Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You need a history lesson. Augustine wasn't even a Christian until later in his life. He lived in Rome for a time, while he wasn't a Christian. He was also married, divorced, and had a couple kids by a mistress. I highly doubt that Augustine became a christian because he was worried about the church going after him.
Galileo was a different story, but he also wasn't forced into faith. He held back on the release of his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system because of the church, but he was actually one of the clergy. If someone isn't enthusiastic about a religion, even if they are forced into it, I'm doubtful that they would choose to become a leader within that religion.
My company shells out for VS.NET and SQL Server. I initially tried to sway them away from this, mostly because I know that I can handle the administration of Linux based stuff, but my boss had other ideas, and we have an MCSE network admin now.
Anyway, I have to say that VS.NET is fantastic. Not only is the integrated debugging a godsend, SQL Server integrates well into VS.NET. I can debug stored procedures from within VS.NET, something that I haven't experienced anywhere else. I can also directly edit the database from within the development environment.
Just recently, I realized that I wanted to add a bit field to a table. With VS.NET, I just right click on the table in the "Data Connections" explorer, and click on "Edit." Then I just go to the data code and classes and add the boolean. I also would have to modify the stored procedures, which is just a matter of double clicking in the "Data Connections" explorer.
If I didn't have VS.NET, I'd have to open Enterprise manager, and do all of the changes there, or just type the SQL into Query Analyzer. I have no problem doing the straight SQL method, but it's not as fast as working with VS.Net. If I want to verify that it works, without VS.Net, I'd have to do a lot of testing SQL in the Analyzer.
The article doesn't go in-depth about the ways you can optimize ASP.NET. They thoughfully skip over ASP.NET's page caching, and they also seem to leave out the fact that an ASP.NET page gets compiled to machine code on it's first execution, and is optimized by the JIT compiler. The "long code" that they refer to isn't really that long in the end.
Another huge issue is the "platform." Mono serves as a cross-architecture platform for.NET, including ASP.NET. You can connect to a multitude of databases with Mono as well. ASP.NET is not limited to IIS, nor is it limited to Win32. IIS is also not required for ASP.NET to work, as they do note, but they fail to mention that it's incredibly easy to write an ASP.NET web server with.NET (look at Cassini, which is limited but functional).
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Tell that to Augustine or Galileo, some of the greatest minds were devout followers of the church. I'd be willing to bet that they rank higher on the intelligence scale than you do.
The best games that handle religion are the ones with invented lands, invented people, and an invented religion. Think Morrowind.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Whoah. Bush is fun to make fun of. It doesn't actually reflect the effectiveness of his governance, nor does his propensity to attract jokes reflect the rebound that our economy has had... He's just easy to make fun of. Nearly every president is.
I'd say that more people have a problem with Ashcroft than Bush, even though John is the result of George's decision-making process. I'd say that Bush has really only made a couple of mistakes:
Telling us that there were WMD in Iraq, and that's why we should attack. He should have just told us outright that Suddam was dangerous to everyone, exposed his and France's cheating ways, and then gone after him. Of course, this would be after the whole Afghanistan thing is done. Military action, though politically dangerous, is usually beneficial to the economy, nationalism, and unification of citizens.
Putting the power-hungry Ashcroft into his position. The department of homeland defence is sort of redundant, since we're supposed to have a fully functional NSA and FBI. I think Bush was just goaded into creating the new department, but I didn't hear any bitching in opposition at the time.
Everything else... his big ears, his horrible handling of the English language, his slips of the tongue, his appearance of looking stupid, his daughters... they really don't have anything to do with his actual performance as a president.
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The government doesn't count as a consumer. In fact, when the government takes and spends money in the economy, it becomes a competitor with the rest of the businesses. This has a de-stabilizing effect, because the amount of money that government can throw into the economy is so much greater than most other businesses. We don't want government participating in a free market, otherwise we'll end up with a situation like we had in the 70's... mass inflation. The government has the duty of regulating interest rates, tax rates, and the minimum amount of money a bank can keep (this has the biggest effect).
It's better to use trickle-down to distribute the money, since it is the economy that regulates where the money goes, not the government. It does work, it just takes a while. Economic policies (unless they are dramatic monetary policies) do take a number of years before the effect becomes apparent. Look at the growth we had in the 90's, to which Clinton applied a poor policy that helped in the short run (blowing the bubble), but killed us in the early 2000's (pop!).
