I prefer the female wetware socket... it fits well and it is an international standard. Although at times care and cleaning may be required when it's reverse gets used. Also note that the third socket contains dangers such as exposed bones yet does offer effective release of energy transfer and is highly rated. Overall three potent sockets in one package. Of course if you're bent the other way you only get two sockets to work with and reportedly they are just as highly rated. Enjoy your sockets and prongs responsibly and remember to always protect your prong and sockets using the appropriate wrapper.
Well any calculation of how much time and therefor how much money has been spent in research and development for accurate time systems or systems with failed time systems must itself rely upon an accurate count of time and given that the Patriot system failed in this regard and failed worse and worse as time went marching forward it's likely and probable that any such calculations won't be accurate and will be less accurate as time goes on as it always seems to.
As for a quality product, it's no worse than Windows, simply reboot it in the lulls between missile launches and it'll be more accurate.
You'll have to pry my suv & pets from my cold dead hand you damn dirty stinking extreme environ-MENTAL-ist human!
First off it's just a means for the author to get sales for his works of fiction, for fiction it will surely turn out to be.
Actually I have a van but still...
They hypothesis of global warming was renamed climate change since the counter evidence kept pointing out too many flaws in AGW. "You are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts". The facts of AGW simply don't support their hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis put up against AGW is that it's simply Nature at work and that has yet to be proven wrong by anything from the AGW camp while the keystones of the AGW hypothesis are regularly falsified. The more I look into the details of the AGW hypothesis claims the less it seems plausible or possible position to hold.
Save our pets from the maws and jaws of the AGW Pet Eating Hordes! They're pet eating zombies! What's next? Soylent Green is People as a means of saving the Earth from our own AGW mythology?
In a hundred years people will wonder how primitive and gullible we were to accept the intentionally exaggerated claims of AGW folks (like Al Exaggeration is Needed to Get Action Gore, hockey stick reprimanded by his peers Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen of GISS Nasa who failed in his forecasts of 20 years ago that NYC would be underwater by now, the IPCC and many others).
I prefer to review the actual factual evidence and come to reasonable supportable conclusions.
The Obombinator has mass murdered innocents including many children with his terminator death predator drones dropping bombs from the skies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, those children and other innocents are resting peacefully rotting in their freshly dug graves. It's appropriate that the Obombinator receives the Nobel Peaceful Death Prize which was created by a notorious Arms Merchant of Death who invented and then sold his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) across the world powered by dynamite. Very appropriate that the Obombinator wins a prize funded off of blood money. A blood money prize for a mass murderer committing crimes against humanity.
There is no center of the Universe as the big bang too place every where! Now wrap your head around that ache. Before the big bang the universe didn't exist and there was no space nor time. Actually it makes little sense to talk about a before since time didn't exist. Then the big bang existed at the moment that time and space began... and rapidly expanded space itself till today where that singularity is now the entire universe.
Or so the Big Bang Hypothesis, er mythology, with some evidence goes to say. Now of course there are other variants on this but this is a summary of the major bits of the mainstream view. Corrections welcome.
Hyperdrive is FTL. 1/2 Impulse is 1/2 the speed of light. Every treker, trekie, star trek fan, watcher of star trek,..., knows that! Dah!
"The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific momentum, an effect that is analogous to the elastic collision of a heavy mass with a much lighter, stationary mass, from which the lighter mass rebounds with about twice the speed of the heavy mass."
How does one get a mass stationary anyhow? Just try and make a mass stationary in this Universe. What is zero velocity? With respect to what? Heck even space is "growing" so even if one is stationary space is growing around and in you and thus you're moving. The stars and even the galaxy are moving and rotating pulling all those stationary objects around. Just a question. Is it even possible to ever be stationary?
"If the US detonated some new bomb that removed all human life within Russian borders, down to 500 miles underground, this system wouldn't be able to launch because the guy with his finger on the button would have been vaporized."
