?
Frankly this article is poor, what is so interesting about using lasers instead of an AFM??
Bah randi's fondation is not the 'ultimate reference' as I said if one had so-called "super powers", it would be easy for him to do something that would impress serious journalists..
In France we had for example a 'million franc' bet, a spoon was under a glass protection, if you could twist the spoon without breaking the glass, you won a million franc.. Nobody won, gosh where are all those telekinesis guys?
Pschaw, cut the chit-chat: in science you have to *prove* what your saying by giving the instructions so that anybody can try to reproduce your observations. If someone has some "super-power" and if Randi fondation worked in bad faith not recognising it, don't you think that it would be easy for him to call the press and show the problem?
I don't feel threatened by unprovable 'black powers', I feel threatened by the high number of stupid people who are so afraid by the world/death that they reassure themselves believing in religions, little green men, paranormal, etc..
PS: About the 'lack of correlation' of humans: in reality humans are 'over-correlating': you crossed a black cat this morning and you had an accident? Obviously black cats give bad luck! Disregarding the hundred of times you crossed a black cat and nothing happened.. That's how supersition starts.
In fact, it's very hard to make it really believable: the lighting, perspective of the background are often slightly different from the actors, so it appears really bad: you have the actors 'in front' of a scene and not *in* the scene.
I remember seeing a preview of Kink-kong and decided not to see the movie because the effect was too obvious&disturbing.. There was the same problem in the arena scene with the monsters in Star Wars episode2.
About Windows Vista, the difference between Windows and Photoshop is that the day Microsoft pull the plug on security updates of WindowsXP, users will *have* to upgrade or keep a PC which gets slower and slower as it is overloaded by spyware.. This plus the new PC will be sold with Vista insure that Microsoft will sell Vista well.
Will Microsoft be put on the wayside as you said? Well with.DOC, Active directory, exchange for the office, directX for the home (still not sure that OpenGL will work correctly on Vista), etc they have enough consumer lockin that if this transition occurs it will happen very slowly.
>They sacrificed portability by performing some TLB caching hacks.
That's a biased way of reporting what they did: they used platform specific optimisation, Linux does it also quite often but the Linux kernel tested doesn't have this particular optimisation.
No, there's no 64-bit GPU and as games don't really need them I doubt that there will be any for a long time.. But in some case depending of your application the GPU could still be useful, see http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2005/08/2 2,unfortunatly the linked article is not available anynmore but it used some iterative algorithm to gain a 2 times speedup with a GPU at double precision.
>Philosophy is a lot more logical than most people would assume at first glance. Bah, for every proposition, there are many philosophical theories that say it's true and there are many philosophical theories that say it's wrong.
So sure, philosophy is logical but as they take their axiom at random, the result is not very interesting..
Sure, the report is safe, but admins will try to use their logs to find the IP address of those who exploited the vulnerability before. If you didn't take precautions when you tested the website and normally you didn't as you were not trying to crack the website, you were just checking that it is safe), if the logs are detailed enough, they will find the IP address of the one who did it and will come knocking at your door.
>The reality is that we know so little about the human skin, it is not even funny. [cut] >I read the RTFA and I can understand some of the patients described in it who are taking a gun to a dermatologist appointment. I have wanted to do that on couple of occasions myself.
While I understand that being ill tend to make people nervous, don't you that you're a bit self-contradictory: it's true that we don't know much about skin illness unfortunately, so why thinking about shooting dermatologist?? They do what they can, with the little information we have, that's all. Placing too much expectations on doctors is *your problem*.
Remember: embrace and extinguish, don't expect FOSS community to cheer because a small piece of free software is used on Windows: usually when Windows is used, the number of.doc increase, the incentive to use proprietary Windows management tools grows, etc.
Note that nobody claims that muk are totally reliable, just a little more reliable: if the driver do bad things with the disk, the PCI bus, the DMA engine, or send a message with incorrect content to another part, then just reloading the driver won't be enough to fix the problem..
>and no, SHM and semaphores aren't a better solution.
I'd say they are: by default processes are share nothing and you explicitly have to put what you share in SHM, whereas thread are by default share everything. IMHO explicit sharing is better.
Plus I think that message passing between processes is not necessarily worse in performance than threads or memory sharing especially when you have 10s of procs as they can't share the memory, otherwise the memory becomes a bottleneck, so the memory must be partitionned and it isn't 'true memory sharing' anymore even if it appears so.
Nope but I beleive you, as said before the material must be checked against the usage intented: even arsenic isn't always bad depending of the use. Cotton in shirt is not breathed.
My point is that with old materials we know when to use them or not: you wouldn't use lead to make a new water pipe. For the new materials caution is advisable..
