Um, no. The FCC only licenses transmitters, not receivers. The only transmitters in GPS are in the satellites. And part B is not a license, it is a section of type 15 UNLICENSED transmitters (specifically unlicensed devices which are unintentional transmitters, like computers).
No, you are entirely wrong. Please show us any document that states what you said. "Write once, run anywhere" means exactly what it says. The developer does things once, and the user runs it in whatever environment they want. How does a user specifying different tuning parameters when he starts his JVM affect what the developer did? The application was still written (and compiled) once. And the application will run, unchanged, no matter what the users priorities are with regards to things like heap sizes, GC techniques, etc. That is pretty much the very essence of "write once, run anywhere".
The book is discussing run-time tuning, so 'write once run anywhere' does not enter into it.
It seems that a lot of people on here don't 'get' run-time tuning, or they don't think it is important. In the environment that these parameters would normally be used (enterprise software), tuning is critical. All enterprise middleware and most applications have tons of tuning. In an enterprise environment you do want the ability to trade off memory usage for processor usage, for instance. You want to control how much memory is being used. You want to control how many cores your application can use. And those things change depending on lots of variables. For example, at different points during the year different applications may have higher or lower priorities. Workload can be added to or removed from an image, requiring rebalancing of resources. You may find that scaling an application up or down requires different handing of garbage collection.
Now, all these things can be done (and must be done in an enterprise) regardless of language. If you don't have a tunable run-time then the other option is that every application builds in it's own tuning parameters.
Are you really that dense? It describes the command line options (which would have to be written into your own application if you wanted to have that level of tuning in C). It describes the technology of the JVM (so add some books describing processors and OS internals to your list). It describes performance, profiling, benchmarking, and the tools used to do those things (add a few dozen more books to your list).
Now obviously C is much easier to do those things with. That is why the first tool for analyzing C memory usage (ThreadSpotter) takes a 149 page book to describe it. So your C library is already up to 377 pages, and you haven't even touched on the technology issues. And of course any documentation on how to tune your application must be written by you.
More like you didn't read it at all. Right in the summary it says: This dense, 600-page book will not only explain these developer options and the underlying JVM technology, but discusses performance, profiling, benchmarking and related tools in surprising breadth and detail.
The switches and controls described are run-time options, not code optimizations. They are more like the 'economy or performance' transmission setting. Sometimes you want to get the best MPG and don't particularly care how fast you accelerate. Other times you want quick acceleration, and are willing to let mileage suffer. Having a control means you don't have to re-build your car every time you want a change.
These options are the same kinds of things. If you only have one application running on a box you may as well let the JVM grab as much of the physical memory as it can, so it does as little garbage collecting as possible. If you add more applications you may want to dial back the memory usage and take a performance hit for that application so other more important apps run better.
Can you do the same things with C or C++? Of course, as long as each and every application provides its own controls, coded into the applications, for doing that.
The major use of Java is server side enterprise stuff, and all those controls are critical there. It is certainly not a major failing of the JVM, it is an important feature. The alternative to the JVM having all those controls is for each and every application to have its own controls.
If each purchaser of an ebook gave no more than one copy to one other person, and none of the recipients of the books gave any copies to anyone else, then you would have a point. So tell me, is that really what you believe happens on these file sharing sites? All the books uploaded are paid for copies, and only one person can download any given uploaded book? If so, you are incredibly naive.
Are you talking about legitimate libraries lending ebooks (which you just claimed to not know existed), or pirate sites such as being discussed here?
Legitimate libraries only lend out the number of copies of ebooks they have purchased, and at least try to ensure that 'returned' copies are no longer available to the previous borrower. Pirate sites 'lend out' an unlimited number of copies.
With physical books (and legitimate e-lending), the minimum number of purchased books == maximum number of simultaneous borrowers, and the maximum number of borrowers == the number of purchased books.
With pirate sites, the minimum number of purchased books is 1, and the maximum number of simultaneous borrows is infinite.
Uh, OK. You may not be aware of this, but when a person donates a book, he no longer has the book! Weird, huh? Furthermore, if someone else already has the book you want, you either wait, or the library must obtain ANOTHER paid-for copy of the book. And if the library in the next town over also wants the book, it has to get its own paid-for copy.