The same argument applies to your situation. In working with non-object oriented code, there will be a procedure or function call in the middle of a chunk of code, and I won't know where it comes from. I then end up wasting time searching through the included header files for a reference to that function...
My way works even when you're working with other people. They see the type of the object that the parent is. If they use some sort of generic type, it's a bit more troublesome, but that usually falls into the realm of general services/etc... things that don't need or care who called them. In that case, however, every (public) function in the web service should pertain to whatever that web service is. Back to the types, though, other people will be able to tell immediately where/what that object is.
I also have problems with this "common sense" that you speak about. It's best just to stick with best practices, because they lead to readable and maintainable code. It isn't spaghetti code if you're writing a self-contained application and have references to parent object in other objects. Any code that affects the parent objects still exist within the parent, not the child. The child can make calls to the parent's exposed functions just like any other function. That's generally how events and event handlers work, and those are nearly impossible to avoid when writing a UI.
Software engineering curricula typically teach programming to the point of writing documentation. Write your code so it's readable. Write your code so that it's easy to document. Avoid huge nests, avoid functions over X number of lines. Name your variables with relevant names, write an overview of the functionality of each function/procedure/class. When it comes to actual structure, follow the guidelines of whatever language that you are dealing with. If you work with C, encapsulate your code in a library... know that your library will be automatically included in your compiled code (unless it's a dynamically linked library, which is just putting the object code in a separate place). If you work with Java or C#, keep the functions relevant to the functionality of each object, and use the structure of the application to work with those objects. It's fairly simple.
Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of how to do OO programming that gives you this belief.
Typically, an object will know what it's parent is. In terms of an application, the parent would be the main executable class. If you want a "global" function, then put it in the application class.
There is no real danger of having a reference to the parent object. Garbage collection will take care of things, so you don't have the problems you have in C++. You can't accidently vape the parent object if another object references it, you can in C++. Once the application goes bye-bye, everything goes.
It doesn't really cost time or memory or whatever. Just pass "this" in the constructor. It's a pointer in reality, so there's a minimum of resources taken. If you are programming with C#, it's rather silly to worry about a pointer taking up too much memory. It's not C.
You aren't hiding structural information about your program. You know what classes contain things, you wrote them. When you call something, you use the variable to call it... so you know that the object has such and such function. Besides, you ought to be documenting things anyway, so if you don't know the structure of your own program... you shouldn't be in the business.
If you're writing a utility class with a bunch of global static functions, perhaps you shouldn't be using C#, or any other OO language. Use C or something else. The idea of a global static function outside of a class is more of a procedural thing, ie C. When you commit to using an OO language, you commit to using classes and not using these functions. It's just the paradigm, and it's nothing to bitch about. I've written a bunch of applications, and do use global static functions in some classes, but they are always relevant to the content of the class.
An option that you do have is to declare those functions in the class of your application, and make sure that any object that you use has a reference to your application. Then, if you want to make a call, just use that reference. Then, at least, those functions have the context of your application, and are not out of place.
Better hurry before Longhorn comes out, too... That may set OSS back 10 years or more, but at least MS has given us an extra three years to innovate in the meantime!
Meh. MS has the plans for Longhorn written already, and they are busy coding / taking peices out. All the while, OSS innovates. A typical modern Linux setup will run just as fast, if not faster than an equivalent Windows XP setup. And development continues onward and upward. Now, with X.org being the *new* standard, development of that environment will take off (crosses fingers). We won't have to deal with the sluggish , non-innovating ouncil of XFree86.
It's probable that equivalent alternative OSS workstations will be at the same level that Longhorn will be within a year and a half. When Longhorn comes out, it will be obsolete. Then again, the transition to from Win32 to Longhorn will be just as painful as a transition from Win32 to Linux/BSD w/ X.
The only thing that I see holding Linux back is the hardware adoption / drivers. Companies aren't going to be too interested in developing Linux drivers if we have things like ndiswrapper around. I'm still pissed at Realtek, who said they would release a 2.6.* compatible wireless driver in April, but still haven't. At least Nvidia and ATI aren't delaying Linux adoption... I suppose that a little company called ID is helping in that respect.
That's not exactly true. IE is the web browser, and Explorer is the interface between the user and the windows OS. Windows is very modular in this respect, IE has an executable named "iexplore.exe," and windows explorer is "explorer.exe." "iexplore.exe" is located in the Program Files directory, "explorer.exe" is located in C:\Winnt or C:\Windows.
