I beg to differ. X tried to be a design that supported both light weight and full fledged clients. In the end it always needs a full fledged client, but it doesn't make full use of it, because it hung on to the illusion of light weight terminals.
Look this is from another posting rated +5 Informative:
On the other hand, Linux is a very straightforward, unexceptional reimplementation of a standard, monolithic Unix kernel, which has become very popular more or less because it works, it is free, and it was there when people needed it. Its novelty is that it allowed for the first complete Free Unix-like system (while *BSD was still in legal limbo). Microsoft could take that kernel, and modify it to run Windows, and neither they, nor we (Linux users), would gain anything...Microsoft would get an operating system more or less like what they have now, except with a pesky kernel under a free-software license, and we would get another version of Windows, which might, with the installation of an X11 server and a raft of libraries, be able to run Linux software, not that anyone would want to.
NT disables interrupts for as long as 100 milliseconds at a time.
Until very recently, Linux disabled interrupts for the entire duration of the interrupt call, rather than doing so only during the critical sections of the interrupt call.
Saying: ``The state of the art is way ahead of this" about Linux is like saying the same thing about a recent BMW.
If Linux is so advanced, please list fifteen advanced features present in standard Linux in 2000 that were not already present in Unix/minix fifteen years ago.
This pressumes that the Linux kernel is in anyway superior to the WinNT kernel, which it isn't.
There are many reasons to be enthusiastic about Linux and the accomplishment of a group of volunteers assembling a Unix clone is remarkable.
However in our enthusiasm for OSS we should not lose sight that linux is a reimplementation of a 30 year old operating system (although admittedly a very good one, that has seem some updates along the way).
In other words, Linux is the open source implementation of a VW bug. The state of the art is way ahead of this (both in car and OS design).
Mach, the NT kernel, BeOS, AtheOS are examples of where an OS can be. The Apple UI shows what a decent toolkit and window manager ought to look like.
There is still much work to be done before linux is a state-of-the-art OS worth replacing the NT kernel.
If Nike's response is considered by the Califoria courts to be commercial speech (i.e. an advertisement designed to sell more goods), wouldn't the original accusations also be considered commercial speech?
They are not the same. Nike is selling me something, the other person is just expressing an opinion.
For example, if I'm about to buy a car, and you say: "in my opinion Fords can go for 60k mileswithout needing a repair", this is not commercial speech.
On the other hand if Ford tells me "our cars do not require repairs before 60k miles" that is an integral part of the transaction, and if untrue, they should be prosecuted for fraud.
That is the key difference. I'm entering into a commercial contract with one party but not the other.
So long as Ford is not describing one of their products, IMHO, they should be allowed to say whatever they wish aush as, for example, any political opinion they might wish to express, as a corporation.
I just wanted to add that the salary data is from a recent salary surveys showing that starting CS wages still come well above average as compared to other four-year degree professions.
Perhaps it is a regional thing. Which area do you observe from?
I'm actually reporting the experience of my friends and former co-workers all over the country as well as some of those friends who have control over hiring. They tell me that the super-high salaries from the dot coms are gone, but that anybody with a four-year degree in CS or equivalent industry experience can still land a job at above average wages, as compared to other disciplines which also require four-year degrees.
The opportunity to enter an already glutted job market.
Look, as long as CS/IT wages are above average there is no glut out there, much as you like to play the victim. This is simple economics.
Granted, times are not as good as they were a few years back when a DeVry dropout could make over $60-70K in a dot com, but the market for CS is still above average.
Get a degree in arts to see what a glut in the market really is (do you want fries with that?)....
On the other hand if computers were invented by men every time you had an error in a program you would get an obnoxious unhelpful message which is more a challenge (there's a bug in your code, fix it you dolt!) than an aid towards finding the error...
This is a GOOD thing, since it stops unnecessary promotion of types to expensive slow floats. It was done that way for a very good reason.
It is a good thing implemented the wrong way. If I told you that I have 1/2 million dollars in my pocket, you would expect that to be $500,000 not zero. Other languages dealt with this problem by using the math operator "div" for integer division.
