Because unless your processor is as fast or faster than the other guy you are not going to sell many
That was true in the past, but I'm not so sure it is true anymore. I think people are catching on to the fact that just about any processor you can buy these days has more than enough cycles available for any of the things most people do. Given that, people will probably start basing their decisions more on price and less on performance.
Your main claim to fame is that you ask no questions, move anything, and disavow all knowledge or responsiblity for what happens.
How is that any different from what FedEx does? If you mail a nuclear bomb via FedEx, and FedEx can show that they had no knowledge of what was in the package, the police are going to hold you responsible, not FedEx.
Maybe you've never used FedEx, but they don't search the packages they ship.
To this day, my dad doesn't let me have Admin privleges on our family PC, and i'm 20 years old and have am half way through a degree in ComputerTech at Purdue. I recieved A+, Novell, and Cisco certifications in highschool, have a job as a computer tech with an engineering firm, yet that still wont convince him I wont mess it up.
All that training and you still haven't been able to r00t the computer? C'mon... only when you can commandeer admin access will you deserve to have it.;^)
I don't want to rely on the cruncher to notice some other app needs CPU 2 seconds ago.
Assuming your OS has a decent scheduler (yeah yeah, it's Windows, I know...), the idle-priority task should be kicked off the CPU immediately as soon as a higher-priority task wakes up and is ready to run. So your delay should be more on the order of 2 microseconds than 2 seconds.
You haven't thought it through. IBM isn't stupid. They know that the more clients participate, the more successful their project will be. They also know which OS is installed on the majority of potential client PCs worldwide. So when it came time to decide which OS to write a client for first, they did the sensible thing.
The Linux client will arrive soon enough, just wait. (I'm waiting for the BeOS client, myself;^))
... we live in a country where you can hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers too, but I fail to see what that has to do with the ethics of the average person.
Let me paint 2 scenarios. Both involve a first date with a beautiful woman. In the first, you roll up in a rinky dink little shared car. In the second, you roll up in something slick that you own. Which scenario offers a better chance of getting lucky?
Neither, because for $2/hour extra you can roll up in a "premium" shared car, which is presumably less rinky-dink. And in any case, if your relationships are so infantile that your dates are decide whether or not to sleep with you based on your car, then I suggest saving your car/date money and spending it on hookers instead -- it'll cost about the same, and you'll be guaranteed to "get lucky".
I don't think that being as mobile as we are now is become a bad thing.
I think the main problem with it is that easy mobility encourages lots of casual moving about, which in turn requires lots of energy. Right now "lots of energy" is cheaply available due to the plant's vast supplies of fossil fuels, but it won't always be that way -- at some point in the future, our non-renewable natural resources will run dry, and we will be forced to subsist on only the energy that we are able to collect in "real time" from renewable sources. Using up lots of oil on relatively frivolous or wasteful transportation (i.e. 2 hour commutes, lots of recreational road trips, big heavy gas-guzzling cars, etc) moves that day closer.
Also, what's stopping you to distribute the Qt2 or Qt3 libraries with your program? Yes, it probably bloats the package, but the possibility is there.
For what it's worth, I just statically link the Qt library into my app, and it works well. True, it adds a few megabytes to the executable size, but anyone can just download the.zip file, unzip it, and run the app -- there are never any problems with missing or misplaced.dll or.so files, no DLL hell (i.e. library version mismatch problems), no installer scripts, no setting of load-paths necessary. I think the gain in simplicity and improved user-experience is worth the extra download size.
"Evolution would prefer humans to operate at optimal levels. Why then haven't we evolved to make use of this extra potential all of the time?" The answer can only be that there is a price.
That's not necessarily the whole answer.... it could be that until recently (evolutionarily speaking) there wasn't that much more to be gained by being a genius. If your whole life consists of foraging for grubs or subsistence farming, being too smart could even be quite a detriment (you'd be at risk of going crazy from boredom:^)). In the modern world, being smart can be a very big advantage, but of course it's going to take evolution a few hundred generations to catch up... so in the meantime we are stuck in the modern world while inhabiting bodies that are still optimized for the simple life....
Her response was always "Oriental is for rugs and food, not people.":)
Did she explain why? AFAICT the only thing wrong with that word is that it was used by benighted people in the benighted past.... but maybe I am missing something.
Yes. Did you? I can still charge for support and distribution, I just have to make the source available.
Actually, you don't even have to do that. Assuming you own the copyright to the code, you are free to do anything you want with it. It's only other people (who don't own the copyright and are licensing the code from you under the GPL) who are bound by the terms of the GPL.
There are no "appropriate substitutions" because humans are not programmed. We cannot look at the code we run.