The two share a vast number of the same controls, and that is why you would think that IE is the same as Windows Explorer. Explorer sort of turns into IE if you try surfing to another site. The process keeps the same name, which leads me to think that IE is luanched as a thread or something. The About box changes, though, to reflect that it is IE that you are using, not Explorer.
The number of exploits that hit windows are caused by this amount of integration, and the sloppy programming that it was built with. It's the activeX component, or the COM control that has the flaw, and the processes just wrap that chunk of code. I imagine that if a flaw was found in KHTML, for instance, it would affect the Konqueror browser as well as Safari (isn't that the one that's KHTML based?). Thankfully, the source is out in the open with KDE, so exploits are typically taken care of with efficiency. Unless it's declared as a bug in Mozilla's bug-traq, and the devs don't want to do anything about it. But that couldn't possibly happen...
Re:Intel_Dominance == Smarter_Marketing
on
The History Of Pentium
·
· Score: 4, Informative
No.
The 2400 is indicative of a T-Bird Athlon running at 2.4 GHz. They came out with the XP's (mustang, palamino, etc) immediately after the Thunderbirds, which is when they ditched the MHz / GHz display.
For all purposes, and 1.2 GHz T-Bird was capable of performing as fast as a 2.0 Ghz Pentium 4, I believe. An Athlon 2400XP will outperform a Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz, unless the programs are compiled for SSE2 usage. If there's one thing that is cool, it's the sheer bandwidth of the Pentium 4 with SSE2. That's why Intel was recommending RAMBUS earlier, because the 800Mhz RIMMs would provide the bandwidth that the Pentium 4 required.
So, for comparison... a 2400XP will outperform a Pentium 4 2.4 in normal x86 integer and floating point math. It will not when the Pentium 4 is running SSE2 floating point math.
I think that the decision is based more on "What can I spend money on?" and "Who can I blame or call if this goes down?" Companies don't care what you think, nor do they have an increased understanding of what runs what better. Execs make the money decisions based on what the IT people present, but they have a hard time conceiving that anything that is free is good. They also have a hard time going with a solution that has a support base of newsgroups and IRC channels. They would much rather call a number and speak to a support person that has a heavy Indian accent. Not only that, but they see value in the support if they have to spend money on it.
The only way that companies will go away from this mindset is if humongo businesses decide to go with the "free" solution instead of the "pay for." Huge bodies like IBM are now pushing Linux, but have only been hot on that for a couple of years. It'll be a while more before everyone decides that free software is more valuable than pay-for software, and that it's a whole lot easier to read through archives of newsgroups and IRC logs for help than it is trying to decipher that thick Indian accent.
It's more like the opinions of the 592 individual Americans in congress, the 1 person that matters in the White House, and 7 in the supreme court (although they don't have as immediate impact as the other 593 peopls.)
When you factor in the number of people or companies *funding* these people, you end up with a political culture that barely recognizes the average individual American's opinion. Of course, you have the vocal extremists that pop up, but they are typically ignored in the long run as well. America is full of lemmings who vote for those who can produce the most colorful television commercials, or worse, they blindly support a party that they know nothing about. Look at the unions, where every member of a union will support a party because that's what the union says to support. Look at the yellow-dogs who vote for a party because their parents voted for a party. Try arguing about politics with the average American, and you'll probably find a number of people who would be better followers of the party that opposes the one that they vote for.
Yes. I am a cynical American, and I feel like I have very little say in what our government does, or who is in it.
I'm no big fan of windows, but it seems like you're not really knowledgeable about this stuff.
Can you ssh into your windows machine and restart the webserver with one simple command? Can you totally modify the way your computer runs by writing shell scripts or modifying existing ones?
In essence, yes... and yes. There are probably a few open ssh implementations that run as a service in Windows, just as there is an Apache service. Also of note, Microsoft released a POSIX / UNIX compatibility thing for NT/Win2K/XP (Unix services for Windows? I don't know what it's called.). It's only a few steps then, to get sshd up and running.
As for the web server... "iisreset" I think is the single command. I could be wrong, I don't have IIS installed on my home XP machine at the moment.
