CD/packaging production. A business only needs one CD/DVD, if it isn't simply downloaded from Microsoft. For ISVs such as Microsoft, once the code is locked down, it's going to take some time before you can manufacture enough physical product to stock store shelves.
Because the type of people who are going to use Linux as their desktop OS aren't exactly the type of people who are going to use IE as their major browser, even if only because it's a Microsoft product. I think IE7 for Windows is a MAJOR improvement, although still not Firefox or Opera quality. But even if a future IE8 were to surpass Firefox and be a better browser, how likely do you think it is that a Linux user would use it? I thought so.
RSS is not new, but my understanding is that the way in which RSS was exposed as a part of IE7 is unique, if not original. Basically the idea was to make browsing RSS feeds transparent in IE7, in that they're rendered as a webpage instead of relying on a separate, dedicated application. Does anyone know if other browsers do this as well?
I think it's probably that once the decision was made to do a major updgrade, they had finite time to finish before it needed to be shipped. Since IE7 will be built into Vista (instead of IE6), IE7 obviously has to be done before Vista. And a whole litany of other components in Windows, Office, etc. that depend on the IE rendering engine. If I were a projct manager for something like IE7, where tons of other things depended on it being done (and done PROPERLY), I too would opt to limit the number of new features over shortchanging the testing/bugfixing phase. As would any other software engineer worth their pay.
There will be future releases, and I'm sure those features will be included in them. He probably doesn't want to (and isn't allowed to) announce features for IE8 this early, until they're sure those features will be included.
IE 7 is actually less integrated than IE 6 was. However, the IE rendering engine is provided as a library for other applications to use. Any other applications that have embedded browser controls depend on IE -- and as they should. Applications should not have to deal with HTML rendering on their own. I would imagine this would cover everything from help systems to chat clients to things like the Add/Remove programs dialog.
Since other browsers don't come pre-installed on Windows computers, IE tends to be a neccesity (whether Windows should make it easier for applications to rely on other 3rd party browsers is a separate issue). As such, a system reboot is neccesary as the rendering engine itself, exposed as a library, must be updated. Basically it just ensures nothing is using the browser control at the time of update.
THANK YOU for setting the record straight. You are correct; clusters are very different. Some types of problems can be broken into mostly separate chunks of work; these work well on clusters. But for those types of problems which depend on a lot of inter-processor communication (e.g. the results of one computation are required for a significant number of subsequent computations), conventional clusters don't cut it. In these cases everything comes down to the bus between processors -- how they are connected together, how they share memory, etc. Without a specially designed network between processors (even off-the-shelf processors), your large "cluster" of processors won't perform all that much better than a small number of them.
The 2605dn is a slight upgrade to the 2600. It goes faster and does duplex printing. I recently purchased one at Office Depot and am very happy with it. If you can just wait a bit for a sale, you can probably get a good deal on it.
Why are so many people acting like this is somehow some great strike against ActiveX? Aside from the fact that ActiveX controls will still run (you just have to click an extra time to interact with their UI), keep in mind that this applies to ANYTHING loaded with APPLET, EMBED, or OBJECT tags. That includes Java applets for sure (which are protected by the sandbox). It very well might also include Flash, SVG, etc. As I understand it, this covers basically any high-interactivity component of any web page, on any platform, with any browser if affected. This is just Microsoft's solution to the problem. Other browsers will need to come up with solutions as well.
Well I would tend to say this would be a topic best suited for a one-time seminar, or as one topic within a larger class. You should cover the legal, ethical, and business aspects of OSS, as well as maybe an introduction to some popular project, common tools, etc. HOWEVER, you as an instructor have a duty to present an unbiased view. To offer a class specifically about OSS is the same as offering a class on say.NET programming or on Oracle. This is a biased view of the world. Ultimately, the programming concepts should be the same, regardless of whether your source is closed. You still need a methodology, you still need well written code, you still need efficient algorithms, you still need design patterns, etc. That doesn't change. In reality, OSS is more of a business model than a particularly technical topic. Don't offer an "OSS programming class" -- that's just "programming class" with an OSS bias. Rather, discussed as a one-time topic, just to get students aware of what OSS means and how it might impact them. The programming concepts should remain independent of the business model.
No, it's supposed to prepare you for a professional job, but give you enough of a conceptual background that you can adapt to changes. It's BOTH practical and theoretical.