Nike, saying it doesn't have sweatshops is neither libel, fraud, nor a falsehood.
If it is false and relevant to what their products are, then it is fraud. If you don't think lying by a corporation about what their products are is fraud, then I have a "diamond" ring for sale just for you.
I'll make you a deal: I'll reread the first amendment if you read up on libel and fraud as defined by law and fully consistent with the first amendment...
The first ammendment applies to opinions. Companies, on the other hand, offer commercial goods. If Phillip Morris states that cigarrettes do not cause cancer they are not expressing an opinion. They are describing the commercial good which they sell, and they should be held liable if the promise made is false.
Nike made a statement about the nature of the labor that produces their goods that is an integral part of the description of the nature and quality of their goods. If they lie about it they are not just freely expressing an opinion.
Surprisingly, it seems that the legal experts believe they *are* just expressing an opinion. A company can openly lie about the product they sell and that is AOk. If that is not orwellian 1984 I do not know what is.
Thanks. I do know why it is zero, according to C evaluation rules. My point is that the result is mathematically counterintuitive and hence potentially bug inducing.
The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit. "the last thing we need is a legal ruling making it official and unambiguously legal".
He also mentioned that in most other countries this would not be the case, but that "the US has one of the strongest personal property laws out there".
Here's something that is not stressed enough in school: the HFS is a database, with the fully qualified path name as unique ID and basic operations of update, delete, record lock, and retrieve supported across most operating systems.
Other query operations are supported such as wildcard characters and, in large OSes other than Unix, a variety of other attribute queries (a la "/usr/bin/find" but accessible from "ls").
Now the file table itself is a database, which can be readily implemented using a relational database. Microsoft NT an other OSes have had such support for quite a while now.
I'm glad to see the full relational database FS model starting to hit the mainstream. By this time researchers are looking into XML based File Systems (store metadata in XML-like syntax, support any XML query on the files).
Which brings us back to an often overlooked fact. Linux has, in general, not been at the leading edge of OS research (with the possible exception of the beowulf architecture). This is alright as for many years the goal of Linux was to reimplement Unix on the intel x386 architecture. However we must keep in mind that the really advanced OS features out there have yet to make it into Linux, things such as new environment metaphors, persistent data support, and intelligent user interactions.
everytime he comes up people who have heard of him have to bring up Cyberiada. Sigh.
This is like saying, why does everytime somebody talks about Allan Poe have to bring up "The Raven", sigh.
I've read three other books by Lem, and The Cyberiad stands out. Seemingly many other "westerners" feel the same way...
This reminds of the joke about the guy on the highway who hears a radio report: "traffic bulletin: a maniac is driving down the highway in the wrong direction" and the guy says "one? its more like hundreds!"
If that implementation of / strikes you as bad, you don't know a whole lot about processor design.
You missed the point. Sure, we need integer division in programming languages. Since we are going to have such operation we need a symbol for it. We can select the symbol "div" as many programming languages do (which matches math usage by the way) or we can choose to arbitrarily overload the well defined and standard meaning of '/' in a way that is bug prone. This is what makes 1/2*pi == 0 confusing.
If you see nothing confusing and bug inducing with C overloading of '/', I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no questions asked.
while it's confusing the first time you see it,
It is confusing a lot more often than just the first time. In fact quite a few people who have replied to my sig in/. give an incorrect explanation to why the value is zero.
Ask any designer of manual controls and they'll tell you, if a design choice is error prone then the design is subpar.
For 1/2 == 0 to make sense you had to unlearn everything you had ever learned about math since kindergarden until you were first introduced to a programming language. If that behaviour of "/" doesn't strike you as a poor design choice for a language I wonder what ever would...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't X.
I beg to differ. X tried to be a design that supported both light weight and full fledged clients. In the end it always needs a full fledged client, but it doesn't make full use of it, because it hung on to the illusion of light weight terminals.
