Africa is in a terrible catch 22 situation. In order to have a stable economy, of any kind, they must have respect for law. In order to get that, they have to have a stable economy with sufficient wealth so that people can settle down and have a rule of law. One hopes that netbooks for Africa would help, but, I am not optimistic.
She's being a scientist of the most famous type - she's calling the play before hand. She's putting her reputation on the line, making a prediction, describing a means to test it, and then going to check it herself. She's arguing in the oldest of sense that her insight is right, and in doing so if she gets the job done and is actually right, she's going to be pretty darned famous.
This is far removed from a scientist making a droll statement based on a computer model. She's saying, there is another radically different kind of life on earth and that she is going to show us how to find it. It's worlds beyond cool. She's trying to be like Babe Ruth calling the home run before he does it, and the world just loves that sort of a thing. In a world where people live around the edges and fritter away at them, she's trying to kick open an entirely door. She gets it, and in a very intuitive and natural way, what a scientist is supposed to be - a leader, because their education gives them intuition born out by test, that shows us how to see new things. Life in a dead lake, alien to our own, how much more of a prediction do you need?
When even cell phones increasingly have the compute power of what desktops did a few years ago. The only reason you need a cloud is for data, and right now, data is still expensive to do over the internet. If longer lasting and higher capacity solid state drives become mainstream, even the data reason goes away as you can have all your data on your shelf, in the kitchen cabinet, your pocket at work, and so on, and even then, most people really don't need to store every single picture they took, forever.
The problem Microsoft really has is a lack of vision. They've kinda made everything they have set out to make, and now they really don't have a grasp on what's next. Regardless of their size and resources, they aren't driving the industry the way they used to. Office is ok, and the ribbon bar is cool, for sure, but, it took them ten years of piling stuff into toolbars and menus and chasing around competitors u/i dongles in Office that they lost site of Office as a vision. Same can be said about Win7, VStudio... it's all nice and all, but really kinda visionless and above all soulless.
Nothing the company makes excites me any more. Even when they do do something cool, they wrap it up in so much EULA speak and corporatease, I feel like I just did a shot that went down smooth but made me throw up at the end. "Windows Genuine Advantage"... good Lord, they may as well just rename their marketing department to be the "Ministry of Truth."
And, now, we have Cloud.
Does Microsoft really get internet based computing? I mean, its pretty hard to argue they believe in hosted solutions when Windows costs more per ad click to run a site off than Linux ever will, and, even worse, their most consumer facing internet product, internet explorer, is so reviled that it undermines their whole brand. Even in a 100% Microsoft shop, everyone around here uses Chrome or Firefox and wishes Microsoft would just give up on the internet.
All these stories remind me of the war on drugs. Every so often, the government nabs a big drug gang, and they have some impressive sounding stats and a PR photo with as much loot spread out as possible "this cache had a street value of 8 billion dollars", with of course all the guns and other stuff lined up, and, yet, the price of drugs on the street continues to fall, people are still running out of emergency rooms with iv's inserted so they can mainline... this whole sorry truth is that you can't expect the gov't to really defend your computer any more than it can defend your house.
I wonder how long it will be before we realize that the human computer is just like any other computer. If you put garbage into it, you are going to get garbage out. Excessive violence and sexuality as inputs into the human brain will cause excessive violence and sexuality as well. It's just the natural order of things.
Congress can force the govt to place works they have the right to
That obfuscates the issue. If the work is paid for with public money, and its like a public monument, then it ought to be public domain. If the artist does not want those terms, find someone else to rip off.
Copyrights a joke anyway. Why should one profession have a law that say that they can keep getting paid for work they did once, while all others don't. I should get paid every time you use a screwdriver.
but in theory (and what socialism is itself) that is not the case... The idea of socialism is that everyone is equal...
The flaw in the theory, though, is systemic. You have to have a class of people that decides what equality is, and to do the work of doling out money to the talentless, and by definition, that means someone is indeed, very powerful and very wealthy, and that's what happens to socialist states everywhere. It's just another kind of dictatorship, tis all socialism is, and by design.
