Psyco is a very interesting concept for Python. It compiles python bytecode to native, but it is not JIT, rather it takes the code, analyzes it and compiles several versions, of which the optimal one is going to be chosen at runtime. You really need to check it out. It promises about 40% speedup on random py code, but about 400% speedup on algorhytmic code (that counts for scientific apps). that is almost as fast as the equivalent C code. His motto is "High-level languages are faster than low-level ones!"
Pyrex is also interesting, where you can use C concepts within Python. And the project Weave allows you to directly write C code into Pyhton. With careful design you can convert about 5-15% of your code to C and have an app that runs as fast as a C one, with about 20% of the development time.
Telecommuting is for individuals employed (or contracted one-by-one basis) by the company.
Outsourcing is a contract between two companies.
You should not compare (or ask us to compare) apples with oranges.
Maybe the US software industry sould reorganize as similar to the Indian outsourcing industry. Ie. you would be employed by the oursourcing company, which would contract with IBM. If you can keep the overhead low (by eliminating executive pay by means of forming co-ops), and implementing high-quality standards (ISO 9000 9001 90001 90002) and consistenly meeting and/or exceeding expectations, you would be able to maintain a stable employment and a striving company EVEN IN THE US!
Let's say you drink heavily. 12 bottles a Miller a day. (whoa boy!)
You switch to miller light: cut 100 cal per bottle. There you go 100lb a year!
Of course 12 * 150Cal (Miller lite) and you have 1800Cal per day on your hands. You dont even have to eat ANYTHING else, your calorie intake is covered.
If you play music 15 hours a day 30 days a month, then with 5c per 5min song you would end up paying $100/mo. However with 1c per 5 min song, you would be paying $20 (!!!) for truly unlimited music. Compare that to iTMS, emusic, listen, etc...
An average gun owner owns multiple (5+) guns. Keep 4 locked, and one for defense. Even that single one should be in a safe place, kid-safe.
Other idea I was having is excise tax on guns. In the range of 10000%. No gun should cost less than $8000. Tax should be used to support gun safety enforcement, gun violence victim support, exclusilvely.
Me like this even beter than Cringley's idea. Thanks Brad.
Consider this, you buy the song when you hit play for $1.05. When the song stops, the company buys back the song for $1. Co-op made $0.05. You payed $0.05. You no longer own the songs, co-op can sell it to the next member.
Let's assume some numbers:
100K members. 2M songs. Max songs played at the same time: ~100K (high usage). Avg songs played at the same time: ~10K (daily avg). Favorite song copies needed to be owned: ~1K Avg. number of copies per song needed to be owned: 5 (maybe lower).
2M * 5 songs = 10M ~ 1M CDs ~ $20M inital layout. 10K songs played constaly for $0.05 per song. A song is 5 min long. That is 10K * $0.05 = $500 every 5 mins = $6K per hour = $144K per day.
Profitable in 139 days.
You do not own any songs, but you can play any at any time for 5c per song.
Consider it that a) you can lower the profit the comany makes to 1c per song, and still it is profitable in a year and a half.
Bad stuff:
- If you burn it to cd, you brake the law. - Streaming is the only way. - Only works with instant online connection. - Fad songs lose money, as you need to own more copies for inital interest, after which there will be no more interest.
1. mp3.com was not owned by people who were downloding copies.
2. $20/share inital outlay per person can be though of as joining the club. It does not even need to be publicly traded, and the price can be kept fixed.
3. Maybe the intention of the law is "would it replace a sale", however that is not the actual wording, otherwise all those poor souls who got hit by RIAA would use that as an easy defense. "But your honor, I would not have bought that CD I downloaded, it is a buch of crap!"
So in your words. My right to free speach is superseded by your right of owning gun. Maybe you should consider self-removal of public speaking on your own self first, before applying it to me.
I agree with you. Trigger lock disables the purpose of defense. But when you own 20 guns, how many will you be using for defense? 1. Lock the rest of it.
Cars anf guns are designed for different use, please discontinue using cars for your metaphors. Tx.
Please also note that right ALWAYS come with responsibilities. Your right to cast your vote freely, comes with the responsibility of the direction your government is going. Ie. if US commits international crimes, you as a citizen is responsible for it.