Which were still paid for by the original owner. And most donated books are not put into circulation, they are sold to raise money to buy the books they want.
OK, here is a license: For a one-time payment of $X, I grant you a perpetual royalty-free exclusive license to this patent. You may sub-license on your own terms.
Is that better? Why shouldn't a patent be able to be sold? It is an asset. If someone else thinks it is valuable, why shouldn't you be allowed to sell it to them? Saying you shouldn't be able to sell a patent is like saying you shouldn't be able to sell any other asset that has increased in value while you possessed it. What did you do to make that stock go up? What did you do to make that rare painting go up?
Some people and businesses (for example Kodak) may prefer/need to get whatever money they can from their patents NOW, rather than waiting years and years for licensing fees. And don't say 'then take a loan out against the patent', because in order to be useful for collateral it must be transferable.
It is not difficult to justify charging for usage, it is just a pricing decision. You can have exactly the same revenue with a flat rate as with charging for usage. The only question becomes: which do your customers prefer? Obviously people with very low usage are going to prefer a 100% metered rate (I sent 1 text this month, why is my bill $50). People with very high usage are going to prefer a 100% flat rate. Most people are somewhere in the middle, so a flat base rate with some usage charges makes sense.
The FCC rules you refer to do not mean what you think they do. First and foremost, they only apply to TRANSMITTERS operating in UNLICENSED bands. 'Must accept any interference' means that you have no REGULATORY protection if your unlicensed transmissions are interfered with. Even the 'must not cause interference' is not a technical requirement (the technical considerations are handled elsewhere), but rather means that if you are interfering with LICENSED transmissions you must stop using the device, even if the device itself is working correctly and is within the parameters of the unlicensed band.
GPS receivers are not transmitters. The GPS band is not unlicensed. Your argument is completely wrong.
What part of what he said could be considered slander, regardless of privilege? "You're either with the government or the child pornographers" is clearly an opinion, and an opinion can not be a 'false statement'. It can be ill-thought out, illogical, or just plain stupid, but it can't be a false statement.
By your logic, the fact that GE does not publish City/Highway MPG ratings for it's locomotives can be taken as proof that it is cheaper to drive coal across the country in the back of a Prius. Instead of publishing 'standard' MPG benchmarks, they 'make up their own' benchmarks like cost/ton/mile.
Mainframes are designed to be very efficient at the workloads they actually run, not to look good on some benchmark that is not at all realistic for the workload it will be running. Where are HPs benchmarks on running mixed IMS/CICS/DB2 workload?
Nobody spends a few million dollars on a mainframe based on some 'industry standard' benchmarks. Instead, they take their actual workload to IBM and try it on different configurations. There is no reason at all for IBM to run those benchmarks.
How do you think you can get your bank account balance if the machine storing that info is not connected to anything? The major use of mainframes is high-volume transaction processing, and those transactions come from somewhere (POS terminals, ATMs, reservation systems, web pages, etc).
No, mainframe security comes from the fact that every part of the mainframe - the architecture, the hardware, the OS, the middleware, the applications, the management is concerned with security from the very start.
Mainframes are not supercomputers, and are not marketed as such. Not sure what you mean by 'modern hardware' - you don't think mainframes are modern hardware?
Mainframes are used for high-volume transaction systems, where uptime and data integrity is absolutely essential. Clusters of PS3's are not going to match that.
I guess the lack of FBI background checks for candidates is why we never, ever hear about things that might make a candidate open to blackmail and corruption. We never hear about candidates extra-marital affairs. We never hear about sexual harassment. We never hear about past actions or statements that appear to be in conflict with what they are now saying. We never hear about drug use, or school performance. We have no idea where a candidate gets his income, or what companies/industries he has ties to.
What do you think campaigns are, besides one enormous background check?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. The FCC only licenses transmitters, not receivers. The only transmitters in GPS are in the satellites. And part B is not a license, it is a section of type 15 UNLICENSED transmitters (specifically unlicensed devices which are unintentional transmitters, like computers).
I'm pretty sure IBM and Red Hat were some of the major players that did the work he is talking about.