In our program here at UW-Eau Claire, your first year and a half are pretty much programming. Beyond we get into the interesting stuff like network protocols/OSI, OS theory, architecture, mathmatical theory, design patterns, AI, 3d graphics, etc. But these concepts are ALWAYS grounded in numerous practical projects. They may teach us what TCP is and how it fits into the OSI model, but then they'll ask us to implement TCP, simple routing, and FTP. You get the practical. They may teach us what neural networks are, but then they'll ask us to implement one, maybe using C#. Kill two birds with one stone. They may teach us about algorithm theory, then ask us to implement a simple problem using several algorithms and do a comparison. You get the practical.
I still maintain, any program which teaches only theory without requiring signigifant practical projects to compliment it is useless.
Switch to a university where they teach you both the theory and the practical. First off, that seems like an odd selection of introductory comp sci courses. But beyond that, I'm sorry, but unless you somehow are going to get more practical experience later, you'll be useless with a degree like that. You have to have a strong foundation of programming and design (yes, advanced design patterns and all) first. Then you can deal with issues such as AI or advanced math or machine vision or whatnot. But because you have that practical foundation, you'll be able to apply those advanced concepts you learn.
In the real world nobody will give a s**t whether you've taken numerical analysis. They're going to want to know if you can program, if you have a strong grasp on algorithms and data structures, if you understand the software engineering cycle, if you know how to effectively apply design patterns, and if you know how to communicate with your co-workers and non-technical people. Knowing theory is a bonus, but even then only if you know how to apply it to practical applications.
"embarassingly parallel" is just a phrase used to describe certain types of problems. Ok, I'll give you the fact that the phrase is a bit biased, but it's still just a phrase.
Clusters work well for problems that can be broken up into smaller chunks that can be independantly solved individually and then combined to produce a final result, but for problems that require signifigant amounts of communication and data transfer between processors, clusters just don't cut it. Crays and other supercomputers use specially designed communication networks between processors and memory and such, and that's why they're so much more useful for those types of applications.
Yes, distort is the better word.
But you still missed my point, and have less-than-sound logic in making yours. Moore has a history of this type of behavior. He has "distorted" facts before, and then presented them as the absolute truth. Ask most of the people who were interviewed in his last film "Bowling for Columbine" and you'll get that same story. In general I think it's safe to say that most people in the media give a fairly factual (if not slightly biased) presentation of the facts. But Moore is different. Do some research into his past films and this film. See what the people who were interviewed said. Look at the other side of the story. I'm not saying that the "other side" in this film or his past films is neccesarially right either, but again, the fact that he has a history of presenting a one-sided, edited, opinionated film as the truth is the problem.
You're missing one critical point -- Moore is known for using deceptive editing techniques to contort the truth. Now I haven't actually seen the film myself (I do want to), but lets look at an example. From what I hear, there is a sequence where he goes around asking congressmen if they will distribute literature to other congressmen promoting their children to join the military. As it appears in the film, he gets no takers, and is presented as evidence that the "elite" aren't willing to make their own sacrifices for the war. But in reality, at least one of the congressmen who appears in the film actually said sometime along the lines of "I'd be happy to. Especially for those who voted for the war." But that part was CUT OUT, completely changing and distorting what took place. I don't know how many others had that happen to them too, but chances are, there are a number of them. Meaning the entire point Moore was trying to make in that sequence really isn't valid at all! But through deceptive editing, he is able to change what actually happened to fit his view. If you're quoting someone in written form and you use "..." to shorten what they say, you had better make DAMN sure that when you remove doesn't change the meaning of the quote. The same principal applies to motion pictures. Moore knows this but he does it very deliberately anyway.
So the basic lesson to learn here is that someone like Moore can't be trusted to tell the truth any more than the government itself. If this were being presented as a commentary piece or political propeganda, then it wouldn't be so bad. But when it's presented as hard fact in documentary form, it IS a problem because it is NOT hard fact. But most of the people watching it do not realize this.
Supercomputers usually run some flavor of UNIX -- Unicos, IRIX, I think even Linux. In any case, they are specially built and designed for the supercomputer. Supercomputers are used for highly specialized scientific applications, and as such the programs would be specially written in Fortran, C, or Assembly, and often specially optomized for the architecture.
Clusters and supercomputers are totally different things, by definition. They are used for different types of problems, and as such cannot really be compared.
True, but many if not most technologies in civilian use today (including our beloved Internet) started as military related research... I'm not saying anything either way about the merits or evils of war, but this argument really isn't at all valid.
I go a school in the University of Wisconsin system. The average range for CS graduates who get jobs in the area is probably $40,000 - $55,000, but our program is EXTREMELY intense, so I would guess that many places are a bit less...my $0.02.