>You are aware the shirt you're (presumably) wearing now is constructed of nano-scaled materials, right? They're called "molecules".
Yup and you notice that to make those shirt we use materials that have been known to be harmless to man for centuries, we don't know anything about the new materials, they could be harmless or they could be a new abestos.
>nanotubes are based on buckyballs terrestrially found in smoke
Bah, arsenic in dose low enough is used as a drug, because there are buckyballs in smoke don't mean that the same material used in a different concentration shape wouldn't be dangerous: all the types of abestos are not dangerous after all, but some are.
As for the lung, brain, agreed there are dozen of way a new material (nano or not) could be dangerous for the body, this just means that instead of creating a new desaster like abestos'one, we ought to test new materials on animals before making them widespread not after.
Slashdot Mirror
>The future beholds hardware implemented datatypes
Uh? If history is an indication, the future belongs to:
1-x86-64
2-low power RISCs, such as ARM for embedded target and even in this space if Intel build 0.5W x86 as they've planned to do, x86 may won again a lot of marketshare..
3-special purpose vectors CPU: GPUs, Cell.
The only one you could consider to have 'hardware implemented datatypes' is type 3 if one consider vectors and textures as datatypes.
> Emulating Firefox's limited and rather poor tab management is not exactly a goal.
Well it should be! There are much more FF users than Opera's users, so if it want to grow (IE users are not a likely target: if they wanted/were capable to switch they would have already done so).
And no, Opera's tab management is *not* simple, for someone used to FF it's too complex.
And as you cannot configure to Opera to emulate correctly FF tab management, so it's very annoying for FF users.
For the tab order, I agree that it is a purely personnal preference point of view, but you do agree with me that once you're used to one way, it very annoying to change to a browser with a different way..
As for keeping the current pages open of Opera, I definitely agree that it is a very nice feature (that plus the Ctrl+F11 reflowing of webpage), and that FF developpers should put it by default not relegate it in the purgatory of extensions..
In that FF is very sad: it lacks many things by default and users says just use extension XXX for your need (no thanks I have better things to do than playing with extensions), but as soon as you complain about some problem in FF (say memory leaks), then users say that it is surely a problem caused by an extension (not true in the case of memory leaks/poor behaviour with many tabs opened)..
I wouldn't call Opera's tab management flexible: it cannot be configured fully emulate Firefox's tab management.
It's just different, it tries to be intelligent, but I prefer dumb and *simple* management.
You can configure Opera such as 'ctrl w' close the tab, and go to the next tab in windows order, but I haven't found how to do the same thing on closing a tab with the mouse :-(
I like a lot Opera: it's much faster than FF, it has the 'Ctrl+F11' set to reflow a webpage to avoid horizontal scrolling, it remembers open tab if you quit the application or if it crash.
All this by default, no need to waste your time managing extensions.
But I also hate Opera, it's tab management is *stupid* when you're used to FF, there is an option in Opera9 which is supposed to make it work like FF, but it doesn't work..
I remember that an IBM researcher wrote IBM with gold atoms using an atomic force microscope, quite a long time ago..
Why brings using laser tweezers to do the same thing?
It doesn't seem simpler.. Maybe the temperature used can be higher? Or maybe it works with different atoms that can be used with an AFM? Or maybe it's easier to automate?
Frankly this article is poor, what is so interesting about using lasers instead of an AFM??
Bah randi's fondation is not the 'ultimate reference' as I said if one had so-called "super powers", it would be easy for him to do something that would impress serious journalists..
In France we had for example a 'million franc' bet, a spoon was under a glass protection, if you could twist the spoon without breaking the glass, you won a million franc..
Nobody won, gosh where are all those telekinesis guys?
Pschaw, cut the chit-chat: in science you have to *prove* what your saying by giving the instructions so that anybody can try to reproduce your observations.
If someone has some "super-power" and if Randi fondation worked in bad faith not recognising it, don't you think that it would be easy for him to call the press and show the problem?
I don't feel threatened by unprovable 'black powers', I feel threatened by the high number of stupid people who are so afraid by the world/death that they reassure themselves believing in religions, little green men, paranormal, etc..
PS: About the 'lack of correlation' of humans: in reality humans are 'over-correlating': you crossed a black cat this morning and you had an accident? Obviously black cats give bad luck!
Disregarding the hundred of times you crossed a black cat and nothing happened.. That's how supersition starts.
In fact, it's very hard to make it really believable: the lighting, perspective of the background are often slightly different from the actors, so it appears really bad: you have the actors 'in front' of a scene and not *in* the scene.
I remember seeing a preview of Kink-kong and decided not to see the movie because the effect was too obvious&disturbing..
