Whatever they're doing, it's not working too well. Sure, they manage to serve the pages, but the user experience is confusing and it seems to take them forever to roll out new and improved versions.
I bought two netbooks with Linux preinstalled, an HP2133 and an Asus Eee PC. The pre-installed versions of Linux (SuSE and Xandros) had serious problems: bad fonts, bad desktop setup, misconfigured update sources, bad drivers, etc.
But the problem wasn't a problem with Linux--with stock Ubuntu installed, both of them are great machines. The problem was incompetent and overly zealous customization and installation by the vendors.
Read Neil Gabler's "Life the Movie"; people have had a cinematic or storytelling view of their lives even before social networking sites. I guess social networking and the Internet are now giving people the chance to publish their lives as well.
Funny, that's exactly my problem with Windows and Macintosh: the software I want to run doesn't run on it, and the alternatives that run on those platforms are jokes.
Greylisting only works because many sites don't use it; if everybody used it, it would stop working.
The economics of CAPTCHAs are even less favorable, since the cost of breaking a CAPTCHA is small compared to the cost of what the bot actually does after it has broken it.
Because it's been proven. Beyond all shadow of a doubt.
It doesn't have to be "proven beyond all shadow of a doubt". In Russian roulette, there is no proof whatsoever that the chamber contains a bullet, and your chances of dying are only 1 in six, yet playing Russian roulette is irrational and dangerous. If man-made global warming has even a slight chance of occurring, the rational thing to do is to take action now. And based on the results and opinions of the great majority of experts, there is more than just a slight chance.
It's particularly bizarre that many opponents to taking action against global warming are found in the Republican party, a party that otherwise is highly risk-averse and wants to ban video games, drugs, and many other things on the off chance that they might be dangerous to some people.
Solaris SMF also kicks the ageing init.d method for 6 as far as software fault monitoring and recovery goes IMO.
There are plenty of init alternatives for Linux, as well as SMF-like add-ons; people tend not to use them on most systems because they don't survive a cost/benefit analysis.
Used and admin both. I've never seen a live-locked Solaris system; seen many times on Linux.
SunOS and Solaris used to be full of horrendous bugs: data corruption, memory leaks, pointer errors, security holes, performance bottlenecks, etc.
The fact that Solaris is now tolerable is not due to good engineering, it's because it's so old and because people have figured out over the years what not to do with it.
King Bhumibol? With a name and a hat like that, one can't help but make fun of you.
Seriously: the EU and US should break off ties with Thailand until the nation gets real about political freedoms and human rights, and tourists should stay away.
Come on, stop putting up straw men. Fact is, C has "restrict" but no usable multidimensional arrays, and C++ doesn't have "restrict" at all. Fortran has restricted pointers and full multidimensional arrays. What more is there to say?
As for the other points your raise, your views are rather simplistic and narrow, but there's no point in debating that with you further.
Without actually looking at the evidence, nobody can tell who's right and who's wrong. It's plausible that someone stole this guy's art and uploaded it, it's plausible that the stock company ripped him off deliberately, and it's also plausible that he uploaded the images himself to sell them multiple times.
Let the courts work it out: that's what they are there for.
(As far as copyright is concerned, once you sell the rights to your works, you don't own them anymore.)
If you're thinking of FORALL and the other stuff imported from HPF, well, there's a reason HPF died and parallel Fortran applications use MPI and/or OpenMP just like C/C++.
Yes, the reason is that FORALL and parallel matrix operations vectorized code, while OpenMP is for multicore code.
There's a bunch of such high-performance implementations around, such as Eigen, blitz, boost::multiarray and so forth, so no need to reinvent the wheel.
All those libraries are excessively complex, hard to use, and have limited functionality compared to Fortran arrays. They often also don't perform well. And since C++ does not support "restrict", none of them can even communicate pointer restrictions to the compiler.
So, with the "restrict" keyword and a lot of effort, you can get some parallelization out of a C compiler; for C++, all you get is no restrict keyword and complicated libraries. Altogether, neither C nor C++ are good choices for numerical programming.
