That wouldn't have much to do with stupidity
Didn't they kill 6,000 persons with a few knives ?
Hidding their plots with powerpoint presentations would have been just as effective as any other as long as nobody looked for it
In fact, I don't think they even needed any kind of steganography or encryption method at all to do what they did.
They're being presented now as super organized super rich super modern terrorists. I don't say they aren't but with all the money and time they would have spend on computing tools/infrastructure, couldn't have they find some plastic or ceramic weapons instead of knives ?
First, there is no such hypothetical unified slashdot behavior
Second, if someone did bash MS for something like that, as you describe (and I agree, it would be very likely to happen), any pro-MS or any neutral enough slashdotter would counter-bash it. with the very same arguments
So yes, the same rules apply to everyone
Well, thank's but I don't see your point so well.
Isn't what you say also achievable with a not so dumb client ?
I don't see a thin clint live any longer than a fat one for several reasons:
- the client displays/interface capabilitites will evolve just as significantly as the applications themselves, so in the end, you will have to change it (but I grant you the cost part, although I think the processing capability is less expensive than the user interfe capability)
- if anyway the point it to have something that will work for many different applications, open to future services etc.. then the plan is effectively to run increasingly complex applications that will have three major consequences:
: more bandwidth required for each application
: more cpu required for each application
: more people connected at the same time, geting away slowly of the idea that to give service to x users, you need a fraction of the capability as they are not all using it at once. this fraction will tend to x.
So finally, there wil be a service availability issue (not to mention price)
That's wat I think anyway, but I wasn not specificaly talking about telephone thin-clients. I'm also thinking about Sun and Aranea ideas
I'd like to understand.. is that some kind of new cool fashion ?
Many many people are talking about thin client for this and thin client for that
I don't get it...
Isn't local computing power and storage much cheaper than bandwidth ?
Isn't distributed computing power much cheaper than centralized ?
I understand thin clients are a wonder for the server and bandwidth business (that is, if they actualy can deliver the promised service), especialy now that we are concerned with information control (it will be much easier for carnivore-like projects to spy just about anything)
Bust isn't this going backward just for greed ?
I'm just asking really, I wonder what I am missing
I could understand how this is presented as a nice technology for anyody that is concerned about control, but price ?
Doesn anybody have some insight about it because I really don't get it.
Also, I'm thinking about how this would evolve: heavier and heavier applicationes, managing more and more complex/sensitive data...
Oh well..
how about the fact that his pathetic spelling is now propogating...
Your right ! its scary !
Re:It's been said before...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Wouldn't it be even better to have mostly automatic planes ?
The planes couldn't fly manually unless "unlocked" by say, both the fingerprints of the pilots and a remote code ?
Also, unless remotely "unlocked" (with yet another set of codes) dramatic changes in plane flight would result in retaking the automatic behavior.
I don't know how expensive that would be, but I can't imagine that would be as expensive (in the long run) as really trying to prevent anybody to bring a knife onboard (you can kill with a pen or your bare hands anyway if you are trained, and they'd be) and I think it would be way more effective as a security measure
It probably wouldn't be a total security (ie. it can still be circumvented) but it would raise very high the dificulty level. also, ti would raise the level high enough, that while still being possible, it would be extremely dificult not to let your footprints (because you have to be present in many difficult places at the same time etc..)
This would be the case right now, but probably not within 5 years
I imagine for then, modeling won't be a problem, and available engines will be powerful enough (relying on available hardware) to let you use the (graphics) style you want with little effort.
So you could have a cartoonish game, a movie-like game (even different atmospheres) etc..
It's almost like this right now. But in 5 years, you'll also have powerful physics engine (I expect them to sooner or later rely on a ppu-card (physics processing unit, that could be integrated with sound and video into one gaming-board)), deformations, particles, etc... that will let you create pretty much anything you want, be it a cartoon, a trip in a zero-gravity space station, underwater, etc...
Modeling should also be much easier than it is now, so really, what will be left to the game writter (to get out of the crowd I mean, not that he won't care about the rest too) will be the story-telling, and the incresingly imaginative/challenging concepts.
We need infrastructure to develop businesses, commerce and the like, and right now the 'Net is one of the biggest business opportunities worldwide. So you can either give the people their daily fish, or help them build fisheries. Therefore, investing in infrastructure is investing on the future well-being of the people.
You are right but
The infrastructure we need first is certainly not the Internet.