Lastly, Windows has a scripting host. You can do nearly everything with vbs. VB sucks as a language, but it's what they chose. I think that javascript might also be available. Anyways... there are scripts out there that let you shut down machines remotely, force the current user to log out, etc. etc. Of course, RPC has to be enabled, but it's all there. If there's an OLE, COM or ActiveX representation of whatever service or object that you wish to work with, you can access it through the scripting host.
I've had to work with Windows boxes at work, so I've had to learn a lot about everything. The security model is really interesting, and can be extremely *tight*, if you wish it to be. You can limit access to almost all OLE/COM/ActiveX objects to groups, you just need to find or develop the right tool.
Yes.... Mingw provides a bourne again shell for windows. Borland provides a free c++ compiler. Java is free (as in beer). Hell, even the MS.NET SDK is a free (as in beer) download, and Mono is a free (as in freedom) alternative that works in Windows.
I don't use a GUI to do much administration in Windows anymore, it just isn't my preferred method. Don't bitch about GUI being the *only* way to do it, since it most likely is not. I'd venture a guess to say that about 95% of everything that you can do with the GUI, you can do with the command line.
Now... creating symbolic and hard links in NTFS, and having the boot partition on a separate HD than your C:\Windows (C:\WINNT) directory, well those are options that you have to go without.
With.NET tools (Mono or MS), System.Net provides nearly everything you could ever want. There's an implementation of sockets that is extremely easy to use, both for Unix style sockets and Winsock. There is an http handler that can be inherited from and extended, as well as DNS resolvers, Authentication classes, UDP, IPV6, etc.
To use any of them, you have to include it as a reference if it isn't in the core library (System.Net is). Put "using System.Net" at the top, and have a bunch of fun with it.
I wouldn't call declaring "ByVal" in every external function call "killing C#." You can work with Office in C# just as well, if not better, than with VB.NET. The fact that C# is a much smoother language to write in, compared to the "BEGIN - END" constructs and the rest of the whole VB/BASIC bullcrap.
The biggest problem that VB.NET has, that thankfully C# does not, is that all of those VB "developers" are still there. They still know next to nothing about good programming concepts, and could care less about efficiency. Woohoo... let's pass objects all of the place! Woohoo... let's make every database interaction in it's own web service... each service containing a single function! Woohoo... let's use ActiveX in.NET like there's no tomorrow, because I like writing insecure code, and I have no desire to fully learn the new platform.
VB.NET? A shotgun is probably the best solution for that language.
Woohoo! I am proud of myself. What a completely successful troll, to have caught so many.
It was even modded "Insightful."
Then again, you have no idea if I have white or black skin. Your assumption that blacks only speak in a certain manner is certainly more indicative of racism than my title could ever be.
I agree that there is no correct language. I believe, however, that the English language has qualities that go beyond the words that are used. If you wish to use English words in your own grammar, then you would no longer be speaking English. If you don't use English words, but use your own grammar, then you are certainly not speaking English.
In a normal country, if a child picked up a CD that had explicit lyrics, and the parent did not like that CD, the parent could throw the CD out. The U.S., however, is a country where a child can file for divorce from his or her parents. The child can also go running to government services and complain about abuse.
The U.S., in it's effort to provide a safe "out" for the children in real trouble, have effectively outlawed the majority of parenting techniques. Things such as "yelling" and "spanking" are now viewed as "abusive behaviors." Given all of this, is it likely that the parent is going to take away the child's property?
I judge people by their usage of grammar. I have a lower opinion of those who choose not to use the language in the way that it is supposed to be used. Your assertion that stylistic usage should be accepted as correct is pure bullshit. If you choose to speak the language in an incorrect manner, even if it is a matter of style, then you are still speaking the language in an incorrect manner. If I encounter you speaking incorrectly, I will think that you are an idiot.
Style has nothing to do with grammar. A language would not be defined as such, were that not true. The term "grammar" means "a set of rules that give structure to a language."
As it is, I believe the biggest issue is pronounciation, not grammar. If someone says "Gimme dat," it is a grammatically correct mispronounciation of "Give me that." Poor speakers are the source of such lovely phrases as "Axe me a question" and "Whaddup wid dat?"
Of course, I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, but I do have an opinion on this particular issue.
Slashdot Mirror
You need a history lesson. Augustine wasn't even a Christian until later in his life. He lived in Rome for a time, while he wasn't a Christian. He was also married, divorced, and had a couple kids by a mistress. I highly doubt that Augustine became a christian because he was worried about the church going after him.
