Nice try, Toyota, but still just an expeisive toy.
Indeed -- no doubt that is why they aren't trying to sell it. They aren't stupid.
Main advantage is bragging rights for the politically correct (as they start another round of rotating blackouts by recharging these puppies right at the evening load peak and kick in the lower-efficiency natural-gas "peaking" generators at the utility, canceling the carbon footprint advantage they're claiming.)
There is no advantage to the politically correct, since they couldn't buy one even if they wanted to. But if and when plug-in hybrids do become common, don't you think people will be bright enough to put the charger on a timer, so that the cars charge during the hours of (otherwise) low power consumption? It's not like it's rocket science... hell, with a little more engineering, you could even have the cars connect to a central server at the power company and co-operatively schedule their charging periods to keep the power consumption roughly optimal. The problems you are so busy nay-saying over are quite readily solvable.
This is probably naive, but just for the sake of discussion, what if I do this?
Walk on down to my local Tesla dealership and buy myself a nice new electric roadster
Drive my new electric roadster down to Home Depot, and buy myself a beefy new portable Honda generator and a couple of rolls of duct tape
Now I have the best of both worlds.... if I'm going on a trip of less than 200 miles, I leave the generator at home and just drive the car. If I need to go more than 200 miles, I duct tape the generator to the back of the car (or put the generator on a trailer and tow it, if you don't like duct tape), and plug the generator into the car's recharge port. Presto! A home-brewed hybrid that doesn't even (usually) have to pay the weight penalty of carrying two energy sources around.
And the real question is.... why doesn't some car company do essentially the above, except properly?
I can see no reason why a network of iPhones (or Nokia or whoever's) couldn't be used as a sort of distributed, redundant computing platform, using their idle cycles (~99%) to work on small, distributed pieces of a problem.
I see a reason why not.... people want to maximize their phone's battery life. Having the phone constantly spinning its CPU would drain its batteries much more quickly than it would otherwise.
We have received your RMA, and while your iPhone appears to be 100% uncustomized, we have noted that 5 days ago the device was accepting connections on port 80, which is a violation of your warrany[...]
I guess that is where the "play stupid" part comes in, e.g. "What do you mean, 'accepting connections on port 80'? What's a 'port'?";^)
Can anybody hazard a guess as to how this exploit is done? As it says in the article... once you know what the value of the dangling pointer is, how do you (a) get your root-shell code into that address, and (b) get the target computer to start executing code at that address?
That's one of the reasons people hate the GPLv3. Any time someone says they don't like it, proponents suggest it's because they haven't read it. It's a mite insulting.
So people hate the license because of what the licence's proponents say? Shouldn't they channel their discontent at the proponents, instead of the license itself? If these people can't make that distinction, perhaps they aren't so bright after all.... and therefore, probably haven't read the license.;^)
It seems there are two common responses to our planet's increasing environmental problems:
Try to figure out ways to solve (or at least minimize) those problems, and try to implement the necessary changes as best you can
Do nothing, then rationalize your lack of effort by attempting to discredit those who are trying at every opportunity
I would suggest that if the environment is going to be saved from utter degradation by humans, it will be the people in the former group who will save it. The people in the latter group aren't doing anyone any good at all, they are only salving their own unsettled consciences by pretending that "really" nobody else is any better than they are.
So yes, you can always find some outlying example of an environmentalist doing something environmentally friendly, and then say that because of that, the environmental movement is a fraud and trying to save the environment is a waste of time. But that doesn't make it so; it only makes you an asshole.
I hope that the American forces and Allies would fix that. So why are they being bombed?
The American forces have not been effective in preventing violence in Iraq, and are now seen as just another faction in the civil war. It doesn't help that they occasionally play the role of "hoodedthugs" themselves.
Sorry, to go off and kill one another because of religion, tribal feuds or whatever is asinine.
Actually, I suspect the real reason different Iraqi factions are killing each other is because each is afraid that if they don't kill their rivals first, their rivals will sneak up and kill them later on. So they are taking pre-emptive action to try and remove the threat before they are attacked.
Which is, ironically, the exact same logic that the USA used when deciding to invade Iraq in the first place. So it's a bit rich to call the Iraqis stupid for using essentially the same logic that we used.
I think there is absolutely NO excuse for what the Iraqi people are doing to one another.
When hooded thugs have killed half of your family, see what you think then... will you wait and hope that they don't come back to kill the other half, or will you go out and try to neutralize the threat by killing them first?