First, we need some decent transportations, like trains
First, we need some decent postal services
First, we need some decent education, and having a computer is absolutely not what it takes
First, we need say.. decent telephone services ? not only not enough people can afford to have a phone line (hey most can't afford to eat something else than beans XOR tacos everyday), but even then, phone lines aren't available
(I'm still waiting for a connection I paid for 4 monthes ago, but Telmex prepared me it could take 3 monthes so...)
Anyway, here, what is even worse, is that this move is absolutely not done in the students interests. The objective is to prepare future children to behave as nice online customers.
The vision is that, even if they can't afford it right now, they must be educated to be future online customers.
This is motivated by Telmex and its father Carso who would just love to sell many prodigy services to people trained to buy in Samborns.
They are not looking for computers, but for WebBrowser with minimal computing abilities to be sold to schools as the computing equipment.
Requirements are:
- Internet Ready (better: Internet-required)
- As cheap as possible (LOL)
- Easy to administer (LOFL) (read *control*)
- Robust
- Unusable outside of school (so they won't be stolen)(not a real requirement, but very considered)
The 2 candidates right now (but it is still open to Microsoft and Ximian) are:
- SUN with its SunRay 100 ThinClient
- Aranea with its own thin client (with this one, you *need* Internet so it has big potential even if it doen't work at all)
It is very important that Ximian wins the battle, or even Microsoft would be better than the actual alternatives. For the price and for many obvious reasons, it would be just better that Ximian wins (although I'd prefer something else).
But The current alternative are actualy *harmful*
The *things * they consider have nothing to offer as long as computing is concerned. they are just good to surf the web, because this is what theyt want it too.They are actualy anti-educational.
God, I actualy tried to convince people to take a Linux consideration, because i believe it would have tons of benefit (even if it is not the best answer for everything) and would be the overall best solution, but you have no idea why they won't. So, for this one, I actualy hope Microsoft will be as good as usual and just have them put some pentium class computers with windows98 or 2000 (hopefuly not XP). I don't have realistic hopes about Ximian standing a good chance, but what the hell... We can dream about it.
It's a typo, they meant FUD.
Fortunately, the last Ximian article about James de Izaca (o is it Miguel Bond ?) proves we already reverse engineered the technology and we can now use it for our own goals.
If course, open source real time fud is technologicaly superior than its closed source counter-part, so that Microsoft stands no chance.(they claim the contrary, but it's just fud too)
I couldn't agree more
It's very unpleasant to see always the same comentaries about "they won't be able to blah blah blah". As if it would take a genius
Also in the case of the article, we are talking about Mexico.
The first problem for most schools, is to have the money to even buy the computers (I mean, when the food/teachers/books is solved)
So I realy don't think puting computers in primary school is going to help anyone but the people who are to make the deal (don't forget corruption means, the more expensive solution is the most likely to make middle men happy).
I do think they need computers, but not where a book would do (which they don't even have btw).
Computers should be put where computing is to be teached, not to teach spanish or to give "early stimulation" or stuff like that.It would be nice if Mexico could aford that. But it can't.
So, anyway, where computers have place (here),
those "administrative dificulties" are not relevant, and the price always is.
So for Mexico, I'm convinced an Open Source solution is the best one (in other places, it is also the best one for many reasons, but here, there is just no way around the price), and should be offered at schools that are to teach computer science.
If I remember correctly stats I've seen 6 monthes ago, 60% of the working population struggles to eat everyday. 80% have salaries under $400 (us).
I'd like to know how having shiny computers (whith the OS of your choice) is going to be of any help.
Anyway, so far, the *best* (as in most considered) candidates are not Microsoft much less Ximian right now.
Telmex and some other big coporates actualy want as many schools as posible to get online. The idea is not to educate children, but to give them "early Internet knowledge", to educate them to be nice online customers, so that they'll have future online customer. What a freaking joke ! they don't even have telephone (about 10% have) wait.. they can't even buy their food everyday, but they are going to hapily buy online !
Oh well, anyway, the considered solutions are windows-xp like solutions with thin clients (most stupidest idea ever, and totaly antipatriotic btw), exept *they* would be in control istead of Microsoft. So in the end, I'd ctualy be happy to see Microsoft winning this non existing war.
Of course, i'd be much happier to see Ximian winning it, but it would be best if a home made, 100% mexican customized Linux distrib actualy won.
Ximian is cool and all, but if Ximian wants to win the war of just puting Linux in mexican schools then fine. If it is by selling services we don't need in the first place (besides giving away a Linux distrib) then Mexico doesn't need to waste this money either.