The guy made the sculptor as a work for higher of the American people, but obviously someone signed a bad contract along the way, or, to put it another way, the artist ripped off the American people. I guess I'll just have to add him to my piss on someone's grave tour, but in his case I should take a photo of it.
Socialism its self however is fundamentally not greedy, or at least personally greedy (maybe it is greedy from societies perspective
It's entirely fundamentally greedy. If you are part of the movement, the sales pitch is power. If you are a part of the "masses", then pitch is money. Indeed, the whole idea of socialism is "educate" people into believing that they must join up with the "socialist powermeisters" in order to get more goodies for themselves.
You, like many people, confuse wealth with investment.
The fact is, you do not need money to produce wealth. Wealth is simply a thing that has been mined, thought up or created that betters the human condition. To have a Linux installation is to have wealth. To have a free song is to have wealth. It doesn't matter how you got it, it is only the matter that it exists.
What you are talking about is a means of creating wealth, and that's investment.
There's basically two kinds of investment systems. Capitalism lets private individuals invest in order to get a profit from that investment, and socialism, where public taxes are invested in order to get a profit from that investment. In both cases, there is some third party that has a fistful of cash and uses that cash to facilitate work, but at a price.
Indeed, despite my own bad karma rating and countless other left vs right flamewars, both basically are a matter of a class which uses its money to exploit somebody elses ability to produce, you guessed it, wealth. What's even crazier is that functionally, at the very top level, both capitalism and socialism have the same fundamental working, because both rely on the power of the government to create and manage money.
In the case of capitalism, you have a central bank, which is essentially a government body even though its "independent" on paper. What it does, is well, creates money out of thin air and then deposits it at banks. Banks then lend it to people, and guys at banks basically get rich charging interest on phantom money that the Federal reserve created.
In the case of socialism, you have a central bank, which is the government, and it creates money out of thin air and then uses it to reward those who build or produce goods it deems necessary. The guys in the government basically get rich because they control where all the money is going, and they get free goodies too. Like Brezhnev famously made himself a Hero of the Soviet Union for basically being Brezhnev.
The only thing that you can conclude was that your experience indicated that VS on Windows didn't perform as well as GCC on Linux. That's all.
Actually, no, that's it. The preferred way to develop in C++ on Windows is using Visual C++, and the preferred way to write C++ on Linux is using gcc, so, its entirely reasonable to compare the entire stack, just as much people now compare the Linux Apache Php stack to Windows ASP.NET.
It might be irrelevant if we were discussing the performance of compilers on Windows vs. Linux, but that's not the topic. The topic was cache performance.
You are obfuscating deliberately. My point is far from off topic. The point of the cache is to make your computer run your stuff seemingly faster. As a Linux user, my disk does not grind all the time engaging in the same kind of activity - development, that causes the disk to grind all the time in Windows - developing with Visual Studio. For me, Linux -feels- faster.
Sure, there's other compilers, other tools, but the most common case for Windows is Visual Studio, and for Linux, tis GCC. It's just comparing the platforms as a whole.
The problem with Windows isn't that it has a cache, it is, that the cache sucks. I have a box with 2GB of RAM and I run Visual Studio on it and do a build on a solution with 60 projects. Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles, at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache, but it feels like it doesn't. It grinds the disk as much in the morning as it does in the evening. By contrast, my Linux box, where I build a project nearly as large, is always feeling pretty peppy. Bottom line is, Windows, when dealing with jobs with lots of file, feels like drilling holes in my head, and Linux is responsive and pleasant.
Now, it would be nice if we could see what's in the cache in Windows, but you can't. It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache, in Windows, but you can't.
In short, you have no idea what's in the cache, really, and can't do anything about it, and the disk just keeps grinding away. I wonder, if my drive is busy with files that I've been working on all day long, what for god sake's is sitting in the cache? I just don't know.
you can install Linux even when there are multiple hard drives in your computer (you can only install Windows 7 if there is one and only one hard drive installed)
I have Windows 7 installed on a dual hard drive system right now. It went on with no problem at all, and didn't touch my other drive, which is an Ubuntu installation.
If it wasn't for games and some professional software being released only for Windows I would not even think about paying money for a product that is far inferior to the free one.