Sure we can, at least in principle. What else is an MRI but a primitive debugger for brains?
No. Because humans are self aware and we don't run code.
What makes you think we don't run code, of a sort? Something has to be determining our decisions... whatever that process is, that is the 'program' that we are running. True, it was input in a different fashion (through learning and experience rather than on a disk), but that's a minor detail.
When a machine becomes self-aware, it has to be able to act outside of its programmed parameters or there is no way to determine whether it is self-aware or not.
The same applies to you and me. Are you able to "act outside your programmed parameters"? How do you know that you can? Any action you take could just be the action your programming told you to take anyway. The only real way to act outside your own volition (that I can think of) would be to faint, and I can't imagine that the ability to faint is a good indicator of self-awareness...:^)
A country where guns are banned, apparently. Why do you find that concept so difficult?
Re:It's you who are to blame-Soverign decisions.
on
Examining Bittorrent
·
· Score: 1
The trackers themselves contain no copyrighted material, just pointers to the shared file, just as a link to copyrighted material on a web page is not itself an infringement of copyright.
Didn't Napster use essentially this argument as their defense, and get their asses handed to them in court?
But this x86 lineage is exactly that, a terribly complicated backwards compatibility register/alu model. Face it, AMDs support to continue this funky software/processor architecture is just as bad for us.
This is true to a point, but for most of us software developers it doesn't really matter -- the dog's breakfast that is the x86 architecture is mostly hidden from us by our trusty compiler. As long as our software runs, and runs fast, we don't complain too loudly.
Contrast that with the Windows API, which many software developers have to interact with directly on a daily basis to get their work done. Things like Java and Qt aside, there often isn't any protective layer that can shield us from the complexities and ugliness of that!
We need to switch to a new CPU architecture though. The switch needs to be sooner than later. We need a clean, well thought out, and efficient design that scales well into the future. Hopefully it won't be anything like the ugly Intel register model.
I'd be happy with that... but then I'm also generally happy with what we have now. It doesn't matter too much to me whether my CPU is an elegant work of art or an ugly jalopy... as long as it is fast and reliable, and my vanilla C++ code will run on it.
In order to understand why NMD is so stupid, it helps to take a look at global strategy-making in the nuclear age. During the Cold War, the prevailng idea was deterrence based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (the acronyms just keep comin'!). That is, Russia had missiles and America had missiles, so if one launched an attack on the other, he knew that he himself would be wiped out by the retaliatory strike. Nobody wants to commit suicide, so nobody launches that first attack.
Now, with the emergence in the minds of many of America as the sole Superpower, we're out of MAD and into just AD: Assured Destruction. Anybody who attacks America with a missile will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Deterrence, it seems, has become total and one-sided; under these strategic conditions, who would possibly launch an attack of this kind that would require an NMD to shoot down? The stated bad guys are "rogue nations", by which we mean North Korea or Iraq before we took over or whoever gets on our shit list this week. These are nations, suposedly, run by out-of-control lunatics who could at any moment decide to obliterate themselves and their nation in a futile stab at the belly of the Beast, or something. The problem is that the people who run countries tend to have stakes in remaining alive, so the principle of AD means they're not gonna be launching any surprise attacks on us.
Now, there are some people out there who have demonstrated that they *are* willing to kill themselves in order to stab the Beast, those few thousands of people out there who actually fit the label "terrorists". They'd love to launch a missile attack if they could, but they don't run countries so they just don't have any nuclear missiles. If they had a nuke they could very well try to sneak it into a harbor on a boat or something, but there's not much a faulty system of anti-missile-missiles in Alaska is going to be able to do about that.
So why do we need a missile defense system to shoot down missiles nobody's gonna shoot at us? Because make no mistake, the Bushites are rushing the job on this. Incredibly, they're even suspending experimental and test requirements that are supposed to determine if these things actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running by, I think, 2005. They're desperate to deploy these systems, insisting on getting stuff that doesn't even work in place as soon as possible, just so they have something. Why? Part of it is simple Greed, of course. Those billions go into well-connected pockets and it's easy to keep the money tap flowing. But I think there's more than that; they really think they're going to need to be able to shoot down missiles somebody's fired at them. But where are those missiles gonna come from?
The stinky secret is that there *is*, in fact, a use for NMD in Bush's sick interpretation of the Assured Destruction world. By the principles of AD, nobody is going to launch a pre-emptive attack on America. Nation leaders have too much to lose and terrorists don't have them. So who would ever fire a nuclear missile at America? Why, somebody who'd already had a nuclear missile fired at them, of course. Deterrence will ensure that nobody launches an attack on you, but if you've already attacked them you can't really expect to deter them any more. The purpose of NMD is to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy or its allies. It's to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence.