If that happened the Earth would be leaving orbit of the sun Sol for a voyage through the galaxy much like the moon did in Space 1999. Although on the other Dead Hand, one could imagine such a blast down to 500 miles underground might actually fracture the Earth into tiny itty bitty pieces in the resulting great big Kaboom! Either way it matters not who wins as we'll all freeze to death once the Earth leaves the Goldilocks Zone or get's smacked into bits.
In the former case those countries with successful Mine Shaft Gap programs might survive the journey through space! Think of all the adventures? Maybe the moon will even come with us or maybe it was above the former Soviet Union when the blast happened and it was obliterated by the resulting back wash of the jet of debris leaving Earth.
Either way... bring it on....!!! Oh, wait, no not supposed to say that... either way it's a good thing it's not happened. Dead Hand stop trying to salute the Führer. Ahem. Decorum restored. [:)]
When I was consulting at a very large Wall Street bank SUN offered to buy out all the NeXT computers and replace them with SUN machines (sparc 5's mostly). For a while we had both on our desks. One of the brand new SUN workstations caught fire and shot a six in flame out it's side scorching the NeXTstation next to it!!! Yes a mark was left.
I actually wasn't aware of the irrelevant detail that GCD can work just with function pointers independent of blocks. Apple advertises it as requiring blocks. Some of their literature says so. Regardless it's irrelevant since blocks can be used without any state being passed in which is the same as functions without any state being passed in.
Ok, so we're talking cross purposes. No straw man intended. Apple does claim they invented a great way of doing concurrency to take advantage of multi-cores and GPGPUs. I wouldn't be surprised if patents were or are to be filed.
No I wasn't claiming that apple invented closures, concurrency, thread pooling, or anything of the like. They claim to have invented the whole package known as GCD and that it's the new silver bullet solving all problems with concurrency. That's the problem. Some just don't get it, some programmers that is! I've argued with them on the phone about it in fact, people who should accept a logical argument and a factual description of the darn GCD thingi. But nope, they thought it's much more because of the Apple propaganda. Many in the/. comment thread for the posted story are doing the same. I'm simply being mr objective reality on the horrors of concurrency lurking around the corner for them. GCD isn't new, the patter is OLD! That was another point. Blocks in C are fantastic! That's a minor point but really important one.
In "C" blocks might have that distinction and limitation... but not in a fully Block Oriented Language where methods aka functions are unified with blocks.
Functions also live beyond the life time of the enclosing scope, albeit in a different way, even in C. You have a pointer to the function and can activate it anytime.
A function on a queue can easily access state stored in global or other scoped variables so it can access state. While this violates encapsulation that hasn't stopped the C programmers programs that I've had the misfortune of reading and fixing.
Sure blocks have some attributes that C functions don't have. That isn't the point. I repeat, that isn't the point.
The point is that GCD isn't really doing anything more than having chunks of code, either in a function (as was helpfully pointed out for completeness) or in a block context, run in various queues sharing threads that have already been started (usually) by the GCD manager code goo. GCD doesn't provide anything but the most simplistic concurrency controls, and it's worse in that Apple markets it as the new panacea silver bullet for solving concurrency problems magically.
I'm simply cautioning people that it's not the silver bullet as advertised nor is it a particularly good or safe way to manage anything more than the simplistic cases of concurrency controls. All the complexities are there waiting to pounce upon you and your unsuspecting hoards of objective-c programmers. This is an observation derived working with a much more powerful language and a very similar concurrency control mechanism.
"Actually, GCD from the programmers point of view is callbacks. For every function foo() in the GCD API that takes a block, there is a corresponding foo_f() that takes an ordinary function pointer. One can use blocks without using GCD. One can use GCD without using blocks."
Actually, GCD from the programmers point of view is Block Contexts with callbacks as a mere detail. Every function call IS a block context, or method context, or function context since they are simply the largest context unit of code that is permitted in C. One can use blocks without using GCD. One CANNOT use GCD without using block contexts in it's various forms.
No I don't seem to be thinking just that. I am aware of their shared thread pool concept. It's irrelevant other than as a time optimization benefit.