There's a lot of stuff that's good about Windows 7 and the story is really, what do you do more. If all you do is surf and do email, with occasional word processing, Linux is just fine. Or, if you do web development, Linux is fine. But if you want to do client development, or play games or do heavy development with a database server, then Windows 7 has a lot of advantages to it. Direct X is a solid API, there's several flavors of sound support, built in MIDI emulation, and more.
To me, the Linux sweet spot really is as a platform for web server development and hosting. Sure, you can do that with Windows, but licensing costs mean you have to have another 800,000 visits per year, assuming a $1 click per 1000 hits, just to pay for each Windows server license, and that doesn't count the cost of SQL Server, if you go that route. That in turn factors to demanding more hardware to support the Windows tax, and that's even more money. Meanwhile, Linux is free.
If the DOE (tax dollars) is funding the research, why the hell would the technology produced then become commercialized (capitalized) by a private
Well, building an eye implant in the lab is one thing, and the taxpayer pays for that. Putting it out into the field, borrowing all the money and getting investment bankers to pony up for production costs, sales and marketing, all of the insurances required for the inevitable lawsuits, the technical support, tracking, doctor training and all that manufacturing required to get the eye from a factory floor into someone's head, that's what the private sector does.
So it is ultimately a cost sharing arrangement. What is foobar in this case is that the private sector in the USA is extremely risk averse these days. In essence, the US taxpayer is footing the bill of coming up with products for corporations to product and market.
Outside of that, in order to get an entirely new product out there, you have to be a solo inventor. The mad scientist is apropro, because only mad scientists take risks that other people just wouldn't take.
That's pretty much why you see old companies where the founders have either sold off or died always lobbying for R&D tax credits or gov't aid to labs, because they just want to pick and choose from products that already exist, not, have to take the risk of creating new ones. Some Joe Schmoe who worked his way up from accounting would never have the credibility to bring a new product to market, but, a visionary founder like a Steve Jobs, or, Bill Gates, could say, yeah, I'll bet the company on that, because they've done it already and made it work. It may seem obvious to everyone now, but, just look at why Windows had so little competition - Wall Street in those days was like "why do you need graphics on a business computer". Microsoft just funded the whole thing out of its own pocket (and granted, it could do that because of the DOS monopoly), but, it was the only way something like a Windows, or, for that matter, a Macintosh, could ever get built. You could have never have gone to a banker and say you needed 100M for a GUI based operating shell. You'd have to have a business case, cost studies, market analysis, all of that stuff, whereas, someone with their own company and own guts and glory could say, "Make it like Mac, because its cool", like Bill Gates did.
Even now you can see how Microsoft is turning into a rent seeking pile of shit that's lost a lot of the rough and tumble stuff that made same so entertaining when Bill was at the helm. They listen to their enterprise customers more, for sure, but they don't really lead any more, and any innovation that comes up inside of them just gets drowned out in infighting.
maybe i'm being whoooshed, but doesn't "communication for everyone, everywhere" sound rather socialist ? Not that i'm against it... right wing would be "communication for whomever can pay for it, wherever it's profitable", wouldn't it ?
Actually, it would be enormously profitable, just as the railroads and highways proved to be profitable. The ultimate critical mass of every technology is ubiquity. If -everyone- had internet access, that was admittedly subsidized or monopolized so that some could have it essentially on the cheap, they would certainly conduct economic activity with it.
I have a terrible karma for being so right wing but when you have before proof that making available communications to people can save lives, then, it goes to show that communications is a fundamental human right and that there needs to be communications for everyone, everywhere, on the planet earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Africa is in a terrible catch 22 situation. In order to have a stable economy, of any kind, they must have respect for law. In order to get that, they have to have a stable economy with sufficient wealth so that people can settle down and have a rule of law. One hopes that netbooks for Africa would help, but, I am not optimistic.
She's being a scientist of the most famous type - she's calling the play before hand. She's putting her reputation on the line, making a prediction, describing a means to test it, and then going to check it herself. She's arguing in the oldest of sense that her insight is right, and in doing so if she gets the job done and is actually right, she's going to be pretty darned famous.