Despite their ideological fixations and internal history-rewriting, the Bushites must be capable of understanding that America's conventional military is stretched rather thin at the moment. They're bogged down in Iraq, their soldiers are exhausted, and they just don't have a lot of conventional muscle to throw around right now. If something flares up and threatens their interests in a new l
A desperately poor country --emphasis on desperate--with militaristic ambitions and an absolute dictator who is obviously insane.... And we all know how bugfuck-nuts Castro is.
Why is every dictator that the US doesn't like considered insane? If they are insane, how are they successful at maintaining control of their country?
but if you have 100 women and 1 man you can create 100 offspring - and 1 happy man.
...actually you'll have 100 half-siblings, who won't be able to reproduce (effectively) with each other. (And of course, 100 offspring who all risk carrying on the same genetic defects that their father had)
Genetic diversity is the only saving grace for us non-alpha males:^)
Slashdot Mirror
That was true in the past, but I'm not so sure it is true anymore. I think people are catching on to the fact that just about any processor you can buy these days has more than enough cycles available for any of the things most people do. Given that, people will probably start basing their decisions more on price and less on performance.
How is that any different from what FedEx does? If you mail a nuclear bomb via FedEx, and FedEx can show that they had no knowledge of what was in the package, the police are going to hold you responsible, not FedEx.
Maybe you've never used FedEx, but they don't search the packages they ship.
He's not that understated -- he compares himself to Mozart in the article...
All that training and you still haven't been able to r00t the computer? C'mon... only when you can commandeer admin access will you deserve to have it.
That's okay, the kids will still get to see all the amazing tasks performed by the other floats.
Assuming your OS has a decent scheduler (yeah yeah, it's Windows, I know...), the idle-priority task should be kicked off the CPU immediately as soon as a higher-priority task wakes up and is ready to run. So your delay should be more on the order of 2 microseconds than 2 seconds.
You haven't thought it through. IBM isn't stupid. They know that the more clients participate, the more successful their project will be. They also know which OS is installed on the majority of potential client PCs worldwide. So when it came time to decide which OS to write a client for first, they did the sensible thing.
The Linux client will arrive soon enough, just wait. (I'm waiting for the BeOS client, myself
... we live in a country where you can hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers too, but I fail to see what that has to do with the ethics of the average person.
Neither, because for $2/hour extra you can roll up in a "premium" shared car, which is presumably less rinky-dink. And in any case, if your relationships are so infantile that your dates are decide whether or not to sleep with you based on your car, then I suggest saving your car/date money and spending it on hookers instead -- it'll cost about the same, and you'll be guaranteed to "get lucky".
I think the main problem with it is that easy mobility encourages lots of casual moving about, which in turn requires lots of energy. Right now "lots of energy" is cheaply available due to the plant's vast supplies of fossil fuels, but it won't always be that way -- at some point in the future, our non-renewable natural resources will run dry, and we will be forced to subsist on only the energy that we are able to collect in "real time" from renewable sources. Using up lots of oil on relatively frivolous or wasteful transportation (i.e. 2 hour commutes, lots of recreational road trips, big heavy gas-guzzling cars, etc) moves that day closer.
For what it's worth, I just statically link the Qt library into my app, and it works well. True, it adds a few megabytes to the executable size, but anyone can just download the
That's not necessarily the whole answer.... it could be that until recently (evolutionarily speaking) there wasn't that much more to be gained by being a genius. If your whole life consists of foraging for grubs or subsistence farming, being too smart could even be quite a detriment (you'd be at risk of going crazy from boredom
Did she explain why? AFAICT the only thing wrong with that word is that it was used by benighted people in the benighted past.... but maybe I am missing something.
Anyone who reads Slashdot regularly has no need to imagine it....
Just out of curiosity, are there any documented cases of people being harmed by eating genetically engineered foods?
Actually, you don't even have to do that. Assuming you own the copyright to the code, you are free to do anything you want with it. It's only other people (who don't own the copyright and are licensing the code from you under the GPL) who are bound by the terms of the GPL.
Sure we can, at least in principle. What else is an MRI but a primitive debugger for brains?
No. Because humans are self aware and we don't run code.
What makes you think we don't run code, of a sort? Something has to be determining our decisions... whatever that process is, that is the 'program' that we are running. True, it was input in a different fashion (through learning and experience rather than on a disk), but that's a minor detail.
When a machine becomes self-aware, it has to be able to act outside of its programmed parameters or there is no way to determine whether it is self-aware or not.
