50 times faster than the best hand coded assembler? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you really do think that it's possible to make any compiled code run better than the "best" assembler.
If a JVM can produce the machine code, so can a human produce it by hand coding in assembly.
Yeah, kdawson/the article doesn't do too well with Occam's razor. All of these things can be explained without the "DRM" assumption.
Some of them are in fact how you would expect things to work. Installer configuring your fire wall? Next we'll be hearing complaints that a hardware manufacturer can use an installer to put system files on your PC!
There are plenty of valid technical criticisms you can level at Windows. Too much mess in kernel space, slow IPC etc. Why does kdawson feel the need to spew hateful venom about Windows? Did Windows fuck his girlfriend and kick his dog?
Things C# does that Java has no concept of: Delegates, multi-cast language support for events, closures/lambdas, generic constraints, scoped resource usage (using), partial methods/classes, LINQ queries, extension methods, expression trees, operator overloading, custom compilation attributes attached to fields, classes and methods, first class value types/structs, out/ref support and many more.
Java is to C# as the Special Olympics are to the real thing.
There is actually a version of the.NET framework slimmed down even further than the.NET Compact framework (compact framework does have some forms support btw). This is called the.NET Micro framework and it will fit into 64k quite well.
I would probably point out that Italy is run by the head of a rival media company. It isn't that far a stretch when you understand that he's crooked as a hobo's teeth to think he might be behind it.
1) Kick up a fuss about Google Video and Youtube, using high profile arrests and cries of "save the children". 2) Use said fuss to justify banning Google Video and Youtube. 3) Local company comes out with Italian version of Google Video/Youtube that is safe for Italian homes and children. 4) Profit.
The PC architecture? Your laptop motherboard chipset with a cheap integrated SATA controller maybe. Nothing about the PC architecture limits you from designing a laptop with a PCIe 8x connected dedicated SATA/SAS controller.
Of course, if it's all from the same hard drive and you're using rotating media, it's the media that is fault not the PC bus architecture responsible for your slow down. The PC architecture is approaching 30 years of scalability.
The outcome isn't always a steaming pile of shit. Canada, Australia and the UK all have public broadcasters producing content that is quite good and often very critical of the government. All of the above countries have charters designed to prevent political interference in content and reporting, affording them the freedom to bite the hand that feeds.
Of course, it's not going to match C, OCaml or even Java in terms of speed. Speed isn't a strengh of dynamic languages, but that doesn't mean it isn't important and it is a weakness relative to Ruby's direct competitors (other dynamic languages and other implementations of Ruby).
With a 2x increase there, Ruby is still behind Python (which isn't standing still) and not doing that well on memory usage either. That can be the difference between handling everything on one server, or buying two.
Too busy knee jerking to actually respond to the criticism? None of those are the main release of Ruby. What I was commenting on was the fact that 1.9.1 itself is still slow as 2x improvement still isn't bringing it into line with a lot of other systems.
The research that has been put into various Smalltalk/JavaScript implementations hasn't quite made it into the main release of Ruby yet. Unfortunately, this is still the one a lot of people are running their websites on. A speed up on the order of some of those JavaScript has been seeing lately in the main release of Ruby is going to deliver benefits that the more immature VM based releases of Ruby can't yet.
So now it's only "really slow" as opposed to "really really slow"? Ruby needs to look at some of the lessons learned by the various Smalltalk and JavaScript speed-up projects from over the years if they want to actually get competitive on performance.
Then again, nuclear power is used in relatively few places compared to coal. I wonder how those numbers will scale up if a country like China replaced all it's coal with nuclear.
Context dropping? I linked your use of ideology as to what you chose as best for the market. I was also directly answering to your assertion that I needed to choose a mindset.
You have failed to argue for your assertion through empirical evidence or through reason, you have simply started with the axiom that what is best for the market is freedom and that the rational decisions you make for yourself will be the best.
Correct rational decisions can not be made without correct starting information. Ironically, this is something that is shown by you adopting that axiom in the first place.
Also, don't put words into my mouth - I never claimed to know which was the best trade for two people, all I was saying is that without the best information available, they can't know either. My point is that it is impossible to make the best decisions without having all the information available to you to make those decisions.
In fact, you are the one presuming, because I never stated anything that would benefit the "collective" except by benefiting individuals. But again, this is still an ideological assertion on your part, you have not put forward any empirical, factual or logical evidence that the individual coming ahead of the collective is the best outcome. You have simply asserted it and appealed to sentiment.
Yes, lying is fraud; but court and laws are aspects of "central planning". How would you prove it in a court when there is no documentation, no standardized information and no standard of proof? Again, "fraud" is simply an aspect of the same point; you have to have the information to make a rational and informed decision.
Without laws and regulations, then there is no requirement to divulge information, act transparently or even act honestly. There is a balance required between market freedom and regulations required to remove moral hazard.