Galileo was a different story, but he also wasn't forced into faith. He held back on the release of his theory that the sun was the center of the solar system because of the church, but he was actually one of the clergy. If someone isn't enthusiastic about a religion, even if they are forced into it, I'm doubtful that they would choose to become a leader within that religion.
My company shells out for VS.NET and SQL Server. I initially tried to sway them away from this, mostly because I know that I can handle the administration of Linux based stuff, but my boss had other ideas, and we have an MCSE network admin now.
Anyway, I have to say that VS.NET is fantastic. Not only is the integrated debugging a godsend, SQL Server integrates well into VS.NET. I can debug stored procedures from within VS.NET, something that I haven't experienced anywhere else. I can also directly edit the database from within the development environment.
Just recently, I realized that I wanted to add a bit field to a table. With VS.NET, I just right click on the table in the "Data Connections" explorer, and click on "Edit." Then I just go to the data code and classes and add the boolean. I also would have to modify the stored procedures, which is just a matter of double clicking in the "Data Connections" explorer.
If I didn't have VS.NET, I'd have to open Enterprise manager, and do all of the changes there, or just type the SQL into Query Analyzer. I have no problem doing the straight SQL method, but it's not as fast as working with VS.Net. If I want to verify that it works, without VS.Net, I'd have to do a lot of testing SQL in the Analyzer.
The article doesn't go in-depth about the ways you can optimize ASP.NET. They thoughfully skip over ASP.NET's page caching, and they also seem to leave out the fact that an ASP.NET page gets compiled to machine code on it's first execution, and is optimized by the JIT compiler. The "long code" that they refer to isn't really that long in the end.
Another huge issue is the "platform." Mono serves as a cross-architecture platform for .NET, including ASP.NET. You can connect to a multitude of databases with Mono as well. ASP.NET is not limited to IIS, nor is it limited to Win32. IIS is also not required for ASP.NET to work, as they do note, but they fail to mention that it's incredibly easy to write an ASP.NET web server with .NET (look at Cassini, which is limited but functional).
Tell that to Augustine or Galileo, some of the greatest minds were devout followers of the church. I'd be willing to bet that they rank higher on the intelligence scale than you do.
The best games that handle religion are the ones with invented lands, invented people, and an invented religion. Think Morrowind.
Whoah. Bush is fun to make fun of. It doesn't actually reflect the effectiveness of his governance, nor does his propensity to attract jokes reflect the rebound that our economy has had... He's just easy to make fun of. Nearly every president is.
I'd say that more people have a problem with Ashcroft than Bush, even though John is the result of George's decision-making process. I'd say that Bush has really only made a couple of mistakes:
Everything else... his big ears, his horrible handling of the English language, his slips of the tongue, his appearance of looking stupid, his daughters... they really don't have anything to do with his actual performance as a president.
The government doesn't count as a consumer. In fact, when the government takes and spends money in the economy, it becomes a competitor with the rest of the businesses. This has a de-stabilizing effect, because the amount of money that government can throw into the economy is so much greater than most other businesses. We don't want government participating in a free market, otherwise we'll end up with a situation like we had in the 70's... mass inflation. The government has the duty of regulating interest rates, tax rates, and the minimum amount of money a bank can keep (this has the biggest effect).
It's better to use trickle-down to distribute the money, since it is the economy that regulates where the money goes, not the government. It does work, it just takes a while. Economic policies (unless they are dramatic monetary policies) do take a number of years before the effect becomes apparent. Look at the growth we had in the 90's, to which Clinton applied a poor policy that helped in the short run (blowing the bubble), but killed us in the early 2000's (pop!).
The same argument applies to your situation. In working with non-object oriented code, there will be a procedure or function call in the middle of a chunk of code, and I won't know where it comes from. I then end up wasting time searching through the included header files for a reference to that function...
My way works even when you're working with other people. They see the type of the object that the parent is. If they use some sort of generic type, it's a bit more troublesome, but that usually falls into the realm of general services/etc... things that don't need or care who called them. In that case, however, every (public) function in the web service should pertain to whatever that web service is. Back to the types, though, other people will be able to tell immediately where/what that object is.
I also have problems with this "common sense" that you speak about. It's best just to stick with best practices, because they lead to readable and maintainable code. It isn't spaghetti code if you're writing a self-contained application and have references to parent object in other objects. Any code that affects the parent objects still exist within the parent, not the child. The child can make calls to the parent's exposed functions just like any other function. That's generally how events and event handlers work, and those are nearly impossible to avoid when writing a UI.