GCD from the programmers point of view within their application IS BLOCKS! That's how I approach it as I have in Smalltalk for decades. It's trivial to create the thread pool solution that Apple came up with (once I've examined their source I'll be able to confirm that for sure), at least it would be in Smalltalk.
The challenge IS managing your objects and types in your program so that they don't end up with all the nasty problems that happen with non-trivial concurrency cases.
For things like graphics it's likely there is no overlap of the data or the data is all read only anyhow since core graphics creates new bitmaps so this will work great with GPGPUs and multi-cores. The problem is business logic that is twisted and complicated as it usually is. The problem is control logic and avoiding deadlocks or live locks or a whole host of other things.
My main problem is the ga ga life is awesome and GCD taking on the Steve Jobs reality distortion field when the facts are much more sobering to behold.
So sure GCD is nice because it's done by the OS vendor mostly as long as you're doing simple stuff then you'll need a bit more of a concurrency education and hopefully not the hard way.
Systems like GCD from apple have been around for quite some time.
IBM Visual Age Smalltalk has had something like GCD for at least a decade. Smalltalk has had blocks since 1972.
"When I first heard about Grand Central Dispatch, I was extremely skeptical. The greatest minds in computer science have been working for decades on the problem of how best to extract parallelism from computing workloads. Now here was Apple apparently promising to solve this problem. Ridiculous."
Yes, ridiculous since Apple didn't invent it nor did they point out to you all the pit falls of using it. Remember they are a marketing organization and all their publicaly available materials paint a happy wonderful veneer on it.
The truth is that concurrency control is difficult and concurrency control via something like GCD is just as difficult and avoids none of the real serious problems.
I spent a year and a half debugging an in house application for a very large fortune 500 company that made use of this sort of capability for dispatching parallel work. Much of that time was tracking down problems in block oriented concurrency in a very large code base. Programmers assumed that what they were doing was safe but in the end those assumptions often turned out wrong. Data being changed by multiple threads is a serious problem. Locks are needed to avoid data corruption in many cases. That's just one example. Very nasty situations developed that required some very smart people to figure out and find solutions for, and we had a team of the very best. Eventually we identified the issues and found solutions. It took eight experienced developers over a year focused on fixing bugs that were derived from naive application of block oriented parallelism.
Look, if all you have are very simple cases you're home free with GCD. That is nothing new of course as it is with any concurrency. The challenge comes in when your code base grows, changes and your simple cases are no longer simple. The assumptions change.
So learn to use GCD wisely, it's not a magic silver bullet like it's being made out to be by Apple's marketing department. Oh and remember that C isn't as powerful a IDE as Smalltalk so you'll have your work cut out for you debugging any serious concurrency issues in your applications that use GCD, especially if they are huge applications.
I do welcome blocks to C, finally some expressive power that Smalltalk has had since 1972!
ok, so what, I look like a twat... big fucken deal dude... I didn't know an obscure detailed aspect of slashdot that is entirely irrelevant... and stupid too...
Oh, didn't know that if it's true. If it is I stand corrected and withdraw my earlier comment. Oh wait, I can't do that either. Man is SlashDot limited or what?
[META]Whomever marked it as "offtopic" is a doltish doonad and needs a brain upgrade not to mention a sense of humor, irony and some common sense![/META]
Well such a service would be violating the copyrights of all the authors of the software that is contained in their database. As such the service would be open to many copyright lawsuits not to mention the "hey our software's not malware, it's special feature ware" slander lawsuits. The Virus Makers would have a new source of income!
Breaking the law to stop those that break the law. Typical double standards set by those who thing they are doing good in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer the female wetware socket... it fits well and it is an international standard. Although at times care and cleaning may be required when it's reverse gets used. Also note that the third socket contains dangers such as exposed bones yet does offer effective release of energy transfer and is highly rated. Overall three potent sockets in one package. Of course if you're bent the other way you only get two sockets to work with and reportedly they are just as highly rated. Enjoy your sockets and prongs responsibly and remember to always protect your prong and sockets using the appropriate wrapper.