Just because people can't make the best choice for themselves, doesn't mean anyone else can. But obviously, the more information and education (to understand the information) that is available, the better choices people can make.
I read your post several times over. What you made is an assertion based on an ideology. Let's call that an axiom. In fact, you have now asserted that accept your argument, I have to take on a different "mindset" (i.e. I also have to accept your axiom). Of course, that should be counter to your ideology - after all, following your argument, shouldn't the mindset I choose for me be the best possible choice?
But I disagree with your axiom, that is, your ideology is not one I adhere to. Now, if you've got a sound economic principle to base this argument on instead, I may consider changing my mindset.
Economic transactions usually involve more than one participant (typically 2 participants in a simple system). They are a collective action, not an individual action - a mutual agreement must be reached. This isn't an aspect of central planning, central planning as a mindset doesn't have to come into it.
A good example is someone trading Yak butter for hunting implements. Let's say that the yak butter is very close to expiring, but the trader lies and says that it isn't (i.e. introduces imperfect information into the transaction), although previously this trader has been honest in his dealing.
The trader still gets his hunting implements, the other participant gets his yak butter, which goes off before he can get it home. The trader who received the yak butter had no way to verify the product, even though he had inspected it thoroughly. If he'd gone to the next trader who had offered less yak butter that wouldn't have gone off, he would've ended up with usable yak butter.
As you can see, imperfect information got the better of our trader and there was no central planning involved. There was no way he could have known to avoid the bad transaction, because there was no way he could have got the information (short of a lie detector) that it was a bad transaction.
You must've missed the last 30 years or so in economics (you seem to have spent it confusing economics with ideology). People can't make the best choice, because they don't have access to perfect information about what they're buying. In fact, the people selling deliberately distort the information available to make their products seem better.
Say you bought a 500GB Seagate drive recently... that wouldn't have been the best choice.
Silverlight maybe closed source, but the standards underlying it are open. Also, Silverlight is not just for IE, it currently works with other browsers (including firefox) on Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
50 times faster than the best hand coded assembler? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you really do think that it's possible to make any compiled code run better than the "best" assembler.
If a JVM can produce the machine code, so can a human produce it by hand coding in assembly.
That's what the guy on Venus said.
It really is pinching the bandwidth penny, isn't it?
Empirical handfuls.
... flushing your money down the toilet!
* BADDUM CHA *
Yeah, kdawson/the article doesn't do too well with Occam's razor. All of these things can be explained without the "DRM" assumption.
Some of them are in fact how you would expect things to work. Installer configuring your fire wall? Next we'll be hearing complaints that a hardware manufacturer can use an installer to put system files on your PC!
There are plenty of valid technical criticisms you can level at Windows. Too much mess in kernel space, slow IPC etc. Why does kdawson feel the need to spew hateful venom about Windows? Did Windows fuck his girlfriend and kick his dog?
That's not even counting the earlier releases of NT!
Clone with a beard... Let's see...
Things C# does that Java has no concept of:
Delegates, multi-cast language support for events, closures/lambdas, generic constraints, scoped resource usage (using), partial methods/classes, LINQ queries, extension methods, expression trees, operator overloading, custom compilation attributes attached to fields, classes and methods, first class value types/structs, out/ref support and many more.
Java is to C# as the Special Olympics are to the real thing.
There is actually a version of the .NET framework slimmed down even further than the .NET Compact framework (compact framework does have some forms support btw). This is called the .NET Micro framework and it will fit into 64k quite well.
I would probably point out that Italy is run by the head of a rival media company. It isn't that far a stretch when you understand that he's crooked as a hobo's teeth to think he might be behind it.
1) Kick up a fuss about Google Video and Youtube, using high profile arrests and cries of "save the children".
2) Use said fuss to justify banning Google Video and Youtube.
3) Local company comes out with Italian version of Google Video/Youtube that is safe for Italian homes and children.
4) Profit.
There isn't even any ??????.
The PC architecture? Your laptop motherboard chipset with a cheap integrated SATA controller maybe. Nothing about the PC architecture limits you from designing a laptop with a PCIe 8x connected dedicated SATA/SAS controller.
Of course, if it's all from the same hard drive and you're using rotating media, it's the media that is fault not the PC bus architecture responsible for your slow down. The PC architecture is approaching 30 years of scalability.
The outcome isn't always a steaming pile of shit. Canada, Australia and the UK all have public broadcasters producing content that is quite good and often very critical of the government. All of the above countries have charters designed to prevent political interference in content and reporting, affording them the freedom to bite the hand that feeds.
Of course, it's not going to match C, OCaml or even Java in terms of speed. Speed isn't a strengh of dynamic languages, but that doesn't mean it isn't important and it is a weakness relative to Ruby's direct competitors (other dynamic languages and other implementations of Ruby).