No, you are entirely wrong. Please show us any document that states what you said. "Write once, run anywhere" means exactly what it says. The developer does things once, and the user runs it in whatever environment they want. How does a user specifying different tuning parameters when he starts his JVM affect what the developer did? The application was still written (and compiled) once. And the application will run, unchanged, no matter what the users priorities are with regards to things like heap sizes, GC techniques, etc. That is pretty much the very essence of "write once, run anywhere".
More likely he says that free stuff without vendor support is no good, and for most businesses he is right.
The book is discussing run-time tuning, so 'write once run anywhere' does not enter into it.
It seems that a lot of people on here don't 'get' run-time tuning, or they don't think it is important. In the environment that these parameters would normally be used (enterprise software), tuning is critical. All enterprise middleware and most applications have tons of tuning. In an enterprise environment you do want the ability to trade off memory usage for processor usage, for instance. You want to control how much memory is being used. You want to control how many cores your application can use. And those things change depending on lots of variables. For example, at different points during the year different applications may have higher or lower priorities. Workload can be added to or removed from an image, requiring rebalancing of resources. You may find that scaling an application up or down requires different handing of garbage collection.
Now, all these things can be done (and must be done in an enterprise) regardless of language. If you don't have a tunable run-time then the other option is that every application builds in it's own tuning parameters.
Are you really that dense? It describes the command line options (which would have to be written into your own application if you wanted to have that level of tuning in C). It describes the technology of the JVM (so add some books describing processors and OS internals to your list). It describes performance, profiling, benchmarking, and the tools used to do those things (add a few dozen more books to your list).
Now obviously C is much easier to do those things with. That is why the first tool for analyzing C memory usage (ThreadSpotter) takes a 149 page book to describe it. So your C library is already up to 377 pages, and you haven't even touched on the technology issues. And of course any documentation on how to tune your application must be written by you.
More like you didn't read it at all. Right in the summary it says: This dense, 600-page book will not only explain these developer options and the underlying JVM technology, but discusses performance, profiling, benchmarking and related tools in surprising breadth and detail.
The switches and controls described are run-time options, not code optimizations. They are more like the 'economy or performance' transmission setting. Sometimes you want to get the best MPG and don't particularly care how fast you accelerate. Other times you want quick acceleration, and are willing to let mileage suffer. Having a control means you don't have to re-build your car every time you want a change.
These options are the same kinds of things. If you only have one application running on a box you may as well let the JVM grab as much of the physical memory as it can, so it does as little garbage collecting as possible. If you add more applications you may want to dial back the memory usage and take a performance hit for that application so other more important apps run better.
Can you do the same things with C or C++? Of course, as long as each and every application provides its own controls, coded into the applications, for doing that.
The major use of Java is server side enterprise stuff, and all those controls are critical there. It is certainly not a major failing of the JVM, it is an important feature. The alternative to the JVM having all those controls is for each and every application to have its own controls.
If each purchaser of an ebook gave no more than one copy to one other person, and none of the recipients of the books gave any copies to anyone else, then you would have a point. So tell me, is that really what you believe happens on these file sharing sites? All the books uploaded are paid for copies, and only one person can download any given uploaded book? If so, you are incredibly naive.
Are you talking about legitimate libraries lending ebooks (which you just claimed to not know existed), or pirate sites such as being discussed here?
Legitimate libraries only lend out the number of copies of ebooks they have purchased, and at least try to ensure that 'returned' copies are no longer available to the previous borrower. Pirate sites 'lend out' an unlimited number of copies.
With physical books (and legitimate e-lending), the minimum number of purchased books == maximum number of simultaneous borrowers, and the maximum number of borrowers == the number of purchased books.
With pirate sites, the minimum number of purchased books is 1, and the maximum number of simultaneous borrows is infinite.
Uh, OK. You may not be aware of this, but when a person donates a book, he no longer has the book! Weird, huh? Furthermore, if someone else already has the book you want, you either wait, or the library must obtain ANOTHER paid-for copy of the book. And if the library in the next town over also wants the book, it has to get its own paid-for copy.
Even a donated book was paid for by the original owner. And most donated books don't go into circulation, they get sold to raise cash to buy books.
What backwater do you live in? Most libraries will let you borrow ebooks.
