None whatsoever, as a general rule. All countries (and EU) protect their labor market and do not allow foreigners to just come and work.
You do need to get a job offer and get the paperwork done ahead of time, but there are no significant problems for high-tech workers to get work permits in European nations: the process is generally quick and pretty painless.
Oh, I'm sure eventually, you will need more than 250G/month. Right now, you certainly don't need it for movies. And if you do, you should pay more for it than the average user.
I want to own not rent.
You never "own" software anyway. And just because you want that doesn't mean it's the best choice for 99% of users. My mother, in fact, has SAAS: I update her computer and software every few weeks.
I also want to be able to use it anywhere I can take my laptop.
Given how repetitive and unoriginal Apple's marketing message, their fanboys, and their shills are, of course people rejecting that message need to be repetitive as well.
Stonebraker isn't exactly the one to complain about this: just as MapReduce is being overhyped these days, relational databases were being overhyped in the 1970's, and he rode that wave all the way to fame and fortune. 30 years later, although every database system in the world calls itself "relational", very few database applications actually are relational.
MapReduce is indeed a simple, decades-old parallel programming technique. It's not the be-all-and-end-all of parallel programming, but it's good for solving a lot of real-world problems with minimum fuss and hassle.
Between the relational database hype of yore and today's MapReduce hype, give me the MapReduce hype any day. Relational database hype was all about pseudo-mathematical formality and ad hoc formalisms. MapReduce is at least about simple, working, real-world programming techniques. The sooner we get rid of Stonbraker's approach to computer science, the better off we will all be.
The earth is a sphere, so you can't just look at surface patches and expect a uniform distribution. For example, any cow you drop on the north pole is always going to be on a North/South axis. Since there are more cows at higher latitudes, you get preferential North/South orientation even if cows just stand around randomly.
No, wrong. Fortran is the faster language, in the sense that it gives compilers many more opportunities for optimization. That's true for string manipulation as much as for numbers.
There might be some area where a C compiler can optimize better than a Fortran compiler, but I don't know of any. String manipulation clearly isn't it.
It's an embarrassment that these people chose Genesis: it's a bizarre superstition, and it's intolerant of other religions.
They could have picked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Constitution, The Little Prince, or some Shakespeare instead, all of which have been translated into many languages as well.
Believe or not this automatic management (and yes 'auto' does stand for automatic) was once considered a big feature!
People don't call this "automatic memory management" anymore, and haven't since the 1970's. "Automatic memory management" nowadays only refers to garbage collection or reference counting.
So, the statement that "automatic memory management was one of C's big features" is wrong and misleading if you make it in the 21st century.
But if you really think that having memory managed automatically is always a bad thing, you wouldn't be using C at all.
I think automatic memory management is a good thing, and I fault C for not having it. But I've also used C for 25 years; just because a language is poorly designed doesn't mean one can avoid using it.
shared_ptr is horrendously inefficient compared to garbage collection.
Garbage Collectors are non-deterministic by nature; Therefore, they are a real no-no for real projects (think real-time systems or massive number crunching,
And you think that shared_ptr is "deterministic"? A shared_ptr going out of scope can cause arbitrary delays. Heck, a simple "delete p" can cause arbitrary delays.
If you want efficient, predictable memory management, garbage collection is the only way to go.
where memory pools are common).
Memory pools have been used in garbage collected languages since long before C++ even existed.
I agree - if you can't program without getting so lost you lose memory all over the place, GC will not magically help you
The purpose of GC is not to make memory management easier, it is to make software safe. Since hell will freeze over before C++ will be a safe language, one might as well not bother with GC in it at all.
Stroustrup says that GC has a place in memory management, but it should be the last resort not the first.
With C you can write blisteringly fast code, because it lets you do anything you want.
Actually, the fact that you can do whatever you want in C is what prevents it from being blisteringly fast: compilers simply cannot infer aliasing relationships correctly.
Solar planes are going to reduce the need for satellite and satellite launches. That may lower the cost for some services, but it will also mean that there's less interest in commercial uses of space.
'Fraid it isn't bullshit really but I'm guessing you've not been in the field for long or at all and are probably speaking from an end-user perspective.
'Fraid you're wrong on that one, too. Sounds like you have been in the business only for a decade or so and really still don't have a clue what's going on. Dilettantes like you are responsible for many security problems.
Security is a compromise between doing what you want to do and what you need to do. Security is an active decision based on the risks required to complete an action. Security is about locking things down and only allowing minimal access to provide the means to complete the assigned task.
That's utter and complete bullshit. Not only do you fail to make systems secure with that approach, you also keep the business from accomplishing its mission.
Part of it comes form PHB's who don't get it and force non working software and security rules on you.
Those same PHBs have software and rules forced on them by their PHBs and they are tasked with implementing them. It's your job to help them. Either you do it with no questions asked, or you need to convince them that some alternative is better. If you can't do either, you aren't doing your job.
Slashdot Mirror
None whatsoever, as a general rule. All countries (and EU) protect their labor market and do not allow foreigners to just come and work.
You do need to get a job offer and get the paperwork done ahead of time, but there are no significant problems for high-tech workers to get work permits in European nations: the process is generally quick and pretty painless.
Why would anyone need more than 64 KB of memory?
Oh, I'm sure eventually, you will need more than 250G/month. Right now, you certainly don't need it for movies. And if you do, you should pay more for it than the average user.
I want to own not rent.
You never "own" software anyway. And just because you want that doesn't mean it's the best choice for 99% of users. My mother, in fact, has SAAS: I update her computer and software every few weeks.
I also want to be able to use it anywhere I can take my laptop.
Gears.
Free Windows and a better desktop background than that ugly default, I like it already...