Software engineering curricula typically teach programming to the point of writing documentation. Write your code so it's readable. Write your code so that it's easy to document. Avoid huge nests, avoid functions over X number of lines. Name your variables with relevant names, write an overview of the functionality of each function/procedure/class. When it comes to actual structure, follow the guidelines of whatever language that you are dealing with. If you work with C, encapsulate your code in a library... know that your library will be automatically included in your compiled code (unless it's a dynamically linked library, which is just putting the object code in a separate place). If you work with Java or C#, keep the functions relevant to the functionality of each object, and use the structure of the application to work with those objects. It's fairly simple.
Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding of how to do OO programming that gives you this belief.
Typically, an object will know what it's parent is. In terms of an application, the parent would be the main executable class. If you want a "global" function, then put it in the application class.
There is no real danger of having a reference to the parent object. Garbage collection will take care of things, so you don't have the problems you have in C++. You can't accidently vape the parent object if another object references it, you can in C++. Once the application goes bye-bye, everything goes.
It doesn't really cost time or memory or whatever. Just pass "this" in the constructor. It's a pointer in reality, so there's a minimum of resources taken. If you are programming with C#, it's rather silly to worry about a pointer taking up too much memory. It's not C.
You aren't hiding structural information about your program. You know what classes contain things, you wrote them. When you call something, you use the variable to call it... so you know that the object has such and such function. Besides, you ought to be documenting things anyway, so if you don't know the structure of your own program... you shouldn't be in the business.
If you're writing a utility class with a bunch of global static functions, perhaps you shouldn't be using C#, or any other OO language. Use C or something else. The idea of a global static function outside of a class is more of a procedural thing, ie C. When you commit to using an OO language, you commit to using classes and not using these functions. It's just the paradigm, and it's nothing to bitch about. I've written a bunch of applications, and do use global static functions in some classes, but they are always relevant to the content of the class.
An option that you do have is to declare those functions in the class of your application, and make sure that any object that you use has a reference to your application. Then, if you want to make a call, just use that reference. Then, at least, those functions have the context of your application, and are not out of place.
Better hurry before Longhorn comes out, too... That may set OSS back 10 years or more, but at least MS has given us an extra three years to innovate in the meantime!
Meh. MS has the plans for Longhorn written already, and they are busy coding / taking peices out. All the while, OSS innovates. A typical modern Linux setup will run just as fast, if not faster than an equivalent Windows XP setup. And development continues onward and upward. Now, with X.org being the *new* standard, development of that environment will take off (crosses fingers). We won't have to deal with the sluggish , non-innovating ouncil of XFree86.
It's probable that equivalent alternative OSS workstations will be at the same level that Longhorn will be within a year and a half. When Longhorn comes out, it will be obsolete. Then again, the transition to from Win32 to Longhorn will be just as painful as a transition from Win32 to Linux/BSD w/ X.
The only thing that I see holding Linux back is the hardware adoption / drivers. Companies aren't going to be too interested in developing Linux drivers if we have things like ndiswrapper around. I'm still pissed at Realtek, who said they would release a 2.6.* compatible wireless driver in April, but still haven't. At least Nvidia and ATI aren't delaying Linux adoption... I suppose that a little company called ID is helping in that respect.
Ring. Ring.
Cingular Wireless support, how may I help you?
Yeah, I was wondering why my cell service hasn't been available for two days. Is there something going on?
Um, well, I can't tell you. It's secret.
Ohhhh.... An outage then, eh? Any idea when I'll have service again?
Well, I can't say that the service is down or not, but if it ever was, it would take only another 24 hours to get back on-line. Just guessing, though.
Thank you.
I've... never seen anything like that used here on Slashdot. Not ever.
That's not saying it hasn't been, but it's sure a hell of a lot less common.
Try surfing at -1. ./ mods are typically pro open-source. I think that "Lunix" is usually the result of someone not profreading.
You are rather new here.
That's not exactly true. IE is the web browser, and Explorer is the interface between the user and the windows OS. Windows is very modular in this respect, IE has an executable named "iexplore.exe," and windows explorer is "explorer.exe." "iexplore.exe" is located in the Program Files directory, "explorer.exe" is located in C:\Winnt or C:\Windows.