"So if someone breaks into your house while you are on vacation, and does all this stuff you will consider yourself responsible?"
No you should be not responsible, you could not report it. However you should be forced to prove it in a court of law. No biggie.
"Regardless of what people want to believe, an individual can only go so far in securing his possesions. After that that fault SHOULD lie with the individual commiting the crime. Not the owners of the implements."
Totally agree. You can go so far, but you should be required to AS FAR. AFTER that you are exempt of your responsibilities.
"invalid assumptions that I am "unsafe and stupid"."
Well maybe these are not such an invalid assumptions if you can accept the use of "you" as a general reference. I am sure you (Nagatzhul) is the most exemplary gun owner, who follows due diligence on handling your gun(s).
However we cannot generalize, as the step dad of the 6 year old who shot his teacher did not exercise due diligence, when storing the loaded handgun under his lazy boy recliner. Nor the guy who supplied guns to the two disturbed teenagers at columbine. These are the "stupid" people I am afraid of. Not guns. These people should not have been allowedto touch a gun ever. And if you borrow your gun to your friend who goes on a shooting spree, you should be held responsible as well. It is your gun, take care of it.
If I let my friend use my car, and he runs over 14 children I will be sued. I will lose. I will have my life ruined. Select your friends, and let them borrow your car only if needed.
If your car is stolen, it is your responsibility to report it stolen. Your cellpone as well (you can even get it cancelled, when you report it). This argument stands even more so for guns. If you don't know where your gun is, why do you have it the first place. Install trigger locks, and keep the key separately. Store them in locked cabinets, not under the sofa. Keep them out of reach of your kids, etc. This should be a mandatory curriculum for prospective gun owners.
With right comes responsibilities. You want one you get the other one. Simple.
It is your responsibility of locking up your guns, so that your kid does not take it to school and shoots the teacher. (Yes, this has happened)
It is your responsibility to report stolen firearms, after which you will be relived of your responsibility.
It is your responsibility to get trigger locks installed on your gun, and store them without bullets.
I am not opposed (nor frightened) you you owning and using a gun. But I am terribly oppesed to your lack of gun safety and really extremely frightened of stupid people with guns.
If you get a gun, educate yourself and know how to keep it safe. I would even support measures, where you would have to demonstrate such ability BEFORE you are allowed to own a gun.
But of course you should. If you demand the right to own a firearm, please note that it should come with very heavy penalties for letting it out of your control. You should be automatically found a compliance and be forced to stand trial along with your murderous buddy.
We don't need gun control, but we need to extend the circle of repsonsibility and impose severe punishements for gun mishanding. This would be a better way, me thinks.
My only explanation could be (assuming that the data is correct) is that in 1995 top 1% held 38% of welath, and in around 2000 or 2001 (when I assume the article was written) it dropped to top 5% holding 20%.
Mind it that in between there was the internet bubble, that made the top 20% more rich, and maybe the top 5% did not gain proportionally. Of cource it was all paper wealth, so we likely to be back to the 1995 state.
OK, so I go *MY* lazy ass together and plugged "wealth distribution" into google, lo and behold:
Median U.S. family income grew by 37 percent from 1949 to 1959, by 41 percent in the 1960s, but only by 6.8 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, with 97 percetn going to the top 20 percent of the families. in the late 1970s, the top one percent held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent.
Please note that I do not fit in any of your boxes correctly. Please accept my apologies for that.
Anyway, according the the "world smallest political quiz" at Libertarian Party:
Personal Issues
Yes Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) No Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. Yes Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. Yes Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. Yes People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose.
Economic Issues
Yes Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. Yes People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. No Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. No End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. Yes All foreign aid should be privately funded.
At this quiz I have scored 12. Where 0 means 100% liberal and 40 means 100% conservative. That makes me between the two Clintons.
At Political Compass I got placed very colse to Ghandi and Dalai Lama, exact oppisite of g.w.bush.
Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.25 (left = -10, right = 10) Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62 (lib = -10, auth = 10)
What a poorly researched article. It is way below EEtimes quality and should have never been published as it is.
1. "As opposed to longitudinal recording, where the bits are impressed in a parallel format along the surface of a disc, perpendicular recording stands the bits on end, enabling more data storage per square inch."