Oh. You mean like restrict which has been in the C standard for 10 years?
Sorry, but "restrict" is not sufficient. Fortran has built in support for vectorization, parallelization, and efficient dynamic multi-dimensional arrays.
Unfortunately, a lot of medical papers use statistical tests improperly. As a result, many of the conclusions about what does and doesn't work in medicine are wrong.
Quite to the contrary: it is usually overly complex forms that are an evolutionary dead end, while the more primitive forms continue to survive. C++ has become too bloated, while C will continue to survive as a small systems programming language.
Binding Qt to other languages is actually easier than binding Gtk nowadays
If it's so easy to bind, where are up-to-date bindings for C#, Haskell, OCaml, Ada, or Scheme?
(check libsmoke)
libsmoke is used only by Ruby and Perl bindings; it isn't even used by the Python bindings.
In the US, you have a right to take pictures of anything you can see from a public street. I suspect it is similar in the UK or else Google wouldn't be doing Street View there.
On the other hand, surrounding other people's cars and interfering with their passage through public streets may constitute a crime.
but they fail badly at fields that require influencing other people
Yes, you can choose to become a manipulator of people, and you can become quite successful that way. Many people respond well to feel-good stories, demagoguery, fear, etc. If you're really good, you might become a Madoff or a Ted Bundy.
Just because you can be successful that way doesn't make it right. Many of us hope that human society can become more rational and prefer to view and interact with the world that way even though it's obviously harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever they're doing, it's not working too well. Sure, they manage to serve the pages, but the user experience is confusing and it seems to take them forever to roll out new and improved versions.
What exactly is "autocratic" about American entertainment? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Wheel of Fortune, Crossfire, whatever? I don't think so.
I bought two netbooks with Linux preinstalled, an HP2133 and an Asus Eee PC. The pre-installed versions of Linux (SuSE and Xandros) had serious problems: bad fonts, bad desktop setup, misconfigured update sources, bad drivers, etc.
But the problem wasn't a problem with Linux--with stock Ubuntu installed, both of them are great machines. The problem was incompetent and overly zealous customization and installation by the vendors.
Read Neil Gabler's "Life the Movie"; people have had a cinematic or storytelling view of their lives even before social networking sites. I guess social networking and the Internet are now giving people the chance to publish their lives as well.
And the police searching the owner of the domain owner's home was also just an "honest mistake", right?
If you want a GUI solution, you can use Handbrake.
If you want a Linuxy solution, something that is a little tricker to set up but saves you time overall, you may want to use vobcopy and transcode.
Funny, that's exactly my problem with Windows and Macintosh: the software I want to run doesn't run on it, and the alternatives that run on those platforms are jokes.
Greylisting only works because many sites don't use it; if everybody used it, it would stop working.
The economics of CAPTCHAs are even less favorable, since the cost of breaking a CAPTCHA is small compared to the cost of what the bot actually does after it has broken it.
Scala-like languages have been around for decades; it's just that now people are finally starting to use them.
Because it's been proven. Beyond all shadow of a doubt.
It doesn't have to be "proven beyond all shadow of a doubt". In Russian roulette, there is no proof whatsoever that the chamber contains a bullet, and your chances of dying are only 1 in six, yet playing Russian roulette is irrational and dangerous. If man-made global warming has even a slight chance of occurring, the rational thing to do is to take action now. And based on the results and opinions of the great majority of experts, there is more than just a slight chance.
It's particularly bizarre that many opponents to taking action against global warming are found in the Republican party, a party that otherwise is highly risk-averse and wants to ban video games, drugs, and many other things on the off chance that they might be dangerous to some people.
Solaris SMF also kicks the ageing init.d method for 6 as far as software fault monitoring and recovery goes IMO.
There are plenty of init alternatives for Linux, as well as SMF-like add-ons; people tend not to use them on most systems because they don't survive a cost/benefit analysis.
Why does the Java virtual machine have to be "licensed"? There are plenty of third party J2ME implementations around.