Which were still paid for by the original owner. And most donated books are not put into circulation, they are sold to raise money to buy the books they want.
OK, here is a license: For a one-time payment of $X, I grant you a perpetual royalty-free exclusive license to this patent. You may sub-license on your own terms.
Is that better? Why shouldn't a patent be able to be sold? It is an asset. If someone else thinks it is valuable, why shouldn't you be allowed to sell it to them? Saying you shouldn't be able to sell a patent is like saying you shouldn't be able to sell any other asset that has increased in value while you possessed it. What did you do to make that stock go up? What did you do to make that rare painting go up?
Some people and businesses (for example Kodak) may prefer/need to get whatever money they can from their patents NOW, rather than waiting years and years for licensing fees. And don't say 'then take a loan out against the patent', because in order to be useful for collateral it must be transferable.
It is not difficult to justify charging for usage, it is just a pricing decision. You can have exactly the same revenue with a flat rate as with charging for usage. The only question becomes: which do your customers prefer? Obviously people with very low usage are going to prefer a 100% metered rate (I sent 1 text this month, why is my bill $50). People with very high usage are going to prefer a 100% flat rate. Most people are somewhere in the middle, so a flat base rate with some usage charges makes sense.
The FCC rules you refer to do not mean what you think they do. First and foremost, they only apply to TRANSMITTERS operating in UNLICENSED bands. 'Must accept any interference' means that you have no REGULATORY protection if your unlicensed transmissions are interfered with. Even the 'must not cause interference' is not a technical requirement (the technical considerations are handled elsewhere), but rather means that if you are interfering with LICENSED transmissions you must stop using the device, even if the device itself is working correctly and is within the parameters of the unlicensed band.
GPS receivers are not transmitters. The GPS band is not unlicensed. Your argument is completely wrong.
What part of what he said could be considered slander, regardless of privilege? "You're either with the government or the child pornographers" is clearly an opinion, and an opinion can not be a 'false statement'. It can be ill-thought out, illogical, or just plain stupid, but it can't be a false statement.
By your logic, the fact that GE does not publish City/Highway MPG ratings for it's locomotives can be taken as proof that it is cheaper to drive coal across the country in the back of a Prius. Instead of publishing 'standard' MPG benchmarks, they 'make up their own' benchmarks like cost/ton/mile.
Mainframes are designed to be very efficient at the workloads they actually run, not to look good on some benchmark that is not at all realistic for the workload it will be running. Where are HPs benchmarks on running mixed IMS/CICS/DB2 workload?
Nobody spends a few million dollars on a mainframe based on some 'industry standard' benchmarks. Instead, they take their actual workload to IBM and try it on different configurations. There is no reason at all for IBM to run those benchmarks.
How do you think you can get your bank account balance if the machine storing that info is not connected to anything? The major use of mainframes is high-volume transaction processing, and those transactions come from somewhere (POS terminals, ATMs, reservation systems, web pages, etc).
No, mainframe security comes from the fact that every part of the mainframe - the architecture, the hardware, the OS, the middleware, the applications, the management is concerned with security from the very start.
Mainframes are not supercomputers, and are not marketed as such. Not sure what you mean by 'modern hardware' - you don't think mainframes are modern hardware?
Mainframes are used for high-volume transaction systems, where uptime and data integrity is absolutely essential. Clusters of PS3's are not going to match that.
GPGPUs do not replace mainframes, unless the mainframe in question is being used for the wrong reasons.
GPGPUs excel at very fast computation and being cheap.
Mainframes excel at very high transaction rates (lots of I/O), incredible reliability (five 9s), and security.
GPGPUs are used in scientific (number-crunching) work, mainframes are used for business.
I guess the lack of FBI background checks for candidates is why we never, ever hear about things that might make a candidate open to blackmail and corruption. We never hear about candidates extra-marital affairs. We never hear about sexual harassment. We never hear about past actions or statements that appear to be in conflict with what they are now saying. We never hear about drug use, or school performance. We have no idea where a candidate gets his income, or what companies/industries he has ties to.
What do you think campaigns are, besides one enormous background check?
What is absurd about the FBI having a file on someone who was a potential presidential appointee?