This is far removed from a scientist making a droll statement based on a computer model. She's saying, there is another radically different kind of life on earth and that she is going to show us how to find it. It's worlds beyond cool. She's trying to be like Babe Ruth calling the home run before he does it, and the world just loves that sort of a thing. In a world where people live around the edges and fritter away at them, she's trying to kick open an entirely door. She gets it, and in a very intuitive and natural way, what a scientist is supposed to be - a leader, because their education gives them intuition born out by test, that shows us how to see new things. Life in a dead lake, alien to our own, how much more of a prediction do you need?
When even cell phones increasingly have the compute power of what desktops did a few years ago. The only reason you need a cloud is for data, and right now, data is still expensive to do over the internet. If longer lasting and higher capacity solid state drives become mainstream, even the data reason goes away as you can have all your data on your shelf, in the kitchen cabinet, your pocket at work, and so on, and even then, most people really don't need to store every single picture they took, forever.
The problem Microsoft really has is a lack of vision. They've kinda made everything they have set out to make, and now they really don't have a grasp on what's next. Regardless of their size and resources, they aren't driving the industry the way they used to. Office is ok, and the ribbon bar is cool, for sure, but, it took them ten years of piling stuff into toolbars and menus and chasing around competitors u/i dongles in Office that they lost site of Office as a vision. Same can be said about Win7, VStudio... it's all nice and all, but really kinda visionless and above all soulless.
Nothing the company makes excites me any more. Even when they do do something cool, they wrap it up in so much EULA speak and corporatease, I feel like I just did a shot that went down smooth but made me throw up at the end. "Windows Genuine Advantage"... good Lord, they may as well just rename their marketing department to be the "Ministry of Truth."
And, now, we have Cloud.
Does Microsoft really get internet based computing? I mean, its pretty hard to argue they believe in hosted solutions when Windows costs more per ad click to run a site off than Linux ever will, and, even worse, their most consumer facing internet product, internet explorer, is so reviled that it undermines their whole brand. Even in a 100% Microsoft shop, everyone around here uses Chrome or Firefox and wishes Microsoft would just give up on the internet.
patching for Windows is largely automated...
Heck, my Linux has patches every day and I kinda see that as a good thing.
All these stories remind me of the war on drugs. Every so often, the government nabs a big drug gang, and they have some impressive sounding stats and a PR photo with as much loot spread out as possible "this cache had a street value of 8 billion dollars", with of course all the guns and other stuff lined up, and, yet, the price of drugs on the street continues to fall, people are still running out of emergency rooms with iv's inserted so they can mainline... this whole sorry truth is that you can't expect the gov't to really defend your computer any more than it can defend your house.
I wonder how long it will be before we realize that the human computer is just like any other computer. If you put garbage into it, you are going to get garbage out. Excessive violence and sexuality as inputs into the human brain will cause excessive violence and sexuality as well. It's just the natural order of things.
Congress can force the govt to place works they have the right to
That obfuscates the issue. If the work is paid for with public money, and its like a public monument, then it ought to be public domain. If the artist does not want those terms, find someone else to rip off.
Copyrights a joke anyway. Why should one profession have a law that say that they can keep getting paid for work they did once, while all others don't. I should get paid every time you use a screwdriver.
This seems pretty straightforward, and I have done nothing wrong.
Monuments are public things. You are essentially stealing from the public. With that said, the fix is easy enough.
First: if any community wants a monument made, they should insist on work for hire.
Second: A public monuments should, in fact, have their designs in the public domain, by legal statute. Congress certainly has the power to fix this.
The antenna is going to get you anyway, so you may as well light up.
Guess it wouldn't be right to call these things "panels", when they are furry. Dang that's a clever idea.
but in theory (and what socialism is itself) that is not the case... The idea of socialism is that everyone is equal...
The flaw in the theory, though, is systemic. You have to have a class of people that decides what equality is, and to do the work of doling out money to the talentless, and by definition, that means someone is indeed, very powerful and very wealthy, and that's what happens to socialist states everywhere. It's just another kind of dictatorship, tis all socialism is, and by design.