Sorry for the Offtopic but this is interesting:)
(not my reply, the above comments)
I definitely agree with you, although I tend to agree with your parent too. (though I wouldn't be that drastic).
I think that what is needed in fact (I've been thinking about it since a while, but I can't find a way to start it correctly, the basic concepts aren't easy to formulate). Is an abstract library. I don't mean a compatible library, that would let you code for gtk or qt with generic widgets that could then be implmentted as qt or gtk widgets, but an indeed abstract library.
The idea is, you just code the data processing part. Not the GUI, in fact, nothing about the GUI.
So you would define some "user interaction things" (couldn't find a suitable name) where you describe a need for input or output of predefined datatypes and provide and modify according to events an application interface (as in oo interface). (datatypes would be defined in a MIME fashion). you would provide some hook-like functions to deal with input, and would generate event-like signals to deal with output.
when running your application, the lib would take care of finding out what is your current environment (text/gnome/kde/etc), what are the system preferences and your personal preferences. and would generate a GUI on the fly.
A completely automatic gui generation would probably be pretty uggly, but the preferences should (although running well without it) find a hihger level description of the application GUI.
(an xml-like description of it like glade ones for ex.) but it would also dynamically look for the most suitable widgets provided to build the app. that is:
the app (cocobobo) asks for a name. If we have a cocobobo widget, then this is all we need to create the whole app. (looks like someone liked this app and made a whole widget just for it). If not, it will look for a Name provider, as name is also a string, if there is no name provider on the system, it will look for a string provider etc..
This should let people focus on their priorities.
right now, good applications are not considered because of bad gui design etc etc. also, it could let you work on your app without worrying about wether to do it for gnome or kde or anything else.
oh well..
$chown us base wouldn't that be
#chown us base ?
or even
#chown us base* ?:)
Still, the article is not talking about price as an issue here.
It's the quick availability of an OS for the new chip that matters.
They talk about Microsoft and how they hope having a Linux running their chip should put pressure on them. (they being AMD and Intel)
For a source I can trust I'll look at a real designs which I do every day Oh:)
Art of Assembly? No thanks Why not ? is it that bad ? Anyway, the book is at most introductive to logic, but it's still a good read.
This is the classic case of/.ers reading something somewhere and thinking they know everything about the subject. This is the classic case of someone generalizing about slashdot.
First I don't think I know everything about something I don't practice everyday.
Second, I don't think I know everything about things I actualy practice everyday either. Neither should you.:P
blablabla err.. alright,
hmmm AOI, and or invert
OAI or and invert
I don't think custom layout use only nand gates, and I didn't say so, I said NAND are the most comonly used blocks for circuits design.
I might be wrong I honestly don't witness it everyday:)
Still, that's what I learnt I school (though it was realy introductive, oh well, they always tell us they lied last year the year after don't they ?).
Anyway, the point was that having a NAND built out of ANDs and NOTS might be intuitive, it is not necesarily what happens at circuit design.
Using AOI gates to build XOR or whatever is a good example of the point I was trying to make.
So calm down, get some sleep, whatever...
In case you insist, the point was:
Basic building blocks aren't the one you might think, at least, not for the reason that was given. (boolean algebra operators, blablabla).
So I think, I heard it from several sources, that NAND gates are in fact the most used, for the given reasons that are very dependent of (time/technology/specific design/etc..)
If you tell me the earth is a ball because it's the best shape to fly in the air,
then I tell you earth doesn't fly in the air, and by the way, I have heard it is in fact a cube,
I'm obviously mistaken, and in the end, you might end being correct, but your logic was flawed anyway.
Well, no. Your parent is correct.
You only need NAND to do whatever you want.
NAND(A,A) => NOT(A)
NAND(NAND(A,A),NAND(B,B)) => OR(A,B)
etc..etc.. realy not that hard..
For most logic implementations, this is the way it is done. (although sometimes NOR is used instead).
Anyway, have a look at Randall Hyde's Art of Assembly for a source you can trust about it.
The idea is, NAND gates are cheaper than other gates, and it's easier to build logic structures with the same basic blocks.
Yes...
it is:
we have to instants to and t1 (to lt t1) and to and t1 within [0,T-1]
and with
F(t0) gt v and F(t1) lt v
or
F(t0) lt v and F(t1) gt v
so, since F is continuous on [t0,t1] there is a value t, t0 lt t lt t1 such that F(t)=v.
So, F(t)=v has at least one solution within [0,T-1] and the question is thus answered.
blablabla....
