Well, I worked with a guy, a C programmer, who started as the father of four children, and ended up as a woman(snip, snip) who was in a lesbian (???) relationship with another transexual in the IT industry. I, therefore, have personally made the acquaintance of two men who went on to be IT women.
Are you sure that it was this machine that you used?
Forth wasn't invented until the beginning of the '70s. Also, from what I've read of this computer, it only had a single 64-byte stack. Forth needs two stacks - program and data.
Another thing, it was built using valves, not chips.
Something similar was annoying me. In the finder, I'd set *.html files to be opened by my browser choice and it worked fine, but when I opened a site from (for example) mail, it always brought it up in IE. I finally discovered that the browser preference also has to be set in the System Preferences - Network panel.
Is this a troll, or are some people still being taught about x86 segments and offsets?
The flat memory model has been the standard on x86 since the advent of win32. Maybe the segmented memory model is an interesting historical footnote, but I can't see why it would actually be taught as part of an x86 assembly language course.
I've been there, and the area that they're talking about is used as a natural harbour. It's actually two villages (Lynton and Lynmouth), one at the top of a cliff, and one at the bottom. They're joined by a water powered elevator system, that looks like a couple of tram cars joined by cable and running on track bolted to the cliff wall. It's cool, in a geeky sort of way.
Incidentally, the locals refer to non-locals as grockles.
OK, the spelling is lousy, but the meaning is pretty clear. From the look of this guy's nick, he's scandinavian, probably Norwegian. Maybe you're a polyglot, but I'm not, and I have a lot of respect for people that have taken the trouble to learn my language (perhaps imperfectly), when I'm too lazy to learn theirs.
I don't think that BSD actually emulates Linux. My understanding is that BSD exposes a Linux ABI. I suppose that there might be a little bit of manipulation behind the scenes when a Linux function is called, to adapt it to an underlying BSD call, but not to the extent that it would be called emulation.
If this is the case, there shouldn't be too much of a performance hit.
I could be wrong though, OSX is more my sort of thing.
I disagree. As a software engineer, I've never worked for, or had personal experience of, a company that had a policy of producing crap. That's not to say that I haven't seen crap being pushed out the door, but it always seemed to be failure of design, rather than by design.
There's lots of reasons why software development often results in failure, but I personally wouldn't be prepared to work for a company where failure was policy.
This isn't to say that some companies don't benefit enormously from billing their customers for providing endless upgrades and bugfixes, but it seems to me to be a dodgy business model to bet a company on.
With most of the old basic interpreters, FOR/NEXT loops were slightly faster if the loop variable wasn't given after the NEXT statement. Therefore, if your code had looked like this:
FOR I = 1 TO 500:NEXT
You might have been able to squeeze a 1 second delay into 0.9 seconds.
If anyone wants one (an Apple IIc), with built-in 5.25in disk and attached letter-box LCD, let me know. It's free to a good home, but you pay the shipping.
At home I've got an iMac G3/600 with 768Meg running OSX.2 Jaguar, at work I use a Win2K box - not sure of the exact CPU speed but it has 512Meg.
Win2K is definitely faster. I'm a software engineer, mostly Java, and the stuff I develop runs on both my home machine and at work. Without doubt, the Win2K box is faster, sometimes a lot faster. Having said that, I'd rather use my home machine. No matter what the faults of OSX, it's orders of magnitude better than any of the competition.
It's fast enough to use as a development workstation. It has rock solid stability. It's Unix and has all of the Unix goodies. It has tons of apps. It looks great, and it's a pleasure to use.
2. Microsoft once (still does?) own a stake of SCO. I remember seeing a copyright Microsoft somewhere either in the OS or in the documentation once.
I don't know about MS having a stake in SCO, but years ago, when I did C programming on SCO, the compiler was written by Microsoft.
I think that MS had Xenix, which seemed to have some ties with SCO Unix.
Re:Let me be the first to come out with the bad jo
on
Linux 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Version 3.0 of a project that I worked on for a very large investment bank was renamed to 3.1 because, to quote the idiot that was supposedly in charge, 'Everybody knows that version 3.1 is better. Take Windows, for example.'
It's disgusting the crud that we have to listen to, just to get paid.
Yeah, that's what I thought, but the previous update that had all of those features was 1.2 not 1.2.1. Also the size is different: the 1.2 update was 6.7Meg, but this update is 5.2Meg.
Anyway, I'm downloading it now, to see what happens. The battery indicator on my iPod hasn't worked properly for a long time, and the 1.2 update didn't fix it. Hopefully, this update might help.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I worked with a guy, a C programmer, who started as the father of four children, and ended up as a woman(snip, snip) who was in a lesbian (???) relationship with another transexual in the IT industry. I, therefore, have personally made the acquaintance of two men who went on to be IT women.
Get the t-shirt.
Michael is spelt Michael. It would appear that you are the moron.
I made one last week. I just had to follow a few simple instructions.
Are you sure that it was this machine that you used?
Forth wasn't invented until the beginning of the '70s. Also, from what I've read of this computer, it only had a single 64-byte stack. Forth needs two stacks - program and data.