The guy made the sculptor as a work for higher of the American people, but obviously someone signed a bad contract along the way, or, to put it another way, the artist ripped off the American people. I guess I'll just have to add him to my piss on someone's grave tour, but in his case I should take a photo of it.
Socialism its self however is fundamentally not greedy, or at least personally greedy (maybe it is greedy from societies perspective
It's entirely fundamentally greedy. If you are part of the movement, the sales pitch is power. If you are a part of the "masses", then pitch is money. Indeed, the whole idea of socialism is "educate" people into believing that they must join up with the "socialist powermeisters" in order to get more goodies for themselves.
Gosh darn it, I'm just going for a little trip!
Oh yeah, Socialism denies/curses greed. Capitalism worships
Socialism is by definition greedy, because the primary motivator of it is that there are a bunch of people who want more money.
You, like many people, confuse wealth with investment.
The fact is, you do not need money to produce wealth. Wealth is simply a thing that has been mined, thought up or created that betters the human condition. To have a Linux installation is to have wealth. To have a free song is to have wealth. It doesn't matter how you got it, it is only the matter that it exists.
What you are talking about is a means of creating wealth, and that's investment.
There's basically two kinds of investment systems. Capitalism lets private individuals invest in order to get a profit from that investment, and socialism, where public taxes are invested in order to get a profit from that investment. In both cases, there is some third party that has a fistful of cash and uses that cash to facilitate work, but at a price.
Indeed, despite my own bad karma rating and countless other left vs right flamewars, both basically are a matter of a class which uses its money to exploit somebody elses ability to produce, you guessed it, wealth. What's even crazier is that functionally, at the very top level, both capitalism and socialism have the same fundamental working, because both rely on the power of the government to create and manage money.
In the case of capitalism, you have a central bank, which is essentially a government body even though its "independent" on paper. What it does, is well, creates money out of thin air and then deposits it at banks. Banks then lend it to people, and guys at banks basically get rich charging interest on phantom money that the Federal reserve created.
In the case of socialism, you have a central bank, which is the government, and it creates money out of thin air and then uses it to reward those who build or produce goods it deems necessary. The guys in the government basically get rich because they control where all the money is going, and they get free goodies too. Like Brezhnev famously made himself a Hero of the Soviet Union for basically being Brezhnev.
The only thing that you can conclude was that your experience indicated that VS on Windows didn't perform as well as GCC on Linux. That's all.
Actually, no, that's it. The preferred way to develop in C++ on Windows is using Visual C++, and the preferred way to write C++ on Linux is using gcc, so, its entirely reasonable to compare the entire stack, just as much people now compare the Linux Apache Php stack to Windows ASP.NET.
It might be irrelevant if we were discussing the performance of compilers on Windows vs. Linux, but that's not the topic. The topic was cache performance.
You are obfuscating deliberately. My point is far from off topic. The point of the cache is to make your computer run your stuff seemingly faster. As a Linux user, my disk does not grind all the time engaging in the same kind of activity - development, that causes the disk to grind all the time in Windows - developing with Visual Studio. For me, Linux -feels- faster.
Sure, there's other compilers, other tools, but the most common case for Windows is Visual Studio, and for Linux, tis GCC. It's just comparing the platforms as a whole.
In any case, if you want to compare OS cache performance you might at least try to use the same compiler and the same language on both machines.
That's an entirely irrelevant strawman. Windows these days means Windows + Visual Studio for development, and Linux means Linux + GCC.
The problem with Windows isn't that it has a cache, it is, that the cache sucks. I have a box with 2GB of RAM and I run Visual Studio on it and do a build on a solution with 60 projects. Now you might think that after a day of builds and recompiles, at least some of that stuff would wind up in cache, but it feels like it doesn't. It grinds the disk as much in the morning as it does in the evening. By contrast, my Linux box, where I build a project nearly as large, is always feeling pretty peppy. Bottom line is, Windows, when dealing with jobs with lots of file, feels like drilling holes in my head, and Linux is responsive and pleasant.
Now, it would be nice if we could see what's in the cache in Windows, but you can't.
It would nice if you could peg a file to the cache, in Windows, but you can't.