Well, you're traveling along your path without "jumping" blablabla,
so you have P(t) your position on the path at time t, so that P(0)=A and P(T)=B (it took T hours, (T>1 because (B-A)>v miles) to get from A to B)
So let's call F(t) the function that gives you at any time (in hours) the distance you are going to travel the next hour according to the trajectory P.
Clearly, F is continuous on [0, T-1] because P is continous on [0,T] and F(t) is P(t+1)-P(t)
F could be always equal to v (v=(B-A)/T).
It would mean your speed is constant during the travel and is v, so that at any time, you are going to travel v miles the next hour.
Clearly, F can't be always less than v, because then your average speed would obviously be less than v.
Also, F can't be always greater than v, because then, your average speed would obviously be greater than v.
So, either F(t)=v either we have 2 instants t0 and t1 (t0
F(t0)>v and F(t1)v
Since F is continuous on [t0, t1] there is a value t, to
So who is that Joe Einstein you're talking about ?
Anyway, I understand your anology, but I don't get your whole point (seems that you wanted to say several things at once or I'm just too tired)
I, again, still remember the son of the return of the code red's revenge striking back: the 2nd mission is back even redder than before vs the grand-son of the blue bug 5 (they forgot an egg) resurected by alien 4 (This time, it's going to hurt them badly !) with a vengeance...
Time does
The example of the bowling ball curving the surface isn't good enough (but how do you provide a better one anyway ?) because it just curves space.
Mass curves space-time (or is said to anyway)
If you think about it in 2D, one for space and one for time, than imagine 2 orthogonal axes, x and y, y being for time.
you have all freedom you want on x, you can move left, you can stop, you can move right, blablabla
However, y only goes up. you move, you don't move, you do what you want, you are stiull drawing your line upward.
So if you are static on x, you will be drawing a vertical line, but if you start to move left or right, you will draw a curve to the left, to the right etc...
Now what happens if you insert mass in the game is, space-time is curved, so that your 2 axis aren't orthogonals anymore.
Let's say you y axis is having now a 45 degrees angl with the x axis.
Whatever you do, you are still moving upwards, because "time passes"
The thing is, now, just because you are "moving" in time, you ar also "moving" in space
No force involved
Anyway, I'm not a physicist so I could be wrong about this explanation, but that's how I understand "space-time curvature" plus the idea of gravity not being a force, yet inducing acceleration.
It almost sounds like a mind-game or a viewpoint, but it's not and that's wy it is so important to find out if indeed gravity is or is not a force because if it is not, than you can say byebye to any "anti-gravity device" there is no anti-graviton because there is just no graviton.
Anyway, we are talking a lot about gravity or anti-gravity effects, but for what I understand, the guy is not talking about gravity related forces.
He's just observing a force that seem to be proportional to mass of involved objects (just like gravity (if it's a force anyway))
But he also observes it is not affected by distance (not like gravity at all) which is I think the most interesting part (or the least credible or both) as I can't think of anything else like that.
Re:Possible encryption and/or compression
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
It's even less useful than that
if you just have to recompute PI, well so far the compression part is so far atractive.
But just think about how huge is the "position"
That is, you ound your 4 characters string in PI, ok, but where ? you will give the position instead of the string itself, but remember the position will be a number so huge (sometimes, of course, not every time, but for any practical application...) you will need more than 4 bytes to represent it... so far for the compression..
Re:First example of pi-based compression.
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
I don't know where you saw it, but it was a troll:)
Let's say you want to compress 1024 bits messages, which is of little use, but let's say just 1024.
As you would want to "compress" any 1024 bits messages, unless you are extremely lucky about overlaping, you can't expect them to be very close each one of the other, in fact, the larger your message, the lower you'll have a probability to find it "soon"
But even then, let's say you are so lucky, possible message 1 does starts at digit 1, and possible message 2 does start indeed at digit 2
Well, you see what I mean, just to tell someone you are sending him message number xyz, you will need a 1024 bits adress.
Of course, you didn't need PI to do that, you just take the message as a number, and you send you message itself as being a number and you message is message number "the message"
Which is of course no compression at all
Using PI, you have the garantee that it will be much worse than that as the message won't be following each other as you'd like them, so that a 1024 bits message "xyz" might be found at an address so far away you actually needed 4096 bits to give its position.
how many bytes did you need for "pou" and how many bytes did you need to tell us you can find it at address 4602166 ?
the same number...
And we didn't talk about also saying "and it ends after 3 bytes" which you must code also, unless you send a "pou\0" but it will probably be much worse then.
Slashdot Mirror
That wouldn't have much to do with stupidity
Didn't they kill 6,000 persons with a few knives ?