What does it stand the bits at the end? I have never seend a standing bit. Especially on the end of it. Now c'mon, it could have been described a little more "technically". This is not USA Today.
And "impressed in parellel format" is such a crap of a phrase. It is not impressed, nothing touches, no impression, it is MAGNETIC, god damn!
2. "Apple Computer Inc.'s new G5 computers are all SATA-based while Intel systems will by the end of this year be based on the new interface."
Now this is utter turd. Before even G5 was announced, and probably before Jobs had the brainfart to invent them, some of the high-end PC motherboard manufacturers were already churning out SATA equipped motherboards. It was in the Intel development road map for several years now. I remember reading about it on Tom's 2 years ago.
Mr. Bolaji Ojo (EBN), please do your homework. Do not just blair (as in Jayson) out an article. You do wipe your ass after takin a sh*t, don't you? I am just asking that you would apply the same attitude toward writing articles. Thank you for your future cooperation.
That is quite true. But even though $X - $Y wealth is getting concentrated, the rest of the 90% of the population is getting $Y more. It is true that about 10% of the population has lost the $X.
This however will give IBM $X-$Y extra profit, or an opportunity to lower prices $X-$Y in total to be more competitive.
Please also note that $T-$Y is still stays in the US. This potentially means that it can be taxed by this government.
Maybe wealth taxes are the way to go?
Or would that just make IBM incorporates in the Bahamas?
Slashdot Mirror
Psyco is a very interesting concept for Python. It compiles python bytecode to native, but it is not JIT, rather it takes the code, analyzes it and compiles several versions, of which the optimal one is going to be chosen at runtime. You really need to check it out. It promises about 40% speedup on random py code, but about 400% speedup on algorhytmic code (that counts for scientific apps). that is almost as fast as the equivalent C code. His motto is "High-level languages are faster than low-level ones!"
Pyrex is also interesting, where you can use C concepts within Python. And the project Weave allows you to directly write C code into Pyhton. With careful design you can convert about 5-15% of your code to C and have an app that runs as fast as a C one, with about 20% of the development time.
You should try wxWindows + Python.
Pyhton: pointerless, automtic garbage coll, vary FAST if using psycho.
wxWindows: portable, yet platform optimized. Very good tools for design.
Agreed. But what is the cost/benefit ratio?
-Cost: buncha stupid test/procedure. And the cost of setting it up, dedicating roles, etc.
-Benefit: a powerful(?) marketing tool for the company. A sure distinction from Indian software houses. Possibly stable employment.
Would it be worth it? Depends.
Telecommuting is for individuals employed (or contracted one-by-one basis) by the company.
Outsourcing is a contract between two companies.
You should not compare (or ask us to compare) apples with oranges.
Maybe the US software industry sould reorganize as similar to the Indian outsourcing industry. Ie. you would be employed by the oursourcing company, which would contract with IBM. If you can keep the overhead low (by eliminating executive pay by means of forming co-ops), and implementing high-quality standards (ISO 9000 9001 90001 90002) and consistenly meeting and/or exceeding expectations, you would be able to maintain a stable employment and a striving company EVEN IN THE US!
Only problem with this is that if you look carefully on your CDs/DVDs, there is a print that expressly forbids of rentals.
You can sell it however.
:-) that is funny.
Let's say you drink heavily. 12 bottles a Miller a day. (whoa boy!)
You switch to miller light: cut 100 cal per bottle. There you go 100lb a year!
Of course 12 * 150Cal (Miller lite) and you have 1800Cal per day on your hands. You dont even have to eat ANYTHING else, your calorie intake is covered.
One more calc I left out:
If you play music 15 hours a day 30 days a month, then with 5c per 5min song you would end up paying $100/mo. However with 1c per 5 min song, you would be paying $20 (!!!) for truly unlimited music. Compare that to iTMS, emusic, listen, etc...
AND you have instant access to 2M songs!
I like this. 1c to the artist of the song played, 1c to support upcoming artists (something like a fund).
We could make this happen with the slashdot crowd.
Maybe we should start a business plan.
An average gun owner owns multiple (5+) guns. Keep 4 locked, and one for defense. Even that single one should be in a safe place, kid-safe.
Other idea I was having is excise tax on guns. In the range of 10000%. No gun should cost less than $8000. Tax should be used to support gun safety enforcement, gun violence victim support, exclusilvely.