I know. It's pathetic - they get a chance to live free at the expense of fine American lives and what do they do? Bring up centuries old animosities and pick up where they left off. Makes me wonder if they (and the rest of us) are not better off with the despots.
Yeah, those ingrates. The people whose countries we invade never appreciate the sacrifices we make for them.
Most of the compilers? It'd be great if you were more specific. In fact most of the compilers are very well supported by Boost.
If by "up to Boost's requirements", I had meant "correctly compiles correct code", then yes, I agree. However, what I meant by that was "gives helpful, user friendly errors in response to incorrect code"... which, as I understand it, most current C++ compilers are not advanced enough to do in conjunction with heavily templated code.
But how many percent of the users are developers ? And how many are die-hard gamers.
That's irrelevant. The question to ask is, what percent of users on this forum are developers and/or die-hard gamers? This is, after all, "news for nerds", not "news for average users".
BeOS had a lot of problems as well, for instance the OS was written in C++, which meant that when you wrote drivers, they had to be in C++.
This is incorrect -- kernel code under BeOS was written in C. It was possible to use C++ in BeOS kernel mode code if you knew what you were doing and what to avoid (e.g. exceptions) but it wasn't recommended.
If you wanted to write a decent userland app in BeOS, OTOH, C++ was your only real choice.
how is that a problem with boost rather than a crap compiler / linker implementation issue?
It's actually a problem for people who are required to use boost in conjunction with a compiler that isn't quite up to boost's requirements (i.e, most of the compilers out there). It doesn't really matter which software you point the finger of blame at, the problem is still there.
Funny how everyone wants to impeach Bush for doing things that Clinton got away with[...]
What a strange ethical logic you conservatives have. O.J. Simpson got away with murder (apparently), does that mean I am allowed to murder now also, and nobody can object because O.J. did it first?
For the party that is always yelling about "traditional values", and "strict constructionalism", you are starting to sound an awful lot like the moral relativists you like to condemn.
But why didn't he say anything BEFORE?! Same thing with Colin Powell and the Army generals. You should say something while you hold the office.
I agree, it's much more honorable and brave to speak out while you are still in office, rather than waiting until you have little left to lose anyway. That said, perhaps more people will do that now... for example here is an op-ed piece by a (non-retired) Department of Justice attorney speaking out about the unacceptable degradation of that department under the Bush administration. If enough people like this speak out at once, Bush can't possibly smear/fire/silence all of them. (err, can he?)
Qt is slow as molasses. We just failed the speed requirement for an uni project because Qt will easily eat 100% CPU if you have to log data into a table a few times a second (of course that's the reason we don't care, they wanted us to use Qt, they gotta live with the consequences).
I had a similar problem a few years ago when I was using a QTable to implement a system log window. It turns out the default/naive QTable object model is insufficient to do that sort of thing well. What you need to do is implement your own data-model object and have the QTable watch that instead. Once I did that, the log table was very fast, to the point that I haven't had to think about that issue since.
So? Why should I, or anybody, support their psychological issues
(a) Because you are a decent human being.
Or, if (a) isn't true, then because it is in your best own interest to do so. The price of not dealing with out country's problems is that we then have to live in a country whose problems just keep getting worse.
Consider it modern darwinism. Eliminate their genes that cannot handle their modern environment.
Consider that the whole point of human civilization is to spare people from "darwinism". If the only thing keeping people alive was their own resources, you'd probably be dead by now yourself.
Nothing (wires) needs to get in or out, whereas with a hard drive, unless you are powering by induction and have a wireless (radio or optical) way of transmitting data, you need wires to penetrate the envelope. *That* is where failure occurs
That seems like an easy enough problem to solve... sandwich the hard drive (and wires, etc) in between two or more envelopes. Same effect, no penetration.
Some examples: OS X. In ten years or so a fairly small team has taken BSD and turned it into what it is. In over 12 with Linux I still see many of the same issues and problems persist... why? Because Apple *focuses* their efforts and the entire project is properly managed and steered. Imagine with the same focus and direction what the huge amount of OSS talent could accomplish?
To be fair, Apple is able to do what it does because it can afford to throw bails of cash at the most talented people available to get them to do what it wants. Linux also has access to lots of talented people, but since there isn't much cash available to pay them, the Linux project(s) generally end up with very little leverage over what those people do.... they can either let those people hack at the things that interest them for free, or they can demand that the talented people work on what their 'focus' thinks is important.... and watch the talented people leave the project. It's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. (Perhaps companies like Novell can bring in the necessary funds to change this somewhat).