Hidding their plots with powerpoint presentations would have been just as effective as any other as long as nobody looked for it
In fact, I don't think they even needed any kind of steganography or encryption method at all to do what they did.
They're being presented now as super organized super rich super modern terrorists. I don't say they aren't but with all the money and time they would have spend on computing tools/infrastructure, couldn't have they find some plastic or ceramic weapons instead of knives ?
First, there is no such hypothetical unified slashdot behavior
Second, if someone did bash MS for something like that, as you describe (and I agree, it would be very likely to happen), any pro-MS or any neutral enough slashdotter would counter-bash it. with the very same arguments
So yes, the same rules apply to everyone
Well, thank's but I don't see your point so well.
Isn't what you say also achievable with a not so dumb client ?
I don't see a thin clint live any longer than a fat one for several reasons:
- the client displays/interface capabilitites will evolve just as significantly as the applications themselves, so in the end, you will have to change it (but I grant you the cost part, although I think the processing capability is less expensive than the user interfe capability)
- if anyway the point it to have something that will work for many different applications, open to future services etc.. then the plan is effectively to run increasingly complex applications that will have three major consequences:
: more bandwidth required for each application
: more cpu required for each application
: more people connected at the same time, geting away slowly of the idea that to give service to x users, you need a fraction of the capability as they are not all using it at once. this fraction will tend to x.
So finally, there wil be a service availability issue (not to mention price)
That's wat I think anyway, but I wasn not specificaly talking about telephone thin-clients. I'm also thinking about Sun and Aranea ideas
I'd like to understand.. is that some kind of new cool fashion ?
Many many people are talking about thin client for this and thin client for that
I don't get it...
Isn't local computing power and storage much cheaper than bandwidth ?
Isn't distributed computing power much cheaper than centralized ?
I understand thin clients are a wonder for the server and bandwidth business (that is, if they actualy can deliver the promised service), especialy now that we are concerned with information control (it will be much easier for carnivore-like projects to spy just about anything)
Bust isn't this going backward just for greed ?
I'm just asking really, I wonder what I am missing
I could understand how this is presented as a nice technology for anyody that is concerned about control, but price ?
Doesn anybody have some insight about it because I really don't get it.
Also, I'm thinking about how this would evolve: heavier and heavier applicationes, managing more and more complex/sensitive data... Oh well..
how about the fact that his pathetic spelling is now propogating...
Your right ! its scary !
Wouldn't it be even better to have mostly automatic planes ?
The planes couldn't fly manually unless "unlocked" by say, both the fingerprints of the pilots and a remote code ?
Also, unless remotely "unlocked" (with yet another set of codes) dramatic changes in plane flight would result in retaking the automatic behavior.
I don't know how expensive that would be, but I can't imagine that would be as expensive (in the long run) as really trying to prevent anybody to bring a knife onboard (you can kill with a pen or your bare hands anyway if you are trained, and they'd be) and I think it would be way more effective as a security measure
It probably wouldn't be a total security (ie. it can still be circumvented) but it would raise very high the dificulty level. also, ti would raise the level high enough, that while still being possible, it would be extremely dificult not to let your footprints (because you have to be present in many difficult places at the same time etc..)
This would be the case right now, but probably not within 5 years
I imagine for then, modeling won't be a problem, and available engines will be powerful enough (relying on available hardware) to let you use the (graphics) style you want with little effort.
So you could have a cartoonish game, a movie-like game (even different atmospheres) etc..
It's almost like this right now. But in 5 years, you'll also have powerful physics engine (I expect them to sooner or later rely on a ppu-card (physics processing unit, that could be integrated with sound and video into one gaming-board)), deformations, particles, etc... that will let you create pretty much anything you want, be it a cartoon, a trip in a zero-gravity space station, underwater, etc...
Modeling should also be much easier than it is now, so really, what will be left to the game writter (to get out of the crowd I mean, not that he won't care about the rest too) will be the story-telling, and the incresingly imaginative/challenging concepts.
We need infrastructure to develop businesses, commerce and the like, and right now the 'Net is one of the biggest business opportunities worldwide. So you can either give the people their daily fish, or help them build fisheries. Therefore, investing in infrastructure is investing on the future well-being of the people. You are right but
The infrastructure we need first is certainly not the Internet.
First, we need some decent transportations, like trains
First, we need some decent postal services
First, we need some decent education, and having a computer is absolutely not what it takes
First, we need say.. decent telephone services ? not only not enough people can afford to have a phone line (hey most can't afford to eat something else than beans XOR tacos everyday), but even then, phone lines aren't available
(I'm still waiting for a connection I paid for 4 monthes ago, but Telmex prepared me it could take 3 monthes so...)