There was the same problem in the arena scene with the monsters in Star Wars episode2.
>The serif provides just enough extra information to allow for slightly faster processing speed
That's a myth, you have the rights to prefer serif fonts, no need to propagate this myth which has been disproved since.
>Looking back from today, Windows 95 looks like a hack, and not in a good way.
>But it was a tremendous accomplishment [cut the part about other suck]
Bah, it was still a hack because it didn't provide a good memory protection.
About Windows Vista, the difference between Windows and Photoshop is that the day Microsoft pull the plug on security updates of WindowsXP, users will *have* to upgrade or keep a PC which gets slower and slower as it is overloaded by spyware..
.DOC, Active directory, exchange for the office, directX for the home (still not sure that OpenGL will work correctly on Vista), etc they have enough consumer lockin that if this transition occurs it will happen very slowly.
This plus the new PC will be sold with Vista insure that Microsoft will sell Vista well.
Will Microsoft be put on the wayside as you said?
Well with
I disagree: Solaris documentation for example is far better than Linux one.
This is quite an important aspect..
>They sacrificed portability by performing some TLB caching hacks.
That's a biased way of reporting what they did: they used platform specific optimisation, Linux does it also quite often but the Linux kernel tested doesn't have this particular optimisation.
No, there's no 64-bit GPU and as games don't really need them I doubt that there will be any for a long time..2 2 ,unfortunatly the linked article is not available anynmore but it used some iterative algorithm to gain a 2 times speedup with a GPU at double precision.
But in some case depending of your application the GPU could still be useful, see http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2005/08/
>Philosophy is a lot more logical than most people would assume at first glance.
Bah, for every proposition, there are many philosophical theories that say it's true and there are many philosophical theories that say it's wrong.
So sure, philosophy is logical but as they take their axiom at random, the result is not very interesting..
What makes you think its safe?
Sure, the report is safe, but admins will try to use their logs to find the IP address of those who exploited the vulnerability before.
If you didn't take precautions when you tested the website and normally you didn't as you were not trying to crack the website, you were just checking that it is safe), if the logs are detailed enough, they will find the IP address of the one who did it and will come knocking at your door.
>The reality is that we know so little about the human skin, it is not even funny.
[cut]
>I read the RTFA and I can understand some of the patients described in it who are taking a gun to a dermatologist appointment. I have wanted to do that on couple of occasions myself.
While I understand that being ill tend to make people nervous, don't you that you're a bit self-contradictory: it's true that we don't know much about skin illness unfortunately, so why thinking about shooting dermatologist??
They do what they can, with the little information we have, that's all.
Placing too much expectations on doctors is *your problem*.
Remember: embrace and extinguish, don't expect FOSS community to cheer because a small piece of free software is used on Windows: .doc increase, the incentive to use proprietary Windows management tools grows, etc.
usually when Windows is used, the number of
>the reliability that's claimed.
Note that nobody claims that muk are totally reliable, just a little more reliable: if the driver do bad things with the disk, the PCI bus, the DMA engine, or send a message with incorrect content to another part, then just reloading the driver won't be enough to fix the problem..
>and no, SHM and semaphores aren't a better solution.
I'd say they are: by default processes are share nothing and you explicitly have to put what you share in SHM, whereas thread are by default share everything.
IMHO explicit sharing is better.
Plus I think that message passing between processes is not necessarily worse in performance than threads or memory sharing especially when you have 10s of procs as they can't share the memory, otherwise the memory becomes a bottleneck, so the memory must be partitionned and it isn't 'true memory sharing' anymore even if it appears so.
Nope but I beleive you, as said before the material must be checked against the usage intented: even arsenic isn't always bad depending of the use.
Cotton in shirt is not breathed.
My point is that with old materials we know when to use them or not: you wouldn't use lead to make a new water pipe. For the new materials caution is advisable..
Coton has been in used for centuries.
>You are aware the shirt you're (presumably) wearing now is constructed of nano-scaled materials, right? They're called "molecules".
Yup and you notice that to make those shirt we use materials that have been known to be harmless to man for centuries, we don't know anything about the new materials, they could be harmless or they could be a new abestos.
>nanotubes are based on buckyballs terrestrially found in smoke
Bah, arsenic in dose low enough is used as a drug, because there are buckyballs in smoke don't mean that the same material used in a different concentration shape wouldn't be dangerous: all the types of abestos are not dangerous after all, but some are.
As for the lung, brain, agreed there are dozen of way a new material (nano or not) could be dangerous for the body, this just means that instead of creating a new desaster like abestos'one, we ought to test new materials on animals before making them widespread not after.