For some reason we're supposed to believe those simulations but not to believe this simulation?
Well, yeah.... those simulations have been tested by giving them historical data and seeing how their results "predict" what would happen next... then comparing their output to what actually did happen next. If the results differ, they refine the simulation some more and try again. Not foolproof by any means, but I don't think you can dismiss them out of hand, especially when many different (independently developed) simulations show similar results.
It would be very interesting to see what sort of tests they have made (or will make) on this simulator to test its accuracy.
There's no way a computer can predict the behavior of each person and there's no way we can collect the parameters that "define" the behavior of each person.
Perhaps it works like quantum mechanics... there is no way to predict the behavior of any given electron, but if you average enough together at once you find that in aggregate they follow the (mostly) rock-solid laws of classical physics. In other words, it might actually be much easier to predict the collective actions of millions of people than to predict the actions of any particular person.
In any case, I don't that country-by-country is the best level of granularity -- countries aren't that isolated or independent from each other anymore, so playing Risk might be unrealistic.;^)
Chance of desired outcome if media claims this system said chance of desired outcome was > 90%: 97.3%
A bit off topic perhaps, but Code 46 is a very good science fiction movie from 2003 that deals with (among other things) a society where the government has computer simulation software advanced enough to predict many things about the future, and the effects that has on its citizens' freedom and attitudes.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed -- no doubt that is why they aren't trying to sell it. They aren't stupid.
Main advantage is bragging rights for the politically correct (as they start another round of rotating blackouts by recharging these puppies right at the evening load peak and kick in the lower-efficiency natural-gas "peaking" generators at the utility, canceling the carbon footprint advantage they're claiming.)
There is no advantage to the politically correct, since they couldn't buy one even if they wanted to. But if and when plug-in hybrids do become common, don't you think people will be bright enough to put the charger on a timer, so that the cars charge during the hours of (otherwise) low power consumption? It's not like it's rocket science... hell, with a little more engineering, you could even have the cars connect to a central server at the power company and co-operatively schedule their charging periods to keep the power consumption roughly optimal. The problems you are so busy nay-saying over are quite readily solvable.
And the real question is.... why doesn't some car company do essentially the above, except properly?
I see a reason why not.... people want to maximize their phone's battery life. Having the phone constantly spinning its CPU would drain its batteries much more quickly than it would otherwise.
I guess that is where the "play stupid" part comes in, e.g. "What do you mean, 'accepting connections on port 80'? What's a 'port'?"
Can anybody hazard a guess as to how this exploit is done? As it says in the article... once you know what the value of the dangling pointer is, how do you (a) get your root-shell code into that address, and (b) get the target computer to start executing code at that address?
So people hate the license because of what the licence's proponents say? Shouldn't they channel their discontent at the proponents, instead of the license itself? If these people can't make that distinction, perhaps they aren't so bright after all.... and therefore, probably haven't read the license.
I would suggest that if the environment is going to be saved from utter degradation by humans, it will be the people in the former group who will save it. The people in the latter group aren't doing anyone any good at all, they are only salving their own unsettled consciences by pretending that "really" nobody else is any better than they are.
So yes, you can always find some outlying example of an environmentalist doing something environmentally friendly, and then say that because of that, the environmental movement is a fraud and trying to save the environment is a waste of time. But that doesn't make it so; it only makes you an asshole.
The American forces have not been effective in preventing violence in Iraq, and are now seen as just another faction in the civil war. It doesn't help that they occasionally play the role of "hooded thugs" themselves.
Actually, I suspect the real reason different Iraqi factions are killing each other is because each is afraid that if they don't kill their rivals first, their rivals will sneak up and kill them later on. So they are taking pre-emptive action to try and remove the threat before they are attacked.
Which is, ironically, the exact same logic that the USA used when deciding to invade Iraq in the first place. So it's a bit rich to call the Iraqis stupid for using essentially the same logic that we used.
I think there is absolutely NO excuse for what the Iraqi people are doing to one another.
When hooded thugs have killed half of your family, see what you think then... will you wait and hope that they don't come back to kill the other half, or will you go out and try to neutralize the threat by killing them first?
Yeah, those ingrates. The people whose countries we invade never appreciate the sacrifices we make for them.