Anyway, here, what is even worse, is that this move is absolutely not done in the students interests. The objective is to prepare future children to behave as nice online customers.
The vision is that, even if they can't afford it right now, they must be educated to be future online customers.
This is motivated by Telmex and its father Carso who would just love to sell many prodigy services to people trained to buy in Samborns.
They are not looking for computers, but for WebBrowser with minimal computing abilities to be sold to schools as the computing equipment.
Requirements are:
- Internet Ready (better: Internet-required)
- As cheap as possible (LOL)
- Easy to administer (LOFL) (read *control*)
- Robust
- Unusable outside of school (so they won't be stolen)(not a real requirement, but very considered)
The 2 candidates right now (but it is still open to Microsoft and Ximian) are:
- SUN with its SunRay 100 ThinClient
- Aranea with its own thin client (with this one, you *need* Internet so it has big potential even if it doen't work at all)
It is very important that Ximian wins the battle, or even Microsoft would be better than the actual alternatives. For the price and for many obvious reasons, it would be just better that Ximian wins (although I'd prefer something else).
But The current alternative are actualy *harmful* The *things * they consider have nothing to offer as long as computing is concerned. they are just good to surf the web, because this is what theyt want it too.They are actualy anti-educational.
God, I actualy tried to convince people to take a Linux consideration, because i believe it would have tons of benefit (even if it is not the best answer for everything) and would be the overall best solution, but you have no idea why they won't. So, for this one, I actualy hope Microsoft will be as good as usual and just have them put some pentium class computers with windows98 or 2000 (hopefuly not XP). I don't have realistic hopes about Ximian standing a good chance, but what the hell... We can dream about it.
It's a typo, they meant FUD.
Fortunately, the last Ximian article about James de Izaca (o is it Miguel Bond ?) proves we already reverse engineered the technology and we can now use it for our own goals.
If course, open source real time fud is technologicaly superior than its closed source counter-part, so that Microsoft stands no chance.(they claim the contrary, but it's just fud too)
I couldn't agree more
It's very unpleasant to see always the same comentaries about "they won't be able to blah blah blah". As if it would take a genius
Also in the case of the article, we are talking about Mexico.
The first problem for most schools, is to have the money to even buy the computers (I mean, when the food/teachers/books is solved)
So I realy don't think puting computers in primary school is going to help anyone but the people who are to make the deal (don't forget corruption means, the more expensive solution is the most likely to make middle men happy).
I do think they need computers, but not where a book would do (which they don't even have btw). Computers should be put where computing is to be teached, not to teach spanish or to give "early stimulation" or stuff like that.It would be nice if Mexico could aford that. But it can't.
So, anyway, where computers have place (here), those "administrative dificulties" are not relevant, and the price always is.
So for Mexico, I'm convinced an Open Source solution is the best one (in other places, it is also the best one for many reasons, but here, there is just no way around the price), and should be offered at schools that are to teach computer science.
If I remember correctly stats I've seen 6 monthes ago, 60% of the working population struggles to eat everyday. 80% have salaries under $400 (us). I'd like to know how having shiny computers (whith the OS of your choice) is going to be of any help. Anyway, so far, the *best* (as in most considered) candidates are not Microsoft much less Ximian right now. Telmex and some other big coporates actualy want as many schools as posible to get online. The idea is not to educate children, but to give them "early Internet knowledge", to educate them to be nice online customers, so that they'll have future online customer. What a freaking joke ! they don't even have telephone (about 10% have) wait.. they can't even buy their food everyday, but they are going to hapily buy online !
Oh well, anyway, the considered solutions are windows-xp like solutions with thin clients (most stupidest idea ever, and totaly antipatriotic btw), exept *they* would be in control istead of Microsoft. So in the end, I'd ctualy be happy to see Microsoft winning this non existing war. Of course, i'd be much happier to see Ximian winning it, but it would be best if a home made, 100% mexican customized Linux distrib actualy won.
Ximian is cool and all, but if Ximian wants to win the war of just puting Linux in mexican schools then fine. If it is by selling services we don't need in the first place (besides giving away a Linux distrib) then Mexico doesn't need to waste this money either.
Sorry for the Offtopic but this is interesting :)
:)
(not my reply, the above comments)
I definitely agree with you, although I tend to agree with your parent too. (though I wouldn't be that drastic).