Well any calculation of how much time and therefor how much money has been spent in research and development for accurate time systems or systems with failed time systems must itself rely upon an accurate count of time and given that the Patriot system failed in this regard and failed worse and worse as time went marching forward it's likely and probable that any such calculations won't be accurate and will be less accurate as time goes on as it always seems to.
As for a quality product, it's no worse than Windows, simply reboot it in the lulls between missile launches and it'll be more accurate.
[:)]
You'll have to pry my suv & pets from my cold dead hand you damn dirty stinking extreme environ-MENTAL-ist human!
First off it's just a means for the author to get sales for his works of fiction, for fiction it will surely turn out to be.
Actually I have a van but still...
They hypothesis of global warming was renamed climate change since the counter evidence kept pointing out too many flaws in AGW. "You are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts". The facts of AGW simply don't support their hypothesis. The Null Hypothesis put up against AGW is that it's simply Nature at work and that has yet to be proven wrong by anything from the AGW camp while the keystones of the AGW hypothesis are regularly falsified. The more I look into the details of the AGW hypothesis claims the less it seems plausible or possible position to hold.
Save our pets from the maws and jaws of the AGW Pet Eating Hordes! They're pet eating zombies! What's next? Soylent Green is People as a means of saving the Earth from our own AGW mythology?
In a hundred years people will wonder how primitive and gullible we were to accept the intentionally exaggerated claims of AGW folks (like Al Exaggeration is Needed to Get Action Gore, hockey stick reprimanded by his peers Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen of GISS Nasa who failed in his forecasts of 20 years ago that NYC would be underwater by now, the IPCC and many others).
I prefer to review the actual factual evidence and come to reasonable supportable conclusions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/bob-carter-with-a-down-under-view-of-climate-science
Don't want a virus, it's simple, stop whining.
Eugene Kaspersky sure picked a nice and easy way for tons of people to hate him and his Big Brother Utopian Dreams!
Arrest him Eugene Kaspersky and charge him with attempting to implement a Big Brother Control System!
Eugene Kaspersky = MCP!
Ha ha!
This patent is absurd.
Ok, let's collect up the prior art and kill this patent in it's tracks.
The Obombinator has mass murdered innocents including many children with his terminator death predator drones dropping bombs from the skies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yes, those children and other innocents are resting peacefully rotting in their freshly dug graves. It's appropriate that the Obombinator receives the Nobel Peaceful Death Prize which was created by a notorious Arms Merchant of Death who invented and then sold his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) across the world powered by dynamite. Very appropriate that the Obombinator wins a prize funded off of blood money. A blood money prize for a mass murderer committing crimes against humanity.
Yeah, splitting is what it is...
There is no center of the Universe as the big bang too place every where! Now wrap your head around that ache. Before the big bang the universe didn't exist and there was no space nor time. Actually it makes little sense to talk about a before since time didn't exist. Then the big bang existed at the moment that time and space began... and rapidly expanded space itself till today where that singularity is now the entire universe.
Or so the Big Bang Hypothesis, er mythology, with some evidence goes to say. Now of course there are other variants on this but this is a summary of the major bits of the mainstream view. Corrections welcome.
Hyperdrive is FTL. 1/2 Impulse is 1/2 the speed of light. Every treker, trekie, star trek fan, watcher of star trek, ..., knows that! Dah!
"The idea is that the repulsion allows the relativistic particle to deliver a specific impulse that is greater than its specific momentum, an effect that is analogous to the elastic collision of a heavy mass with a much lighter, stationary mass, from which the lighter mass rebounds with about twice the speed of the heavy mass."
How does one get a mass stationary anyhow? Just try and make a mass stationary in this Universe. What is zero velocity? With respect to what? Heck even space is "growing" so even if one is stationary space is growing around and in you and thus you're moving. The stars and even the galaxy are moving and rotating pulling all those stationary objects around. Just a question. Is it even possible to ever be stationary?
Very cool case. I wonder if it can take four NVidia Cards?
Yes, the Time Tunnel project has begun!
... bright light... bright light...
"If the US detonated some new bomb that removed all human life within Russian borders, down to 500 miles underground, this system wouldn't be able to launch because the guy with his finger on the button would have been vaporized."