Look this is from another posting rated +5 Informative:
On the other hand, Linux is a very straightforward, unexceptional reimplementation of a standard, monolithic Unix kernel, which has become very popular more or less because it works, it is free, and it was there when people needed it. Its novelty is that it allowed for the first complete Free Unix-like system (while *BSD was still in legal limbo). Microsoft could take that kernel, and modify it to run Windows, and neither they, nor we (Linux users), would gain anything...Microsoft would get an operating system more or less like what they have now, except with a pesky kernel under a free-software license, and we would get another version of Windows, which might, with the installation of an X11 server and a raft of libraries, be able to run Linux software, not that anyone would want to.
NT disables interrupts for as long as 100 milliseconds at a time.
Until very recently, Linux disabled interrupts for the entire duration of the interrupt call, rather than doing so only during the critical sections of the interrupt call.
Saying: ``The state of the art is way ahead of this" about Linux is like saying the same thing about a recent BMW.
If Linux is so advanced, please list fifteen advanced features present in standard Linux in 2000 that were not already present in Unix/minix fifteen years ago.
And here I was thinking that the goal of linux was to reimplement Unix on a PC as indicated by Linus from day one...
This pressumes that the Linux kernel is in anyway superior to the WinNT kernel, which it isn't.
There are many reasons to be enthusiastic about Linux and the accomplishment of a group of volunteers assembling a Unix clone is remarkable.
However in our enthusiasm for OSS we should not lose sight that linux is a reimplementation of a 30 year old operating system (although admittedly a very good one, that has seem some updates along the way).
In other words, Linux is the open source implementation of a VW bug. The state of the art is way ahead of this (both in car and OS design).
Mach, the NT kernel, BeOS, AtheOS are examples of where an OS can be. The Apple UI shows what a decent toolkit and window manager ought to look like.
There is still much work to be done before linux is a state-of-the-art OS worth replacing the NT kernel.
If Nike's response is considered by the Califoria courts to be commercial speech (i.e. an advertisement designed to sell more goods), wouldn't the original accusations also be considered commercial speech?
They are not the same. Nike is selling me something, the other person is just expressing an opinion.
For example, if I'm about to buy a car, and you say: "in my opinion Fords can go for 60k mileswithout needing a repair", this is not commercial speech.
On the other hand if Ford tells me "our cars do not require repairs before 60k miles" that is an integral part of the transaction, and if untrue, they should be prosecuted for fraud.
That is the key difference. I'm entering into a commercial contract with one party but not the other.
So long as Ford is not describing one of their products, IMHO, they should be allowed to say whatever they wish aush as, for example, any political opinion they might wish to express, as a corporation.
I just wanted to add that the salary data is from a recent salary surveys showing that starting CS wages still come well above average as compared to other four-year degree professions.
Perhaps it is a regional thing. Which area do you observe from?
I'm actually reporting the experience of my friends and former co-workers all over the country as well as some of those friends who have control over hiring. They tell me that the super-high salaries from the dot coms are gone, but that anybody with a four-year degree in CS or equivalent industry experience can still land a job at above average wages, as compared to other disciplines which also require four-year degrees.
If you don't think it is confusing when simply glanced over then I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no question asked.
The opportunity to enter an already glutted job market.
Look, as long as CS/IT wages are above average there is no glut out there, much as you like to play the victim. This is simple economics.
Granted, times are not as good as they were a few years back when a DeVry dropout could make over $60-70K in a dot com, but the market for CS is still above average.
Get a degree in arts to see what a glut in the market really is (do you want fries with that?)....
On the other hand if computers were invented by men every time you had an error in a program you would get an obnoxious unhelpful message which is more a challenge (there's a bug in your code, fix it you dolt!) than an aid towards finding the error...
Oh wait, never mind...
This is a GOOD thing, since it stops unnecessary promotion of types to expensive slow floats.
It was done that way for a very good reason.
It is a good thing implemented the wrong way. If I told you that I have 1/2 million dollars in my pocket, you would expect that to be $500,000 not zero. Other languages dealt with this problem by using the math operator "div" for integer division.
Nike, saying it doesn't have sweatshops is neither libel, fraud, nor a falsehood.