I think that what is needed in fact (I've been thinking about it since a while, but I can't find a way to start it correctly, the basic concepts aren't easy to formulate). Is an abstract library. I don't mean a compatible library, that would let you code for gtk or qt with generic widgets that could then be implmentted as qt or gtk widgets, but an indeed abstract library.
The idea is, you just code the data processing part. Not the GUI, in fact, nothing about the GUI.
So you would define some "user interaction things" (couldn't find a suitable name) where you describe a need for input or output of predefined datatypes and provide and modify according to events an application interface (as in oo interface). (datatypes would be defined in a MIME fashion). you would provide some hook-like functions to deal with input, and would generate event-like signals to deal with output.
when running your application, the lib would take care of finding out what is your current environment (text/gnome/kde/etc), what are the system preferences and your personal preferences. and would generate a GUI on the fly.
A completely automatic gui generation would probably be pretty uggly, but the preferences should (although running well without it) find a hihger level description of the application GUI.
(an xml-like description of it like glade ones for ex.) but it would also dynamically look for the most suitable widgets provided to build the app. that is:
the app (cocobobo) asks for a name. If we have a cocobobo widget, then this is all we need to create the whole app. (looks like someone liked this app and made a whole widget just for it). If not, it will look for a Name provider, as name is also a string, if there is no name provider on the system, it will look for a string provider etc..
This should let people focus on their priorities.
right now, good applications are not considered because of bad gui design etc etc. also, it could let you work on your app without worrying about wether to do it for gnome or kde or anything else.
oh well..
$chown us base
wouldn't that be
#chown us base ?
or even
#chown us base* ?
Still, the article is not talking about price as an issue here.
It's the quick availability of an OS for the new chip that matters.
They talk about Microsoft and how they hope having a Linux running their chip should put pressure on them. (they being AMD and Intel)
Yes ! now the bugs will be 3d and rendered in real time !
??? :)
I really don't see how this is different than what I was saying. (besides being more detailed)
:)
Oh well... doesn't matter
For a source I can trust I'll look at a real designs which I do every day :)
/.ers reading something somewhere and thinking they know everything about the subject.
:P
:)
Oh
Art of Assembly? No thanks
Why not ? is it that bad ? Anyway, the book is at most introductive to logic, but it's still a good read.
This is the classic case of
This is the classic case of someone generalizing about slashdot.
First I don't think I know everything about something I don't practice everyday.
Second, I don't think I know everything about things I actualy practice everyday either. Neither should you.
blablabla
err.. alright,
hmmm AOI, and or invert
OAI or and invert
I don't think custom layout use only nand gates, and I didn't say so, I said NAND are the most comonly used blocks for circuits design.
I might be wrong I honestly don't witness it everyday
Still, that's what I learnt I school (though it was realy introductive, oh well, they always tell us they lied last year the year after don't they ?).
Anyway, the point was that having a NAND built out of ANDs and NOTS might be intuitive, it is not necesarily what happens at circuit design.
Using AOI gates to build XOR or whatever is a good example of the point I was trying to make.
So calm down, get some sleep, whatever...
In case you insist, the point was:
Basic building blocks aren't the one you might think, at least, not for the reason that was given. (boolean algebra operators, blablabla).
So I think, I heard it from several sources, that NAND gates are in fact the most used, for the given reasons that are very dependent of (time/technology/specific design/etc..)
If you tell me the earth is a ball because it's the best shape to fly in the air,
then I tell you earth doesn't fly in the air, and by the way, I have heard it is in fact a cube,
I'm obviously mistaken, and in the end, you might end being correct, but your logic was flawed anyway.
Well, no. Your parent is correct.
You only need NAND to do whatever you want.
NAND(A,A) => NOT(A)
NAND(NAND(A,A),NAND(B,B)) => OR(A,B)
etc..etc.. realy not that hard..
For most logic implementations, this is the way it is done. (although sometimes NOR is used instead).
Anyway, have a look at Randall Hyde's Art of Assembly for a source you can trust about it.
The idea is, NAND gates are cheaper than other gates, and it's easier to build logic structures with the same basic blocks.
Yes...
it is:
we have to instants to and t1 (to lt t1) and to and t1 within [0,T-1]
and with
F(t0) gt v and F(t1) lt v
or
F(t0) lt v and F(t1) gt v
so, since F is continuous on [t0,t1] there is a value t, t0 lt t lt t1 such that F(t)=v.
So, F(t)=v has at least one solution within [0,T-1] and the question is thus answered.
blablabla....