If that happened the Earth would be leaving orbit of the sun Sol for a voyage through the galaxy much like the moon did in Space 1999. Although on the other Dead Hand, one could imagine such a blast down to 500 miles underground might actually fracture the Earth into tiny itty bitty pieces in the resulting great big Kaboom! Either way it matters not who wins as we'll all freeze to death once the Earth leaves the Goldilocks Zone or get's smacked into bits.
In the former case those countries with successful Mine Shaft Gap programs might survive the journey through space! Think of all the adventures? Maybe the moon will even come with us or maybe it was above the former Soviet Union when the blast happened and it was obliterated by the resulting back wash of the jet of debris leaving Earth.
Either way... bring it on....!!! Oh, wait, no not supposed to say that... either way it's a good thing it's not happened. Dead Hand stop trying to salute the Führer. Ahem. Decorum restored. [:)]
Sun's own dirty tactics are used against them.
When I was consulting at a very large Wall Street bank SUN offered to buy out all the NeXT computers and replace them with SUN machines (sparc 5's mostly). For a while we had both on our desks. One of the brand new SUN workstations caught fire and shot a six in flame out it's side scorching the NeXTstation next to it!!! Yes a mark was left.
So as the Sun sets life repeats itself.
I actually wasn't aware of the irrelevant detail that GCD can work just with function pointers independent of blocks. Apple advertises it as requiring blocks. Some of their literature says so. Regardless it's irrelevant since blocks can be used without any state being passed in which is the same as functions without any state being passed in.
Ok, so we're talking cross purposes. No straw man intended. Apple does claim they invented a great way of doing concurrency to take advantage of multi-cores and GPGPUs. I wouldn't be surprised if patents were or are to be filed.
No I wasn't claiming that apple invented closures, concurrency, thread pooling, or anything of the like. They claim to have invented the whole package known as GCD and that it's the new silver bullet solving all problems with concurrency. That's the problem. Some just don't get it, some programmers that is! I've argued with them on the phone about it in fact, people who should accept a logical argument and a factual description of the darn GCD thingi. But nope, they thought it's much more because of the Apple propaganda. Many in the /. comment thread for the posted story are doing the same. I'm simply being mr objective reality on the horrors of concurrency lurking around the corner for them. GCD isn't new, the patter is OLD! That was another point. Blocks in C are fantastic! That's a minor point but really important one.
In "C" blocks might have that distinction and limitation... but not in a fully Block Oriented Language where methods aka functions are unified with blocks.
Functions also live beyond the life time of the enclosing scope, albeit in a different way, even in C. You have a pointer to the function and can activate it anytime.
A function on a queue can easily access state stored in global or other scoped variables so it can access state. While this violates encapsulation that hasn't stopped the C programmers programs that I've had the misfortune of reading and fixing.
Sure blocks have some attributes that C functions don't have. That isn't the point. I repeat, that isn't the point.
The point is that GCD isn't really doing anything more than having chunks of code, either in a function (as was helpfully pointed out for completeness) or in a block context, run in various queues sharing threads that have already been started (usually) by the GCD manager code goo. GCD doesn't provide anything but the most simplistic concurrency controls, and it's worse in that Apple markets it as the new panacea silver bullet for solving concurrency problems magically.
I'm simply cautioning people that it's not the silver bullet as advertised nor is it a particularly good or safe way to manage anything more than the simplistic cases of concurrency controls. All the complexities are there waiting to pounce upon you and your unsuspecting hoards of objective-c programmers. This is an observation derived working with a much more powerful language and a very similar concurrency control mechanism.
"Actually, GCD from the programmers point of view is callbacks. For every function foo() in the GCD API that takes a block, there is a corresponding foo_f() that takes an ordinary function pointer. One can use blocks without using GCD. One can use GCD without using blocks."
Actually, GCD from the programmers point of view is Block Contexts with callbacks as a mere detail. Every function call IS a block context, or method context, or function context since they are simply the largest context unit of code that is permitted in C. One can use blocks without using GCD. One CANNOT use GCD without using block contexts in it's various forms.