If you can afford your car, you can afford a gun.
Me like this even beter than Cringley's idea. Thanks Brad.
Consider this, you buy the song when you hit play for $1.05. When the song stops, the company buys back the song for $1. Co-op made $0.05. You payed $0.05. You no longer own the songs, co-op can sell it to the next member.
Let's assume some numbers:
100K members.
2M songs.
Max songs played at the same time: ~100K (high usage).
Avg songs played at the same time: ~10K (daily avg).
Favorite song copies needed to be owned: ~1K
Avg. number of copies per song needed to be owned: 5 (maybe lower).
2M * 5 songs = 10M ~ 1M CDs ~ $20M inital layout.
10K songs played constaly for $0.05 per song. A song is 5 min long. That is 10K * $0.05 = $500 every 5 mins = $6K per hour = $144K per day.
Profitable in 139 days.
You do not own any songs, but you can play any at any time for 5c per song.
Consider it that a) you can lower the profit the comany makes to 1c per song, and still it is profitable in a year and a half.
Bad stuff:
- If you burn it to cd, you brake the law.
- Streaming is the only way.
- Only works with instant online connection.
- Fad songs lose money, as you need to own more copies for inital interest, after which there will be no more interest.
The ignorance of your reply is breathtaking.
1. mp3.com was not owned by people who were downloding copies.
2. $20/share inital outlay per person can be though of as joining the club. It does not even need to be publicly traded, and the price can be kept fixed.
3. Maybe the intention of the law is "would it replace a sale", however that is not the actual wording, otherwise all those poor souls who got hit by RIAA would use that as an easy defense. "But your honor, I would not have bought that CD I downloaded, it is a buch of crap!"
So in your words. My right to free speach is superseded by your right of owning gun. Maybe you should consider self-removal of public speaking on your own self first, before applying it to me.
Oops, I have forget about this defense comment.
I agree with you. Trigger lock disables the purpose of defense. But when you own 20 guns, how many will you be using for defense? 1. Lock the rest of it.
Cars anf guns are designed for different use, please discontinue using cars for your metaphors. Tx.
Please also note that right ALWAYS come with responsibilities. Your right to cast your vote freely, comes with the responsibility of the direction your government is going. Ie. if US commits international crimes, you as a citizen is responsible for it.
And here we agree.
"So if someone breaks into your house while you are on vacation, and does all this stuff you will consider yourself responsible?"
No you should be not responsible, you could not report it. However you should be forced to prove it in a court of law. No biggie.
"Regardless of what people want to believe, an individual can only go so far in securing his possesions. After that that fault SHOULD lie with the individual commiting the crime. Not the owners of the implements."
Totally agree. You can go so far, but you should be required to AS FAR. AFTER that you are exempt of your responsibilities.
"invalid assumptions that I am "unsafe and stupid"."
Well maybe these are not such an invalid assumptions if you can accept the use of "you" as a general reference. I am sure you (Nagatzhul) is the most exemplary gun owner, who follows due diligence on handling your gun(s).
However we cannot generalize, as the step dad of the 6 year old who shot his teacher did not exercise due diligence, when storing the loaded handgun under his lazy boy recliner. Nor the guy who supplied guns to the two disturbed teenagers at columbine. These are the "stupid" people I am afraid of. Not guns. These people should not have been allowedto touch a gun ever. And if you borrow your gun to your friend who goes on a shooting spree, you should be held responsible as well. It is your gun, take care of it.
Well what about dental floss? What about forks. and spoons. what about microvawes.
Which one is more deadly (defined as easier to kill people with, especially from a distance)
1) gun
2) dental floss
Which one has the sole purpose to hurt other people:
1) gun
2) car
And yes these are the only criteria to which these laws should be based on.
If I let my friend use my car, and he runs over 14 children I will be sued. I will lose. I will have my life ruined. Select your friends, and let them borrow your car only if needed.
If your car is stolen, it is your responsibility to report it stolen. Your cellpone as well (you can even get it cancelled, when you report it). This argument stands even more so for guns. If you don't know where your gun is, why do you have it the first place. Install trigger locks, and keep the key separately. Store them in locked cabinets, not under the sofa. Keep them out of reach of your kids, etc. This should be a mandatory curriculum for prospective gun owners.