I attend the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. There's this thing in Wisconsin called Wiscnet, and that connects all the Wisconsin University campuses together (makes for nice, fast inter-campus file transfers) and I think some other organizations too. But anyway, each University pays a fee based on information transfered to Wiscnet. Wiscnet's main conduit to the Internet it through UW-Madison, then to Chicago. If that goes down, it comes through UW-Eau Claire, then to the twin cities. I think there might be one other point too. But if you ask where the universities get the money to pay for the bandwidth, that would be Wisconsin tax dollars, student tuition and fees, and donations.
That's why you'll be able to turn it off. All that's changing is that it's turned on by default. So all the sysadmins or corporations and universities and schoold can just set up their images with the option turned off or use SMS to change it.
In terms of today's society it really isn't but in terms of Trek it is. Vulcans were always previously established to be conservative yet nearly completely a people of reason and logic. That a Vulcan wears a catsuit defies both of these Trek "norms" (no other vulcans wear stuff like that, even on 'Enterprise'), shows disrespect for what has come before.
On a side note, I'm willing to give the "new" show a try. The last couple episodes have been pretty good, and it looks like they are making some sort of an effort to address falling ratings and concerns. Of course, if the "new direction" turns out to be a trip straight South, I would bet that Enterprise won't see a 4th season.
I just wish that in terms of production values: 1) They ditch the catsuit for T'Pol. No real Vulcan would dress like that...it's degrading. 2) They would spend a bit more time designing makeup. Bumpy foreheads don't cut it anymore and make the show look quite cheap. 3) The music needs to be a lot more thematic and bombastic. It's been slightly better lately but like the makeup, "sonic wallpaper" doesn't cut it. Give us dramatic, emotional music!
It's too bad that someone had to pick out the two worst reviews out there to post on Slashdot. Most people that have seen it agree that while it probably isn't the best movie of the bunch, it's near the top. Don't judge something until you've experianced it for yourself. In this situation, Slashdot was presented with a minority opinion. I can't believe how many people took it as fact. Skeptecism, always!
Well of course! In many stores, the soundtrack for the new Lord of the Rings move costs more than the movie itself! What's up with that? It makes NO sense. They would do well to just go and charge $5.99 for your average CD.
Slashdot Mirror
CD/packaging production. A business only needs one CD/DVD, if it isn't simply downloaded from Microsoft. For ISVs such as Microsoft, once the code is locked down, it's going to take some time before you can manufacture enough physical product to stock store shelves.
Because the type of people who are going to use Linux as their desktop OS aren't exactly the type of people who are going to use IE as their major browser, even if only because it's a Microsoft product. I think IE7 for Windows is a MAJOR improvement, although still not Firefox or Opera quality. But even if a future IE8 were to surpass Firefox and be a better browser, how likely do you think it is that a Linux user would use it? I thought so.
RSS is not new, but my understanding is that the way in which RSS was exposed as a part of IE7 is unique, if not original. Basically the idea was to make browsing RSS feeds transparent in IE7, in that they're rendered as a webpage instead of relying on a separate, dedicated application. Does anyone know if other browsers do this as well?
I think it's probably that once the decision was made to do a major updgrade, they had finite time to finish before it needed to be shipped. Since IE7 will be built into Vista (instead of IE6), IE7 obviously has to be done before Vista. And a whole litany of other components in Windows, Office, etc. that depend on the IE rendering engine. If I were a projct manager for something like IE7, where tons of other things depended on it being done (and done PROPERLY), I too would opt to limit the number of new features over shortchanging the testing/bugfixing phase. As would any other software engineer worth their pay. There will be future releases, and I'm sure those features will be included in them. He probably doesn't want to (and isn't allowed to) announce features for IE8 this early, until they're sure those features will be included.
IE 7 is actually less integrated than IE 6 was. However, the IE rendering engine is provided as a library for other applications to use. Any other applications that have embedded browser controls depend on IE -- and as they should. Applications should not have to deal with HTML rendering on their own. I would imagine this would cover everything from help systems to chat clients to things like the Add/Remove programs dialog.
Since other browsers don't come pre-installed on Windows computers, IE tends to be a neccesity (whether Windows should make it easier for applications to rely on other 3rd party browsers is a separate issue). As such, a system reboot is neccesary as the rendering engine itself, exposed as a library, must be updated. Basically it just ensures nothing is using the browser control at the time of update.
Except that like it or not, Blu-Ray (and maybe HD-DVD) only show hi-def content in standard-def on analog outputs. I am correct about this, no?