Another thing, it was built using valves, not chips.
(http://members.aol.com/willadams)
A dude with an AOL account lecturing Apple on usability. The end of the world is truly nigh.
Something similar was annoying me. In the finder, I'd set *.html files to be opened by my browser choice and it worked fine, but when I opened a site from (for example) mail, it always brought it up in IE. I finally discovered that the browser preference also has to be set in the System Preferences - Network panel.
Is this a troll, or are some people still being taught about x86 segments and offsets?
The flat memory model has been the standard on x86 since the advent of win32. Maybe the segmented memory model is an interesting historical footnote, but I can't see why it would actually be taught as part of an x86 assembly language course.
A beowulf cluster of iPods?
I've been there, and the area that they're talking about is used as a natural harbour. It's actually two villages (Lynton and Lynmouth), one at the top of a cliff, and one at the bottom. They're joined by a water powered elevator system, that looks like a couple of tram cars joined by cable and running on track bolted to the cliff wall. It's cool, in a geeky sort of way.
Incidentally, the locals refer to non-locals as grockles.
OK, the spelling is lousy, but the meaning is pretty clear. From the look of this guy's nick, he's scandinavian, probably Norwegian. Maybe you're a polyglot, but I'm not, and I have a lot of respect for people that have taken the trouble to learn my language (perhaps imperfectly), when I'm too lazy to learn theirs.
I don't think that BSD actually emulates Linux. My understanding is that BSD exposes a Linux ABI. I suppose that there might be a little bit of manipulation behind the scenes when a Linux function is called, to adapt it to an underlying BSD call, but not to the extent that it would be called emulation.
If this is the case, there shouldn't be too much of a performance hit.
I could be wrong though, OSX is more my sort of thing.
they like to sell crap if they can
I disagree. As a software engineer, I've never worked for, or had personal experience of, a company that had a policy of producing crap. That's not to say that I haven't seen crap being pushed out the door, but it always seemed to be failure of design, rather than by design.
There's lots of reasons why software development often results in failure, but I personally wouldn't be prepared to work for a company where failure was policy.
This isn't to say that some companies don't benefit enormously from billing their customers for providing endless upgrades and bugfixes, but it seems to me to be a dodgy business model to bet a company on.
FOR I = 1 TO 500:NEXT I
Yes, 500 empty loops took 1 second.
With most of the old basic interpreters, FOR/NEXT loops were slightly faster if the loop variable wasn't given after the NEXT statement. Therefore, if your code had looked like this:
FOR I = 1 TO 500:NEXT
You might have been able to squeeze a 1 second delay into 0.9 seconds.
I don't know about in the states, but here in the EU that's called dumping, and it's considered to be an illegal predatory practice.
The slashdot headline would probably read something like: "MS trying to bankrupt Sony and Nintendo through unfair competition."
The Apple IIc had this fifteen+ years ago.
If anyone wants one (an Apple IIc), with built-in 5.25in disk and attached letter-box LCD, let me know. It's free to a good home, but you pay the shipping.
At home I've got an iMac G3/600 with 768Meg running OSX.2 Jaguar, at work I use a Win2K box - not sure of the exact CPU speed but it has 512Meg.
Win2K is definitely faster. I'm a software engineer, mostly Java, and the stuff I develop runs on both my home machine and at work. Without doubt, the Win2K box is faster, sometimes a lot faster. Having said that, I'd rather use my home machine. No matter what the faults of OSX, it's orders of magnitude better than any of the competition.
It's fast enough to use as a development workstation. It has rock solid stability. It's Unix and has all of the Unix goodies. It has tons of apps. It looks great, and it's a pleasure to use.
This guy got a +2 for his post. Fair enough. He then replied to his own post with a couple of minor corrections and got another +2.
I'm not having a go at the original post, although I do disagree with it (mostly), but WTF are the moderators on?
2. Microsoft once (still does?) own a stake of SCO. I remember seeing a copyright Microsoft somewhere either in the OS or in the documentation once.
I don't know about MS having a stake in SCO, but years ago, when I did C programming on SCO, the compiler was written by Microsoft.
I think that MS had Xenix, which seemed to have some ties with SCO Unix.
Version 3.0 of a project that I worked on for a very large investment bank was renamed to 3.1 because, to quote the idiot that was supposedly in charge, 'Everybody knows that version 3.1 is better. Take Windows, for example.'
It's disgusting the crud that we have to listen to, just to get paid.
If you want to know how to build something similar yourself, Kent Fukuzura has some easy to follow instructions.
And your suprised ?
with all the retaraded lamers their this is no suprise
Aah, irony.
Wired reporter first to be refused any form of medical or life insurance due to his stupidity in paying to find out that he's too risky to insure.
Yeah, that's what I thought, but the previous update that had all of those features was 1.2 not 1.2.1. Also the size is different: the 1.2 update was 6.7Meg, but this update is 5.2Meg.
Anyway, I'm downloading it now, to see what happens. The battery indicator on my iPod hasn't worked properly for a long time, and the 1.2 update didn't fix it. Hopefully, this update might help.