If any good comes out of this, it is the fact that software as a service is no longer an effective option.
Are you kidding? 250G is a huge amount of data. And what's wrong with SAAS anyway?
It's too bad for online movie rentals though, that was actually a very good idea (except for the DRM part of it.)
Oh, please, 250G adds up to more than 100 movies per month. Do you have that kind of time? I don't.
The one thing that this puts a dent in is commercial peer-to-peer redistribution business models, but those business models were flawed to begin with.
The should have done this long ago, put it in the contract, and saved themselves a lot of bad press.
Shouldn't "Although" be capitalized?
No, it shouldn't.
Even developing a space-ready PCR system seems premature at this point. What about looking whether there is DNA there in the first place?
Given how repetitive and unoriginal Apple's marketing message, their fanboys, and their shills are, of course people rejecting that message need to be repetitive as well.
Stonebraker isn't exactly the one to complain about this: just as MapReduce is being overhyped these days, relational databases were being overhyped in the 1970's, and he rode that wave all the way to fame and fortune. 30 years later, although every database system in the world calls itself "relational", very few database applications actually are relational.
MapReduce is indeed a simple, decades-old parallel programming technique. It's not the be-all-and-end-all of parallel programming, but it's good for solving a lot of real-world problems with minimum fuss and hassle.
Between the relational database hype of yore and today's MapReduce hype, give me the MapReduce hype any day. Relational database hype was all about pseudo-mathematical formality and ad hoc formalisms. MapReduce is at least about simple, working, real-world programming techniques. The sooner we get rid of Stonbraker's approach to computer science, the better off we will all be.
The earth is a sphere, so you can't just look at surface patches and expect a uniform distribution. For example, any cow you drop on the north pole is always going to be on a North/South axis. Since there are more cows at higher latitudes, you get preferential North/South orientation even if cows just stand around randomly.
From this I can conclude that monkeys are equally as smart as humans. I see an error on thier logic.
Turns out, the real advantage homo sapiens had was their use of complex grammar... although from postings like yours, you wouldn't know it.
No, wrong. Fortran is the faster language, in the sense that it gives compilers many more opportunities for optimization. That's true for string manipulation as much as for numbers.
There might be some area where a C compiler can optimize better than a Fortran compiler, but I don't know of any. String manipulation clearly isn't it.
It's an embarrassment that these people chose Genesis: it's a bizarre superstition, and it's intolerant of other religions.
They could have picked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Constitution, The Little Prince, or some Shakespeare instead, all of which have been translated into many languages as well.
Believe or not this automatic management (and yes 'auto' does stand for automatic) was once considered a big feature!
People don't call this "automatic memory management" anymore, and haven't since the 1970's. "Automatic memory management" nowadays only refers to garbage collection or reference counting.
So, the statement that "automatic memory management was one of C's big features" is wrong and misleading if you make it in the 21st century.
But if you really think that having memory managed automatically is always a bad thing, you wouldn't be using C at all.
I think automatic memory management is a good thing, and I fault C for not having it. But I've also used C for 25 years; just because a language is poorly designed doesn't mean one can avoid using it.
As for 'automatic memory management', that was one of C's big features. Remember the 'auto' keyword?
The "auto" keyword has nothing to do with "automatic memory management", it simply designates stack allocated variables (redundant these days).
Yes, I mean auto_ptr and shared_ptr.
shared_ptr is horrendously inefficient compared to garbage collection.
Garbage Collectors are non-deterministic by nature; Therefore, they are a real no-no for real projects (think real-time systems or massive number crunching,
And you think that shared_ptr is "deterministic"? A shared_ptr going out of scope can cause arbitrary delays. Heck, a simple "delete p" can cause arbitrary delays.
If you want efficient, predictable memory management, garbage collection is the only way to go.
where memory pools are common).
Memory pools have been used in garbage collected languages since long before C++ even existed.
I agree - if you can't program without getting so lost you lose memory all over the place, GC will not magically help you
The purpose of GC is not to make memory management easier, it is to make software safe. Since hell will freeze over before C++ will be a safe language, one might as well not bother with GC in it at all.
Stroustrup says that GC has a place in memory management, but it should be the last resort not the first.
Stroustrup is an idiot.
With C you can write blisteringly fast code, because it lets you do anything you want.
Actually, the fact that you can do whatever you want in C is what prevents it from being blisteringly fast: compilers simply cannot infer aliasing relationships correctly.
C++ is to C as Lung Cancer is to Cancer.
Seriously, the problem with C++ is its C heritage.
C is a language whose design was driven by having to fit the compiler into the 64kbyte instruction space of the PDP-11.
Solar planes are going to reduce the need for satellite and satellite launches. That may lower the cost for some services, but it will also mean that there's less interest in commercial uses of space.
Examples of what?
'Fraid it isn't bullshit really but I'm guessing you've not been in the field for long or at all and are probably speaking from an end-user perspective.
'Fraid you're wrong on that one, too. Sounds like you have been in the business only for a decade or so and really still don't have a clue what's going on. Dilettantes like you are responsible for many security problems.
Security is a compromise between doing what you want to do and what you need to do. Security is an active decision based on the risks required to complete an action. Security is about locking things down and only allowing minimal access to provide the means to complete the assigned task.
That's utter and complete bullshit. Not only do you fail to make systems secure with that approach, you also keep the business from accomplishing its mission.
Maybe you should find a way of doing your IT security job properly, i.e., such that you don't hinder other people and don't lock everything down.
Part of it comes form PHB's who don't get it and force non working software and security rules on you.
Those same PHBs have software and rules forced on them by their PHBs and they are tasked with implementing them. It's your job to help them. Either you do it with no questions asked, or you need to convince them that some alternative is better. If you can't do either, you aren't doing your job.