THANK YOU for setting the record straight. You are correct; clusters are very different. Some types of problems can be broken into mostly separate chunks of work; these work well on clusters. But for those types of problems which depend on a lot of inter-processor communication (e.g. the results of one computation are required for a significant number of subsequent computations), conventional clusters don't cut it. In these cases everything comes down to the bus between processors -- how they are connected together, how they share memory, etc. Without a specially designed network between processors (even off-the-shelf processors), your large "cluster" of processors won't perform all that much better than a small number of them.
The 2605dn is a slight upgrade to the 2600. It goes faster and does duplex printing. I recently purchased one at Office Depot and am very happy with it. If you can just wait a bit for a sale, you can probably get a good deal on it.
Why are so many people acting like this is somehow some great strike against ActiveX? Aside from the fact that ActiveX controls will still run (you just have to click an extra time to interact with their UI), keep in mind that this applies to ANYTHING loaded with APPLET, EMBED, or OBJECT tags. That includes Java applets for sure (which are protected by the sandbox). It very well might also include Flash, SVG, etc. As I understand it, this covers basically any high-interactivity component of any web page, on any platform, with any browser if affected. This is just Microsoft's solution to the problem. Other browsers will need to come up with solutions as well.
Well I would tend to say this would be a topic best suited for a one-time seminar, or as one topic within a larger class. You should cover the legal, ethical, and business aspects of OSS, as well as maybe an introduction to some popular project, common tools, etc. HOWEVER, you as an instructor have a duty to present an unbiased view. To offer a class specifically about OSS is the same as offering a class on say .NET programming or on Oracle. This is a biased view of the world. Ultimately, the programming concepts should be the same, regardless of whether your source is closed. You still need a methodology, you still need well written code, you still need efficient algorithms, you still need design patterns, etc. That doesn't change. In reality, OSS is more of a business model than a particularly technical topic. Don't offer an "OSS programming class" -- that's just "programming class" with an OSS bias. Rather, discussed as a one-time topic, just to get students aware of what OSS means and how it might impact them. The programming concepts should remain independent of the business model.
No, it's supposed to prepare you for a professional job, but give you enough of a conceptual background that you can adapt to changes. It's BOTH practical and theoretical.
In our program here at UW-Eau Claire, your first year and a half are pretty much programming. Beyond we get into the interesting stuff like network protocols/OSI, OS theory, architecture, mathmatical theory, design patterns, AI, 3d graphics, etc. But these concepts are ALWAYS grounded in numerous practical projects. They may teach us what TCP is and how it fits into the OSI model, but then they'll ask us to implement TCP, simple routing, and FTP. You get the practical. They may teach us what neural networks are, but then they'll ask us to implement one, maybe using C#. Kill two birds with one stone. They may teach us about algorithm theory, then ask us to implement a simple problem using several algorithms and do a comparison. You get the practical.
I still maintain, any program which teaches only theory without requiring signigifant practical projects to compliment it is useless.
Switch to a university where they teach you both the theory and the practical. First off, that seems like an odd selection of introductory comp sci courses. But beyond that, I'm sorry, but unless you somehow are going to get more practical experience later, you'll be useless with a degree like that. You have to have a strong foundation of programming and design (yes, advanced design patterns and all) first. Then you can deal with issues such as AI or advanced math or machine vision or whatnot. But because you have that practical foundation, you'll be able to apply those advanced concepts you learn.
In the real world nobody will give a s**t whether you've taken numerical analysis. They're going to want to know if you can program, if you have a strong grasp on algorithms and data structures, if you understand the software engineering cycle, if you know how to effectively apply design patterns, and if you know how to communicate with your co-workers and non-technical people. Knowing theory is a bonus, but even then only if you know how to apply it to practical applications.
"embarassingly parallel" is just a phrase used to describe certain types of problems. Ok, I'll give you the fact that the phrase is a bit biased, but it's still just a phrase. Clusters work well for problems that can be broken up into smaller chunks that can be independantly solved individually and then combined to produce a final result, but for problems that require signifigant amounts of communication and data transfer between processors, clusters just don't cut it. Crays and other supercomputers use specially designed communication networks between processors and memory and such, and that's why they're so much more useful for those types of applications.
Yes, distort is the better word. But you still missed my point, and have less-than-sound logic in making yours. Moore has a history of this type of behavior. He has "distorted" facts before, and then presented them as the absolute truth. Ask most of the people who were interviewed in his last film "Bowling for Columbine" and you'll get that same story. In general I think it's safe to say that most people in the media give a fairly factual (if not slightly biased) presentation of the facts. But Moore is different. Do some research into his past films and this film. See what the people who were interviewed said. Look at the other side of the story. I'm not saying that the "other side" in this film or his past films is neccesarially right either, but again, the fact that he has a history of presenting a one-sided, edited, opinionated film as the truth is the problem.