[:|]
No I don't seem to be thinking just that. I am aware of their shared thread pool concept. It's irrelevant other than as a time optimization benefit.
GCD from the programmers point of view within their application IS BLOCKS! That's how I approach it as I have in Smalltalk for decades. It's trivial to create the thread pool solution that Apple came up with (once I've examined their source I'll be able to confirm that for sure), at least it would be in Smalltalk.
The challenge IS managing your objects and types in your program so that they don't end up with all the nasty problems that happen with non-trivial concurrency cases.
For things like graphics it's likely there is no overlap of the data or the data is all read only anyhow since core graphics creates new bitmaps so this will work great with GPGPUs and multi-cores. The problem is business logic that is twisted and complicated as it usually is. The problem is control logic and avoiding deadlocks or live locks or a whole host of other things.
My main problem is the ga ga life is awesome and GCD taking on the Steve Jobs reality distortion field when the facts are much more sobering to behold.
So sure GCD is nice because it's done by the OS vendor mostly as long as you're doing simple stuff then you'll need a bit more of a concurrency education and hopefully not the hard way.
Systems like GCD from apple have been around for quite some time.
IBM Visual Age Smalltalk has had something like GCD for at least a decade. Smalltalk has had blocks since 1972.
"When I first heard about Grand Central Dispatch, I was extremely skeptical. The greatest minds in computer science have been working for decades on the problem of how best to extract parallelism from computing workloads. Now here was Apple apparently promising to solve this problem. Ridiculous."
Yes, ridiculous since Apple didn't invent it nor did they point out to you all the pit falls of using it. Remember they are a marketing organization and all their publicaly available materials paint a happy wonderful veneer on it.
The truth is that concurrency control is difficult and concurrency control via something like GCD is just as difficult and avoids none of the real serious problems.
I spent a year and a half debugging an in house application for a very large fortune 500 company that made use of this sort of capability for dispatching parallel work. Much of that time was tracking down problems in block oriented concurrency in a very large code base. Programmers assumed that what they were doing was safe but in the end those assumptions often turned out wrong. Data being changed by multiple threads is a serious problem. Locks are needed to avoid data corruption in many cases. That's just one example. Very nasty situations developed that required some very smart people to figure out and find solutions for, and we had a team of the very best. Eventually we identified the issues and found solutions. It took eight experienced developers over a year focused on fixing bugs that were derived from naive application of block oriented parallelism.
Look, if all you have are very simple cases you're home free with GCD. That is nothing new of course as it is with any concurrency. The challenge comes in when your code base grows, changes and your simple cases are no longer simple. The assumptions change.
So learn to use GCD wisely, it's not a magic silver bullet like it's being made out to be by Apple's marketing department. Oh and remember that C isn't as powerful a IDE as Smalltalk so you'll have your work cut out for you debugging any serious concurrency issues in your applications that use GCD, especially if they are huge applications.
I do welcome blocks to C, finally some expressive power that Smalltalk has had since 1972!
ok, so what, I look like a twat... big fucken deal dude... I didn't know an obscure detailed aspect of slashdot that is entirely irrelevant... and stupid too...
yes this is an off topic post. revel in it.
Oh, didn't know that if it's true. If it is I stand corrected and withdraw my earlier comment. Oh wait, I can't do that either. Man is SlashDot limited or what?
Fantastic comment!
[META]Whomever marked it as "offtopic" is a doltish doonad and needs a brain upgrade not to mention a sense of humor, irony and some common sense![/META]
Well such a service would be violating the copyrights of all the authors of the software that is contained in their database. As such the service would be open to many copyright lawsuits not to mention the "hey our software's not malware, it's special feature ware" slander lawsuits. The Virus Makers would have a new source of income!
Breaking the law to stop those that break the law. Typical double standards set by those who thing they are doing good in the world.
I've got a spare lots of lbs of fat to get rid of, how much can I get per lb for selling the stem cells?
Unfortunately it's likely a commodity market since over 60% of the USA is obese. Sigh.