With right comes responsibilities. You want one you get the other one. Simple.
It is your responsibility of locking up your guns, so that your kid does not take it to school and shoots the teacher. (Yes, this has happened)
It is your responsibility to report stolen firearms, after which you will be relived of your responsibility.
It is your responsibility to get trigger locks installed on your gun, and store them without bullets.
I am not opposed (nor frightened) you you owning and using a gun. But I am terribly oppesed to your lack of gun safety and really extremely frightened of stupid people with guns.
If you get a gun, educate yourself and know how to keep it safe. I would even support measures, where you would have to demonstrate such ability BEFORE you are allowed to own a gun.
But of course you should. If you demand the right to own a firearm, please note that it should come with very heavy penalties for letting it out of your control. You should be automatically found a compliance and be forced to stand trial along with your murderous buddy.
We don't need gun control, but we need to extend the circle of repsonsibility and impose severe punishements for gun mishanding. This would be a better way, me thinks.
My only explanation could be (assuming that the data is correct) is that in 1995 top 1% held 38% of welath, and in around 2000 or 2001 (when I assume the article was written) it dropped to top 5% holding 20%.
Mind it that in between there was the internet bubble, that made the top 20% more rich, and maybe the top 5% did not gain proportionally. Of cource it was all paper wealth, so we likely to be back to the 1995 state.
OK, so I go *MY* lazy ass together and plugged "wealth distribution" into google, lo and behold:
Median U.S. family income grew by 37 percent from 1949 to 1959, by 41 percent in the 1960s, but only by 6.8 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, with 97 percetn going to the top 20 percent of the families. in the late 1970s, the top one percent held 13 percent of the wealth; in 1995 it held 38 percent.
-- from here
Very disturbing that in the last 30 years the rich got about three times richer...
Here are my views:
Please note that I do not fit in any of your boxes correctly. Please accept my apologies for that.
Anyway, according the the "world smallest political quiz" at Libertarian Party:
Personal Issues
Yes Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
No Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet.
Yes Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
Yes Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
Yes People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose.
Economic Issues
Yes Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies.
Yes People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
No Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
No End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
Yes All foreign aid should be privately funded.
At this quiz I have scored 12. Where 0 means 100% liberal and 40 means 100% conservative. That makes me between the two Clintons.
At Political Compass I got placed very colse to Ghandi and Dalai Lama, exact oppisite of g.w.bush.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25 (left = -10, right = 10)
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62 (lib = -10, auth = 10)
Intel IS shipping south bridges with SATA built in. Not 100% exclusively, but some of their chipset already have it.
What a poorly researched article. It is way below EEtimes quality and should have never been published as it is.
1. "As opposed to longitudinal recording, where the bits are impressed in a parallel format along the surface of a disc, perpendicular recording stands the bits on end, enabling more data storage per square inch."
What does it stand the bits at the end? I have never seend a standing bit. Especially on the end of it. Now c'mon, it could have been described a little more "technically". This is not USA Today.
And "impressed in parellel format" is such a crap of a phrase. It is not impressed, nothing touches, no impression, it is MAGNETIC, god damn!
2. "Apple Computer Inc.'s new G5 computers are all SATA-based while Intel systems will by the end of this year be based on the new interface."
Now this is utter turd. Before even G5 was announced, and probably before Jobs had the brainfart to invent them, some of the high-end PC motherboard manufacturers were already churning out SATA equipped motherboards. It was in the Intel development road map for several years now. I remember reading about it on Tom's 2 years ago.
Mr. Bolaji Ojo (EBN), please do your homework. Do not just blair (as in Jayson) out an article. You do wipe your ass after takin a sh*t, don't you? I am just asking that you would apply the same attitude toward writing articles. Thank you for your future cooperation.
That is quite true. But even though $X - $Y wealth is getting concentrated, the rest of the 90% of the population is getting $Y more. It is true that about 10% of the population has lost the $X.
This however will give IBM $X-$Y extra profit, or an opportunity to lower prices $X-$Y in total to be more competitive.
Please also note that $T-$Y is still stays in the US. This potentially means that it can be taxed by this government.
Maybe wealth taxes are the way to go?
Or would that just make IBM incorporates in the Bahamas?