The same applies to you and me. Are you able to "act outside your programmed parameters"? How do you know that you can? Any action you take could just be the action your programming told you to take anyway. The only real way to act outside your own volition (that I can think of) would be to faint, and I can't imagine that the ability to faint is a good indicator of self-awareness...
You can probably also find "brain surgeons" willing to work for $2.20 per hour "on the open market". Any takers?
A country where guns are banned, apparently. Why do you find that concept so difficult?
Didn't Napster use essentially this argument as their defense, and get their asses handed to them in court?
This is true to a point, but for most of us software developers it doesn't really matter -- the dog's breakfast that is the x86 architecture is mostly hidden from us by our trusty compiler. As long as our software runs, and runs fast, we don't complain too loudly.
Contrast that with the Windows API, which many software developers have to interact with directly on a daily basis to get their work done. Things like Java and Qt aside, there often isn't any protective layer that can shield us from the complexities and ugliness of that!
We need to switch to a new CPU architecture though. The switch needs to be sooner than later. We need a clean, well thought out, and efficient design that scales well into the future. Hopefully it won't be anything like the ugly Intel register model.
I'd be happy with that... but then I'm also generally happy with what we have now. It doesn't matter too much to me whether my CPU is an elegant work of art or an ugly jalopy... as long as it is fast and reliable, and my vanilla C++ code will run on it.
In order to understand why NMD is so stupid, it helps to take a look at global strategy-making in the nuclear age. During the Cold War, the prevailng idea was deterrence based on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (the acronyms just keep comin'!). That is, Russia had missiles and America had missiles, so if one launched an attack on the other, he knew that he himself would be wiped out by the retaliatory strike. Nobody wants to commit suicide, so nobody launches that first attack.
Now, with the emergence in the minds of many of America as the sole Superpower, we're out of MAD and into just AD: Assured Destruction. Anybody who attacks America with a missile will be wiped off the face of the Earth. Deterrence, it seems, has become total and one-sided; under these strategic conditions, who would possibly launch an attack of this kind that would require an NMD to shoot down? The stated bad guys are "rogue nations", by which we mean North Korea or Iraq before we took over or whoever gets on our shit list this week. These are nations, suposedly, run by out-of-control lunatics who could at any moment decide to obliterate themselves and their nation in a futile stab at the belly of the Beast, or something. The problem is that the people who run countries tend to have stakes in remaining alive, so the principle of AD means they're not gonna be launching any surprise attacks on us.
Now, there are some people out there who have demonstrated that they *are* willing to kill themselves in order to stab the Beast, those few thousands of people out there who actually fit the label "terrorists". They'd love to launch a missile attack if they could, but they don't run countries so they just don't have any nuclear missiles. If they had a nuke they could very well try to sneak it into a harbor on a boat or something, but there's not much a faulty system of anti-missile-missiles in Alaska is going to be able to do about that.
So why do we need a missile defense system to shoot down missiles nobody's gonna shoot at us? Because make no mistake, the Bushites are rushing the job on this. Incredibly, they're even suspending experimental and test requirements that are supposed to determine if these things actually work in their haste to get some kind of system up and running by, I think, 2005. They're desperate to deploy these systems, insisting on getting stuff that doesn't even work in place as soon as possible, just so they have something. Why? Part of it is simple Greed, of course. Those billions go into well-connected pockets and it's easy to keep the money tap flowing. But I think there's more than that; they really think they're going to need to be able to shoot down missiles somebody's fired at them. But where are those missiles gonna come from?
The stinky secret is that there *is*, in fact, a use for NMD in Bush's sick interpretation of the Assured Destruction world. By the principles of AD, nobody is going to launch a pre-emptive attack on America. Nation leaders have too much to lose and terrorists don't have them. So who would ever fire a nuclear missile at America? Why, somebody who'd already had a nuclear missile fired at them, of course. Deterrence will ensure that nobody launches an attack on you, but if you've already attacked them you can't really expect to deter them any more. The purpose of NMD is to provide a shield, not from pre-emptive attack, but from retaliatory attack from an enemy or its allies. It's to preserve America's ability to use nuclear weapons without fear of consequence.
Despite their ideological fixations and internal history-rewriting, the Bushites must be capable of understanding that America's conventional military is stretched rather thin at the moment. They're bogged down in Iraq, their soldiers are exhausted, and they just don't have a lot of conventional muscle to throw around right now. If something flares up and threatens their interests in a new l
Why is every dictator that the US doesn't like considered insane? If they are insane, how are they successful at maintaining control of their country?
Genetic diversity is the only saving grace for us non-alpha males
Hm. Are these available in Soviet Russia?