Well, you're traveling along your path without "jumping" blablabla,
so you have P(t) your position on the path at time t, so that P(0)=A and P(T)=B (it took T hours, (T>1 because (B-A)>v miles) to get from A to B)
So let's call F(t) the function that gives you at any time (in hours) the distance you are going to travel the next hour according to the trajectory P.
Clearly, F is continuous on [0, T-1] because P is continous on [0,T] and F(t) is P(t+1)-P(t)
F could be always equal to v (v=(B-A)/T).
It would mean your speed is constant during the travel and is v, so that at any time, you are going to travel v miles the next hour.
Clearly, F can't be always less than v, because then your average speed would obviously be less than v.
Also, F can't be always greater than v, because then, your average speed would obviously be greater than v.
So, either F(t)=v either we have 2 instants t0 and t1 (t0
F(t0)>v and F(t1)v
Since F is continuous on [t0, t1] there is a value t, to
So who is that Joe Einstein you're talking about ?
Anyway, I understand your anology, but I don't get your whole point (seems that you wanted to say several things at once or I'm just too tired)
Welcome to the Linux dome
very bad math
indeed....
How can they consider this cutting-edge technology ?
I, again, still remember the son of the return of the code red's revenge striking back: the 2nd mission is back even redder than before vs the grand-son of the blue bug 5 (they forgot an egg) resurected by alien 4 (This time, it's going to hurt them badly !) with a vengeance...
Time does
The example of the bowling ball curving the surface isn't good enough (but how do you provide a better one anyway ?) because it just curves space.
Mass curves space-time (or is said to anyway)
If you think about it in 2D, one for space and one for time, than imagine 2 orthogonal axes, x and y, y being for time.
you have all freedom you want on x, you can move left, you can stop, you can move right, blablabla
However, y only goes up. you move, you don't move, you do what you want, you are stiull drawing your line upward.
So if you are static on x, you will be drawing a vertical line, but if you start to move left or right, you will draw a curve to the left, to the right etc...
Now what happens if you insert mass in the game is, space-time is curved, so that your 2 axis aren't orthogonals anymore.
Let's say you y axis is having now a 45 degrees angl with the x axis.
Whatever you do, you are still moving upwards, because "time passes"
The thing is, now, just because you are "moving" in time, you ar also "moving" in space
No force involved
Anyway, I'm not a physicist so I could be wrong about this explanation, but that's how I understand "space-time curvature" plus the idea of gravity not being a force, yet inducing acceleration.
It almost sounds like a mind-game or a viewpoint, but it's not and that's wy it is so important to find out if indeed gravity is or is not a force because if it is not, than you can say byebye to any "anti-gravity device" there is no anti-graviton because there is just no graviton.
Anyway, we are talking a lot about gravity or anti-gravity effects, but for what I understand, the guy is not talking about gravity related forces.
He's just observing a force that seem to be proportional to mass of involved objects (just like gravity (if it's a force anyway)) But he also observes it is not affected by distance (not like gravity at all) which is I think the most interesting part (or the least credible or both) as I can't think of anything else like that.
It's even less useful than that
if you just have to recompute PI, well so far the compression part is so far atractive.
But just think about how huge is the "position"
That is, you ound your 4 characters string in PI, ok, but where ? you will give the position instead of the string itself, but remember the position will be a number so huge (sometimes, of course, not every time, but for any practical application...) you will need more than 4 bytes to represent it... so far for the compression..
I don't know where you saw it, but it was a troll :)
Let's say you want to compress 1024 bits messages, which is of little use, but let's say just 1024.
As you would want to "compress" any 1024 bits messages, unless you are extremely lucky about overlaping, you can't expect them to be very close each one of the other, in fact, the larger your message, the lower you'll have a probability to find it "soon"
But even then, let's say you are so lucky, possible message 1 does starts at digit 1, and possible message 2 does start indeed at digit 2
Well, you see what I mean, just to tell someone you are sending him message number xyz, you will need a 1024 bits adress.
Of course, you didn't need PI to do that, you just take the message as a number, and you send you message itself as being a number and you message is message number "the message"
Which is of course no compression at all
Using PI, you have the garantee that it will be much worse than that as the message won't be following each other as you'd like them, so that a 1024 bits message "xyz" might be found at an address so far away you actually needed 4096 bits to give its position.
how many bytes did you need for "pou" and how many bytes did you need to tell us you can find it at address 4602166 ? the same number...
And we didn't talk about also saying "and it ends after 3 bytes" which you must code also, unless you send a "pou\0" but it will probably be much worse then.