Take the comparison of Ruby with Python on the language shootout:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python&lang2=ruby
With a 2x increase there, Ruby is still behind Python (which isn't standing still) and not doing that well on memory usage either. That can be the difference between handling everything on one server, or buying two.
Too busy knee jerking to actually respond to the criticism? None of those are the main release of Ruby. What I was commenting on was the fact that 1.9.1 itself is still slow as 2x improvement still isn't bringing it into line with a lot of other systems.
The research that has been put into various Smalltalk/JavaScript implementations hasn't quite made it into the main release of Ruby yet. Unfortunately, this is still the one a lot of people are running their websites on. A speed up on the order of some of those JavaScript has been seeing lately in the main release of Ruby is going to deliver benefits that the more immature VM based releases of Ruby can't yet.
So now it's only "really slow" as opposed to "really really slow"? Ruby needs to look at some of the lessons learned by the various Smalltalk and JavaScript speed-up projects from over the years if they want to actually get competitive on performance.
Then again, nuclear power is used in relatively few places compared to coal. I wonder how those numbers will scale up if a country like China replaced all it's coal with nuclear.
Well, I think it may well be a mace, but it's a mace with gold and Jewels on it. Besides which, weren't they called "The Whigs" at that stage?
We've got whips in Australia as well. Not only do we have that, but each house of parliament has a weapon in the middle that resembles a mace!
Context dropping? I linked your use of ideology as to what you chose as best for the market. I was also directly answering to your assertion that I needed to choose a mindset.
You have failed to argue for your assertion through empirical evidence or through reason, you have simply started with the axiom that what is best for the market is freedom and that the rational decisions you make for yourself will be the best.
Correct rational decisions can not be made without correct starting information. Ironically, this is something that is shown by you adopting that axiom in the first place.
Also, don't put words into my mouth - I never claimed to know which was the best trade for two people, all I was saying is that without the best information available, they can't know either. My point is that it is impossible to make the best decisions without having all the information available to you to make those decisions.
In fact, you are the one presuming, because I never stated anything that would benefit the "collective" except by benefiting individuals. But again, this is still an ideological assertion on your part, you have not put forward any empirical, factual or logical evidence that the individual coming ahead of the collective is the best outcome. You have simply asserted it and appealed to sentiment.
Yes, lying is fraud; but court and laws are aspects of "central planning". How would you prove it in a court when there is no documentation, no standardized information and no standard of proof? Again, "fraud" is simply an aspect of the same point; you have to have the information to make a rational and informed decision.
Without laws and regulations, then there is no requirement to divulge information, act transparently or even act honestly. There is a balance required between market freedom and regulations required to remove moral hazard.
Just because people can't make the best choice for themselves, doesn't mean anyone else can. But obviously, the more information and education (to understand the information) that is available, the better choices people can make.
I read your post several times over. What you made is an assertion based on an ideology. Let's call that an axiom. In fact, you have now asserted that accept your argument, I have to take on a different "mindset" (i.e. I also have to accept your axiom). Of course, that should be counter to your ideology - after all, following your argument, shouldn't the mindset I choose for me be the best possible choice?
But I disagree with your axiom, that is, your ideology is not one I adhere to. Now, if you've got a sound economic principle to base this argument on instead, I may consider changing my mindset.
Economic transactions usually involve more than one participant (typically 2 participants in a simple system). They are a collective action, not an individual action - a mutual agreement must be reached. This isn't an aspect of central planning, central planning as a mindset doesn't have to come into it.
A good example is someone trading Yak butter for hunting implements. Let's say that the yak butter is very close to expiring, but the trader lies and says that it isn't (i.e. introduces imperfect information into the transaction), although previously this trader has been honest in his dealing.
The trader still gets his hunting implements, the other participant gets his yak butter, which goes off before he can get it home. The trader who received the yak butter had no way to verify the product, even though he had inspected it thoroughly. If he'd gone to the next trader who had offered less yak butter that wouldn't have gone off, he would've ended up with usable yak butter.
As you can see, imperfect information got the better of our trader and there was no central planning involved. There was no way he could have known to avoid the bad transaction, because there was no way he could have got the information (short of a lie detector) that it was a bad transaction.
You must've missed the last 30 years or so in economics (you seem to have spent it confusing economics with ideology). People can't make the best choice, because they don't have access to perfect information about what they're buying. In fact, the people selling deliberately distort the information available to make their products seem better.
Say you bought a 500GB Seagate drive recently... that wouldn't have been the best choice.
Two words: Imperfect information.
Hello, I'd like to respond with this Mr/Mrs/Miss Coward:
Think about not pissing your pants.
Revenge is mine.
Silverlight maybe closed source, but the standards underlying it are open. Also, Silverlight is not just for IE, it currently works with other browsers (including firefox) on Windows.