The two share a vast number of the same controls, and that is why you would think that IE is the same as Windows Explorer. Explorer sort of turns into IE if you try surfing to another site. The process keeps the same name, which leads me to think that IE is luanched as a thread or something. The About box changes, though, to reflect that it is IE that you are using, not Explorer.
The number of exploits that hit windows are caused by this amount of integration, and the sloppy programming that it was built with. It's the activeX component, or the COM control that has the flaw, and the processes just wrap that chunk of code. I imagine that if a flaw was found in KHTML, for instance, it would affect the Konqueror browser as well as Safari (isn't that the one that's KHTML based?). Thankfully, the source is out in the open with KDE, so exploits are typically taken care of with efficiency. Unless it's declared as a bug in Mozilla's bug-traq, and the devs don't want to do anything about it. But that couldn't possibly happen...
No.
The 2400 is indicative of a T-Bird Athlon running at 2.4 GHz. They came out with the XP's (mustang, palamino, etc) immediately after the Thunderbirds, which is when they ditched the MHz / GHz display.
For all purposes, and 1.2 GHz T-Bird was capable of performing as fast as a 2.0 Ghz Pentium 4, I believe. An Athlon 2400XP will outperform a Pentium 4 2.4 Ghz, unless the programs are compiled for SSE2 usage. If there's one thing that is cool, it's the sheer bandwidth of the Pentium 4 with SSE2. That's why Intel was recommending RAMBUS earlier, because the 800Mhz RIMMs would provide the bandwidth that the Pentium 4 required.
So, for comparison... a 2400XP will outperform a Pentium 4 2.4 in normal x86 integer and floating point math. It will not when the Pentium 4 is running SSE2 floating point math.
540 in the house, 52 in the senate. If you have problems with the number in the house, I suggest that you try google.
I think that the decision is based more on "What can I spend money on?" and "Who can I blame or call if this goes down?" Companies don't care what you think, nor do they have an increased understanding of what runs what better. Execs make the money decisions based on what the IT people present, but they have a hard time conceiving that anything that is free is good. They also have a hard time going with a solution that has a support base of newsgroups and IRC channels. They would much rather call a number and speak to a support person that has a heavy Indian accent. Not only that, but they see value in the support if they have to spend money on it.
The only way that companies will go away from this mindset is if humongo businesses decide to go with the "free" solution instead of the "pay for." Huge bodies like IBM are now pushing Linux, but have only been hot on that for a couple of years. It'll be a while more before everyone decides that free software is more valuable than pay-for software, and that it's a whole lot easier to read through archives of newsgroups and IRC logs for help than it is trying to decipher that thick Indian accent.
It's more like the opinions of the 592 individual Americans in congress, the 1 person that matters in the White House, and 7 in the supreme court (although they don't have as immediate impact as the other 593 peopls.)
When you factor in the number of people or companies *funding* these people, you end up with a political culture that barely recognizes the average individual American's opinion. Of course, you have the vocal extremists that pop up, but they are typically ignored in the long run as well. America is full of lemmings who vote for those who can produce the most colorful television commercials, or worse, they blindly support a party that they know nothing about. Look at the unions, where every member of a union will support a party because that's what the union says to support. Look at the yellow-dogs who vote for a party because their parents voted for a party. Try arguing about politics with the average American, and you'll probably find a number of people who would be better followers of the party that opposes the one that they vote for.
Yes. I am a cynical American, and I feel like I have very little say in what our government does, or who is in it.
Akademie is unused in typical culture.
The German words for school:
Akademie shows up in titles, but not in general usage. They also do not use "hochschule."
I'm no big fan of windows, but it seems like you're not really knowledgeable about this stuff.
Can you ssh into your windows machine and restart the webserver with one simple command? Can you totally modify the way your computer runs by writing shell scripts or modifying existing ones?
In essence, yes... and yes. There are probably a few open ssh implementations that run as a service in Windows, just as there is an Apache service. Also of note, Microsoft released a POSIX / UNIX compatibility thing for NT/Win2K/XP (Unix services for Windows? I don't know what it's called.). It's only a few steps then, to get sshd up and running.
As for the web server... "iisreset" I think is the single command. I could be wrong, I don't have IIS installed on my home XP machine at the moment.