Java promises OS homogenization.
I think Apple can breathe easy: it's promised that for more than a decade and always failed to deliver.
Used and admin both. I've never seen a live-locked Solaris system; seen many times on Linux.
SunOS and Solaris used to be full of horrendous bugs: data corruption, memory leaks, pointer errors, security holes, performance bottlenecks, etc.
The fact that Solaris is now tolerable is not due to good engineering, it's because it's so old and because people have figured out over the years what not to do with it.
King Bhumibol? With a name and a hat like that, one can't help but make fun of you.
Seriously: the EU and US should break off ties with Thailand until the nation gets real about political freedoms and human rights, and tourists should stay away.
Come on, stop putting up straw men. Fact is, C has "restrict" but no usable multidimensional arrays, and C++ doesn't have "restrict" at all. Fortran has restricted pointers and full multidimensional arrays. What more is there to say?
As for the other points your raise, your views are rather simplistic and narrow, but there's no point in debating that with you further.
Without actually looking at the evidence, nobody can tell who's right and who's wrong. It's plausible that someone stole this guy's art and uploaded it, it's plausible that the stock company ripped him off deliberately, and it's also plausible that he uploaded the images himself to sell them multiple times.
Let the courts work it out: that's what they are there for.
(As far as copyright is concerned, once you sell the rights to your works, you don't own them anymore.)
For the most part, it is.
No, for the most part it isn't.
If you're thinking of FORALL and the other stuff imported from HPF, well, there's a reason HPF died and parallel Fortran applications use MPI and/or OpenMP just like C/C++.
Yes, the reason is that FORALL and parallel matrix operations vectorized code, while OpenMP is for multicore code.
There's a bunch of such high-performance implementations around, such as Eigen, blitz, boost::multiarray and so forth, so no need to reinvent the wheel.
All those libraries are excessively complex, hard to use, and have limited functionality compared to Fortran arrays. They often also don't perform well. And since C++ does not support "restrict", none of them can even communicate pointer restrictions to the compiler.
So, with the "restrict" keyword and a lot of effort, you can get some parallelization out of a C compiler; for C++, all you get is no restrict keyword and complicated libraries. Altogether, neither C nor C++ are good choices for numerical programming.
Oh. You mean like restrict which has been in the C standard for 10 years?
Sorry, but "restrict" is not sufficient. Fortran has built in support for vectorization, parallelization, and efficient dynamic multi-dimensional arrays.
compiler writers need to get their collective arses into gear for this to happen
There's a limit to how much general purpose C/C++ code can be sped up automatically; C/C++ semantics just don't allow a lot of optimizations.
Unfortunately, a lot of medical papers use statistical tests improperly. As a result, many of the conclusions about what does and doesn't work in medicine are wrong.
So, why didn't they just use one of the existing licenses? What is the justification for creating another license?
If C++ is a dead end, so is C
Quite to the contrary: it is usually overly complex forms that are an evolutionary dead end, while the more primitive forms continue to survive. C++ has become too bloated, while C will continue to survive as a small systems programming language.
Binding Qt to other languages is actually easier than binding Gtk nowadays
If it's so easy to bind, where are up-to-date bindings for C#, Haskell, OCaml, Ada, or Scheme?
(check libsmoke)
libsmoke is used only by Ruby and Perl bindings; it isn't even used by the Python bindings.
In the US, you have a right to take pictures of anything you can see from a public street. I suspect it is similar in the UK or else Google wouldn't be doing Street View there.
On the other hand, surrounding other people's cars and interfering with their passage through public streets may constitute a crime.
but they fail badly at fields that require influencing other people
Yes, you can choose to become a manipulator of people, and you can become quite successful that way. Many people respond well to feel-good stories, demagoguery, fear, etc. If you're really good, you might become a Madoff or a Ted Bundy.
Just because you can be successful that way doesn't make it right. Many of us hope that human society can become more rational and prefer to view and interact with the world that way even though it's obviously harder.