You're missing one critical point -- Moore is known for using deceptive editing techniques to contort the truth. Now I haven't actually seen the film myself (I do want to), but lets look at an example. From what I hear, there is a sequence where he goes around asking congressmen if they will distribute literature to other congressmen promoting their children to join the military. As it appears in the film, he gets no takers, and is presented as evidence that the "elite" aren't willing to make their own sacrifices for the war. But in reality, at least one of the congressmen who appears in the film actually said sometime along the lines of "I'd be happy to. Especially for those who voted for the war." But that part was CUT OUT, completely changing and distorting what took place. I don't know how many others had that happen to them too, but chances are, there are a number of them. Meaning the entire point Moore was trying to make in that sequence really isn't valid at all! But through deceptive editing, he is able to change what actually happened to fit his view. If you're quoting someone in written form and you use "..." to shorten what they say, you had better make DAMN sure that when you remove doesn't change the meaning of the quote. The same principal applies to motion pictures. Moore knows this but he does it very deliberately anyway.
So the basic lesson to learn here is that someone like Moore can't be trusted to tell the truth any more than the government itself. If this were being presented as a commentary piece or political propeganda, then it wouldn't be so bad. But when it's presented as hard fact in documentary form, it IS a problem because it is NOT hard fact. But most of the people watching it do not realize this.
Supercomputers usually run some flavor of UNIX -- Unicos, IRIX, I think even Linux. In any case, they are specially built and designed for the supercomputer. Supercomputers are used for highly specialized scientific applications, and as such the programs would be specially written in Fortran, C, or Assembly, and often specially optomized for the architecture.
Clusters and supercomputers are totally different things, by definition. They are used for different types of problems, and as such cannot really be compared.
True, but many if not most technologies in civilian use today (including our beloved Internet) started as military related research... I'm not saying anything either way about the merits or evils of war, but this argument really isn't at all valid.
I go a school in the University of Wisconsin system. The average range for CS graduates who get jobs in the area is probably $40,000 - $55,000, but our program is EXTREMELY intense, so I would guess that many places are a bit less...my $0.02.
I attend the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. There's this thing in Wisconsin called Wiscnet, and that connects all the Wisconsin University campuses together (makes for nice, fast inter-campus file transfers) and I think some other organizations too. But anyway, each University pays a fee based on information transfered to Wiscnet. Wiscnet's main conduit to the Internet it through UW-Madison, then to Chicago. If that goes down, it comes through UW-Eau Claire, then to the twin cities. I think there might be one other point too. But if you ask where the universities get the money to pay for the bandwidth, that would be Wisconsin tax dollars, student tuition and fees, and donations.
That's why you'll be able to turn it off. All that's changing is that it's turned on by default. So all the sysadmins or corporations and universities and schoold can just set up their images with the option turned off or use SMS to change it.
In terms of today's society it really isn't but in terms of Trek it is. Vulcans were always previously established to be conservative yet nearly completely a people of reason and logic. That a Vulcan wears a catsuit defies both of these Trek "norms" (no other vulcans wear stuff like that, even on 'Enterprise'), shows disrespect for what has come before.
Shouldn't Trek get it's own topic icon?
On a side note, I'm willing to give the "new" show a try. The last couple episodes have been pretty good, and it looks like they are making some sort of an effort to address falling ratings and concerns. Of course, if the "new direction" turns out to be a trip straight South, I would bet that Enterprise won't see a 4th season.
I just wish that in terms of production values: 1) They ditch the catsuit for T'Pol. No real Vulcan would dress like that...it's degrading. 2) They would spend a bit more time designing makeup. Bumpy foreheads don't cut it anymore and make the show look quite cheap. 3) The music needs to be a lot more thematic and bombastic. It's been slightly better lately but like the makeup, "sonic wallpaper" doesn't cut it. Give us dramatic, emotional music!
It's too bad that someone had to pick out the two worst reviews out there to post on Slashdot. Most people that have seen it agree that while it probably isn't the best movie of the bunch, it's near the top. Don't judge something until you've experianced it for yourself. In this situation, Slashdot was presented with a minority opinion. I can't believe how many people took it as fact. Skeptecism, always!
Well of course! In many stores, the soundtrack for the new Lord of the Rings move costs more than the movie itself! What's up with that? It makes NO sense. They would do well to just go and charge $5.99 for your average CD.