If it is false and relevant to what their products are, then it is fraud. If you don't think lying by a corporation about what their products are is fraud, then I have a "diamond" ring for sale just for you.
Since "sweatshop" is a completely meaningless, derogatory term, Nike is being honest when they say they don't have any-- even if liberals say they do.
Somebody please moderate down the parent.
What is at stake is not whether Nike lied or not. It is whether Nike is allowed to lie, under first amendment protections.
This whole shebang about liberals is an irrelevant strawman...
Read the first amendment sometime, why don't you!
I'll make you a deal: I'll reread the first amendment if you read up on libel and fraud as defined by law and fully consistent with the first amendment...
funny, you're as pathetic as the other AC since you're posting as a sad AC as well.
what? you can't figure who I am?
The first ammendment applies to opinions. Companies, on the other hand, offer commercial goods. If Phillip Morris states that cigarrettes do not cause cancer they are not expressing an opinion. They are describing the commercial good which they sell, and they should be held liable if the promise made is false.
Nike made a statement about the nature of the labor that produces their goods that is an integral part of the description of the nature and quality of their goods. If they lie about it they are not just freely expressing an opinion.
Surprisingly, it seems that the legal experts believe they *are* just expressing an opinion. A company can openly lie about the product they sell and that is AOk. If that is not orwellian 1984 I do not know what is.
Thanks. I do know why it is zero, according to C evaluation rules. My point is that the result is mathematically counterintuitive and hence potentially bug inducing.
Call me weird, but I'll take the publisher's executive word over you comments, in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary....
The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit. "the last thing we need is a legal ruling making it official and unambiguously legal".
He also mentioned that in most other countries this would not be the case, but that "the US has one of the strongest personal property laws out there".
Here's something that is not stressed enough in school: the HFS is a database, with the fully qualified path name as unique ID and basic operations of update, delete, record lock, and retrieve supported across most operating systems.
Other query operations are supported such as wildcard characters and, in large OSes other than Unix, a variety of other attribute queries (a la "/usr/bin/find" but accessible from "ls").
Now the file table itself is a database, which can be readily implemented using a relational database. Microsoft NT an other OSes have had such support for quite a while now.
I'm glad to see the full relational database FS model starting to hit the mainstream. By this time researchers are looking into XML based File Systems (store metadata in XML-like syntax, support any XML query on the files).
Which brings us back to an often overlooked fact. Linux has, in general, not been at the leading edge of OS research (with the possible exception of the beowulf architecture). This is alright as for many years the goal of Linux was to reimplement Unix on the intel x386 architecture. However we must keep in mind that the really advanced OS features out there have yet to make it into Linux, things such as new environment metaphors, persistent data support, and intelligent user interactions.
everytime he comes up people who have heard of him have to bring up Cyberiada. Sigh.
This is like saying, why does everytime somebody talks about Allan Poe have to bring up "The Raven", sigh.
I've read three other books by Lem, and The Cyberiad stands out. Seemingly many other "westerners" feel the same way...
This reminds of the joke about the guy on the highway who hears a radio report: "traffic bulletin: a maniac is driving down the highway in the wrong direction" and the guy says "one? its more like hundreds!"
If that implementation of / strikes you as bad, you don't know a whole lot about processor design.
/. give an incorrect explanation to why the value is zero.
You missed the point. Sure, we need integer division in programming languages. Since we are going to have such operation we need a symbol for it. We can select the symbol "div" as many programming languages do (which matches math usage by the way) or we can choose to arbitrarily overload the well defined and standard meaning of '/' in a way that is bug prone. This is what makes 1/2*pi == 0 confusing.
If you see nothing confusing and bug inducing with C overloading of '/', I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no questions asked.
while it's confusing the first time you see it,
It is confusing a lot more often than just the first time. In fact quite a few people who have replied to my sig in
Ask any designer of manual controls and they'll tell you, if a design choice is error prone then the design is subpar.
For 1/2 == 0 to make sense you had to unlearn everything you had ever learned about math since kindergarden until you were first introduced to a programming language. If that behaviour of "/" doesn't strike you as a poor design choice for a language I wonder what ever would...