If by "up to Boost's requirements", I had meant "correctly compiles correct code", then yes, I agree. However, what I meant by that was "gives helpful, user friendly errors in response to incorrect code"... which, as I understand it, most current C++ compilers are not advanced enough to do in conjunction with heavily templated code.
That's irrelevant. The question to ask is, what percent of users on this forum are developers and/or die-hard gamers? This is, after all, "news for nerds", not "news for average users".
This is incorrect -- kernel code under BeOS was written in C. It was possible to use C++ in BeOS kernel mode code if you knew what you were doing and what to avoid (e.g. exceptions) but it wasn't recommended.
If you wanted to write a decent userland app in BeOS, OTOH, C++ was your only real choice.
It's actually a problem for people who are required to use boost in conjunction with a compiler that isn't quite up to boost's requirements (i.e, most of the compilers out there). It doesn't really matter which software you point the finger of blame at, the problem is still there.
What a strange ethical logic you conservatives have. O.J. Simpson got away with murder (apparently), does that mean I am allowed to murder now also, and nobody can object because O.J. did it first?
For the party that is always yelling about "traditional values", and "strict constructionalism", you are starting to sound an awful lot like the moral relativists you like to condemn.
I agree, it's much more honorable and brave to speak out while you are still in office, rather than waiting until you have little left to lose anyway. That said, perhaps more people will do that now... for example here is an op-ed piece by a (non-retired) Department of Justice attorney speaking out about the unacceptable degradation of that department under the Bush administration. If enough people like this speak out at once, Bush can't possibly smear/fire/silence all of them. (err, can he?)
Global warming is false anyway, what is really happening is climate change, only fools and idiots (mostly liberals) don't know the difference anyway.
Okay, I'll bite.... what is the difference?
-Jeremi the foolish idiot liberal
I had a similar problem a few years ago when I was using a QTable to implement a system log window. It turns out the default/naive QTable object model is insufficient to do that sort of thing well. What you need to do is implement your own data-model object and have the QTable watch that instead. Once I did that, the log table was very fast, to the point that I haven't had to think about that issue since.
... where they don't charge you $30 to download the text-only version of the article.
(a) Because you are a decent human being.
Or, if (a) isn't true, then because it is in your best own interest to do so. The price of not dealing with out country's problems is that we then have to live in a country whose problems just keep getting worse.
Consider it modern darwinism. Eliminate their genes that cannot handle their modern environment.
Consider that the whole point of human civilization is to spare people from "darwinism". If the only thing keeping people alive was their own resources, you'd probably be dead by now yourself.
That seems like an easy enough problem to solve... sandwich the hard drive (and wires, etc) in between two or more envelopes. Same effect, no penetration.
To be fair, Apple is able to do what it does because it can afford to throw bails of cash at the most talented people available to get them to do what it wants. Linux also has access to lots of talented people, but since there isn't much cash available to pay them, the Linux project(s) generally end up with very little leverage over what those people do.... they can either let those people hack at the things that interest them for free, or they can demand that the talented people work on what their 'focus' thinks is important.... and watch the talented people leave the project. It's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. (Perhaps companies like Novell can bring in the necessary funds to change this somewhat).
Well, yeah.... those simulations have been tested by giving them historical data and seeing how their results "predict" what would happen next... then comparing their output to what actually did happen next. If the results differ, they refine the simulation some more and try again. Not foolproof by any means, but I don't think you can dismiss them out of hand, especially when many different (independently developed) simulations show similar results.
It would be very interesting to see what sort of tests they have made (or will make) on this simulator to test its accuracy.
There's no way a computer can predict the behavior of each person and there's no way we can collect the parameters that "define" the behavior of each person.
Perhaps it works like quantum mechanics... there is no way to predict the behavior of any given electron, but if you average enough together at once you find that in aggregate they follow the (mostly) rock-solid laws of classical physics. In other words, it might actually be much easier to predict the collective actions of millions of people than to predict the actions of any particular person.
In any case, I don't that country-by-country is the best level of granularity -- countries aren't that isolated or independent from each other anymore, so playing Risk might be unrealistic.
A bit off topic perhaps, but Code 46 is a very good science fiction movie from 2003 that deals with (among other things) a society where the government has computer simulation software advanced enough to predict many things about the future, and the effects that has on its citizens' freedom and attitudes.
I highly recommend it.
You heard it here first!