In short, you have no idea what's in the cache, really, and can't do anything about it, and the disk just keeps grinding away. I wonder, if my drive is busy with files that I've been working on all day long, what for god sake's is sitting in the cache? I just don't know.
you can install Linux even when there are multiple hard drives in your computer (you can only install Windows 7 if there is one and only one hard drive installed)
I have Windows 7 installed on a dual hard drive system right now. It went on with no problem at all, and didn't touch my other drive, which is an Ubuntu installation.
If it wasn't for games and some professional software being released only for Windows I would not even think about paying money for a product that is far inferior to the free one.
There's a lot of stuff that's good about Windows 7 and the story is really, what do you do more. If all you do is surf and do email, with occasional word processing, Linux is just fine. Or, if you do web development, Linux is fine. But if you want to do client development, or play games or do heavy development with a database server, then Windows 7 has a lot of advantages to it. Direct X is a solid API, there's several flavors of sound support, built in MIDI emulation, and more.
To me, the Linux sweet spot really is as a platform for web server development and hosting. Sure, you can do that with Windows, but licensing costs mean you have to have another 800,000 visits per year, assuming a $1 click per 1000 hits, just to pay for each Windows server license, and that doesn't count the cost of SQL Server, if you go that route. That in turn factors to demanding more hardware to support the Windows tax, and that's even more money. Meanwhile, Linux is free.
If the DOE (tax dollars) is funding the research, why the hell would the technology produced then become commercialized (capitalized) by a private
Well, building an eye implant in the lab is one thing, and the taxpayer pays for that. Putting it out into the field, borrowing all the money and getting investment bankers to pony up for production costs, sales and marketing, all of the insurances required for the inevitable lawsuits, the technical support, tracking, doctor training and all that manufacturing required to get the eye from a factory floor into someone's head, that's what the private sector does.
So it is ultimately a cost sharing arrangement. What is foobar in this case is that the private sector in the USA is extremely risk averse these days. In essence, the US taxpayer is footing the bill of coming up with products for corporations to product and market.
Outside of that, in order to get an entirely new product out there, you have to be a solo inventor. The mad scientist is apropro, because only mad scientists take risks that other people just wouldn't take.
That's pretty much why you see old companies where the founders have either sold off or died always lobbying for R&D tax credits or gov't aid to labs, because they just want to pick and choose from products that already exist, not, have to take the risk of creating new ones. Some Joe Schmoe who worked his way up from accounting would never have the credibility to bring a new product to market, but, a visionary founder like a Steve Jobs, or, Bill Gates, could say, yeah, I'll bet the company on that, because they've done it already and made it work. It may seem obvious to everyone now, but, just look at why Windows had so little competition - Wall Street in those days was like "why do you need graphics on a business computer". Microsoft just funded the whole thing out of its own pocket (and granted, it could do that because of the DOS monopoly), but, it was the only way something like a Windows, or, for that matter, a Macintosh, could ever get built. You could have never have gone to a banker and say you needed 100M for a GUI based operating shell. You'd have to have a business case, cost studies, market analysis, all of that stuff, whereas, someone with their own company and own guts and glory could say, "Make it like Mac, because its cool", like Bill Gates did.
Even now you can see how Microsoft is turning into a rent seeking pile of shit that's lost a lot of the rough and tumble stuff that made same so entertaining when Bill was at the helm. They listen to their enterprise customers more, for sure, but they don't really lead any more, and any innovation that comes up inside of them just gets drowned out in infighting.
maybe i'm being whoooshed, but doesn't "communication for everyone, everywhere" sound rather socialist ? Not that i'm against it... right wing would be "communication for whomever can pay for it, wherever it's profitable", wouldn't it ?
Actually, it would be enormously profitable, just as the railroads and highways proved to be profitable. The ultimate critical mass of every technology is ubiquity. If -everyone- had internet access, that was admittedly subsidized or monopolized so that some could have it essentially on the cheap, they would certainly conduct economic activity with it.
I have a terrible karma for being so right wing but when you have before proof that making available communications to people can save lives, then, it goes to show that communications is a fundamental human right and that there needs to be communications for everyone, everywhere, on the planet earth.