Lastly, Windows has a scripting host. You can do nearly everything with vbs. VB sucks as a language, but it's what they chose. I think that javascript might also be available. Anyways... there are scripts out there that let you shut down machines remotely, force the current user to log out, etc. etc. Of course, RPC has to be enabled, but it's all there. If there's an OLE, COM or ActiveX representation of whatever service or object that you wish to work with, you can access it through the scripting host.
I've had to work with Windows boxes at work, so I've had to learn a lot about everything. The security model is really interesting, and can be extremely *tight*, if you wish it to be. You can limit access to almost all OLE/COM/ActiveX objects to groups, you just need to find or develop the right tool.
Yes.... Mingw provides a bourne again shell for windows. Borland provides a free c++ compiler. Java is free (as in beer). Hell, even the MS .NET SDK is a free (as in beer) download, and Mono is a free (as in freedom) alternative that works in Windows.
I don't use a GUI to do much administration in Windows anymore, it just isn't my preferred method. Don't bitch about GUI being the *only* way to do it, since it most likely is not. I'd venture a guess to say that about 95% of everything that you can do with the GUI, you can do with the command line.
Now... creating symbolic and hard links in NTFS, and having the boot partition on a separate HD than your C:\Windows (C:\WINNT) directory, well those are options that you have to go without.
That's not a person. That's leftover from what the fatasses that use the system have, when compared to "normal" people.
Well, at least that is what I'd expect from a website that is populated by geeks.
With .NET tools (Mono or MS), System.Net provides nearly everything you could ever want. There's an implementation of sockets that is extremely easy to use, both for Unix style sockets and Winsock. There is an http handler that can be inherited from and extended, as well as DNS resolvers, Authentication classes, UDP, IPV6, etc.
To use any of them, you have to include it as a reference if it isn't in the core library (System.Net is). Put "using System.Net" at the top, and have a bunch of fun with it.
I wouldn't call declaring "ByVal" in every external function call "killing C#." You can work with Office in C# just as well, if not better, than with VB.NET. The fact that C# is a much smoother language to write in, compared to the "BEGIN - END" constructs and the rest of the whole VB/BASIC bullcrap.
The biggest problem that VB.NET has, that thankfully C# does not, is that all of those VB "developers" are still there. They still know next to nothing about good programming concepts, and could care less about efficiency. Woohoo... let's pass objects all of the place! Woohoo... let's make every database interaction in it's own web service... each service containing a single function! Woohoo... let's use ActiveX in .NET like there's no tomorrow, because I like writing insecure code, and I have no desire to fully learn the new platform.
VB.NET? A shotgun is probably the best solution for that language.
Woohoo! I am proud of myself. What a completely successful troll, to have caught so many.
It was even modded "Insightful."
Then again, you have no idea if I have white or black skin. Your assumption that blacks only speak in a certain manner is certainly more indicative of racism than my title could ever be.
I agree that there is no correct language. I believe, however, that the English language has qualities that go beyond the words that are used. If you wish to use English words in your own grammar, then you would no longer be speaking English. If you don't use English words, but use your own grammar, then you are certainly not speaking English.
In a normal country, if a child picked up a CD that had explicit lyrics, and the parent did not like that CD, the parent could throw the CD out. The U.S., however, is a country where a child can file for divorce from his or her parents. The child can also go running to government services and complain about abuse.
The U.S., in it's effort to provide a safe "out" for the children in real trouble, have effectively outlawed the majority of parenting techniques. Things such as "yelling" and "spanking" are now viewed as "abusive behaviors." Given all of this, is it likely that the parent is going to take away the child's property?
I judge people by their usage of grammar. I have a lower opinion of those who choose not to use the language in the way that it is supposed to be used. Your assertion that stylistic usage should be accepted as correct is pure bullshit. If you choose to speak the language in an incorrect manner, even if it is a matter of style, then you are still speaking the language in an incorrect manner. If I encounter you speaking incorrectly, I will think that you are an idiot.
Style has nothing to do with grammar. A language would not be defined as such, were that not true. The term "grammar" means "a set of rules that give structure to a language."
As it is, I believe the biggest issue is pronounciation, not grammar. If someone says "Gimme dat," it is a grammatically correct mispronounciation of "Give me that." Poor speakers are the source of such lovely phrases as "Axe me a question" and "Whaddup wid dat?"
Of course, I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, but I do have an opinion on this particular issue.
Eh. Most people at the gym can do delt lifts with 20 lb weights. I usually use 35's.
I still don't see what the big deal is.