Intel has been very friendly to Linux in the past, and for good reason. Linux provides a means for Intel to take market share away from the likes of Sun and HP. Why buy a non-Intel server when you can do the job just fine with an Intel-based Linux server? (True for many tasks, debatable for others.)
On the other hand, Intel has much to fear from Linux. If there were a large enough market that didn't care about Windows, then it would become practical for Linux users to question whey they should run on an expensive Intel chip instead of a cheaper non-x86 CPU from another vendor. The lock-in to the instruction set would be gone. Intel would have to compete head-to-head with MIPS and the likes in the desktop market, not something they want to do.
It was a bug because the original programmers had not intended for HAL to kill the crew. Hence, while it was following the program, the program was not telling it to do what the programmers had wanted it to do.
After all, isn't almost any software bug a case of the computer doing exactly what the program says to do, even though that is not what the programmer intended to have happen in that case?
Actually, my post is correct. I simply stated that the Apple Store lists three versions of the iMac. I don't know what you mean by CTO ("Chief Technology Officer?"), but I don't see why it matters. Apple is clearly marketing the iMac at their online store as having three base models, even if the only difference between two of them is what options are selected. So technically, there is a version of the iMac that has Bluetooth and Airport Extreme built in, or at least sort of, as I indicated in the subject.
Something like that would totally change how I use my ReplayTV. The whole point of these things is to let you control when you watch things. I like getting several weeks behind in my favorite shows so that I can watch several episodes together. I didn't even start Firefly or Birds of Prey until after they had aired the last episodes. If I had to worry about shows expiring, it would change my use to be much more like one of those old video tape systems.
So why would Japanese law have such a requirement? It can't apply to VCRs, so what makes PVRs legally different? Sure, I could understanding having a timeout built into something like the ReplayTV show sharing feature (which is being dropped in new models due to lawsuits), but for stuff that isn't leaving the system you recorded it on, it's already more restricted than video tape that you can loan to a friend.
EMC is now supporting iSCSI in their high-end Symmetrix DMX storage systems. It's just a matter of time before all storage vendors offer this. It's also just a matter of time before network cards that can talk native iSCSI are available (allowing you to boot from iSCSI, among other things).
[Note: I work for EMC and am friends with the iSCSI developers, so my views are a bit biased.]
Suspension of disbelief works when the story presents you with a world with consistent rules. When the rules of the world get violated, suspension of disbelief fails.
It's very similar to previews setting expectations for movies. If I see a preview that makes you think the movie is going to be a serious action movie, and it turns out to be an action comedy, I'm not going to enjoy it nearly as much as if I went in expecting comedy.
Perhaps what AMD wants is not their CPU, but the stuff that they've integrated in with it to create a single-chip PC. In a year or so, we might see a single-chip system based on one of the AMD processors.
The solution is to send a radio mix to the station, and sell the good mix on the CD. Of course, that requires more expenditure in production, so unless there's some trivial way to generate the louder radio version, it will never happen. (I'm not a sound engineer, can you tell?)
There's a theory that Shakespeare actually worked on the King James Bible. I never looked into it enough to decide if it was some nut trying to get attention or something with serious merrit.
It's due to excessive draw on the rivers that feed the sea for irrigation. According to the article, the much of the water is actually wasted due to poor-quality irrigation systems.
Almost all the virus problems are Windows-based, and a large majority of the problems occur after Microsoft has released patches. Hence, any comprehensive security plan should include some method of insuring that all critical security updates are applied throughout the company.
Beyond that, it's a race between Microsoft patching bugs and the anti-virus companies detecting the exploits.
Note that Charities, Politicians, and Surveys are exempt.
That means that instead of selling a product, they'll call with a slanted survey about the product. It will be an adaptation of the political calls known as "push polls."
Personally, I think the exemption for charities and political calls should be limited to non-paid callers. If the cause is legitimate, they should be able to find volunteers. (Oh, and pre-recorded calls should be banned, of course.)
Yes, OSF (later The Open Group after they merged with X/Open) created OSF/1, which was originally going to be the Unix for all the member companies. I think that included DEC, HP, and IBM, but not Sun. In the end, only DEC moved away from using their own home-grown system, so it could be considered a failure based on the original goals.
Later, The Open Group developed mk, based on the Mach 3 microkernel. While the Unix personality for the kernel was tainted with AT&T code, the microkernel was able to be released for free. The free mk was released with a Linux-based server, with the package known as mkLinux. Some (most?) of the funding for mk came from Apple, and I believe that it is the basis for OS X.
There was a little-known project called mk++, which was a complete re-write of the Mach microkernel interfaces using C++. There was a plan to release a book on mk++ along with a CD containing mk++Linux. Unfortunately, a month or so before it was to be sent off, all development efforts were shut down, and The Open Group became a Unix branding organization.
NOTE: I worked briefly at The Open Group, doing work on mk and mk++.
BBC News also had a story on the previous map. This was prepared in anticipation of the current mission--apparently they needed a rough idea of what to expect.
Interesting trivia--you weigh 1% less in India than average.
I don't mind having my biometric information stored in my passport. What I care about is having my biometric information in a government database. Once the government starts collecting this information, they're going to save a copy for themselves. Then the database will be available whenever they want to determine who someone is, such as when analyzing photos of protests.
I think of options as a zero-interest risk-free loan used to buy stock. If the price goes down, you lose nothing. If it goes up, you repay the loan when you exercise the options. So the first data point to use in valuing the options is the strike price times the number of shares. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of where you expect the stock price to go between now and when you're likely to exercise them.
One thing that has always bugged me about C++ is that when they added object-oriented features, they also threw in a bunch of other useful stuff that has nothing to do with OO.
Wouldn't it make sense to put out both a new C and C++ standard at the same time, where C contains everything from C++ that isn't object-related?
Yes, I am suggesting a core feature to improve code maintainability. I've seen many cases where elements in a structure have been moved into a substructure (sometimes with a union thrown in as well). So instead of x.y, you get x.a.b.y2. And instead of changing hundreds of references throughout the project, they #define y to be a.b.y2.
The #define solution works, but is ugly, and breaks things if 'y' is used as a name elsewhere.
Changing all the references is painful and obsoletes all the documentation (sometimes in printed books, as is the case with BSD).
Actually, if someone adds a member 'j' to foo, then there's no reason to assume it would compile fine. In fact, I would suggest that such a case should be specified as illegal, as it is essentially identical to having two elements of a structure with the same name.
I've wanted this feature for many years, but mostly in the context of structs and unions.
Suppose I have:
struct foo {
int i;
struct bar {
int j;
int k;
} s;
} n;
Now to reference j, I have to say n.s.j. But why not leave the s out so that I can just reference n.j?
This becomes really useful is when you have a huge project and you decide that some element of a struct should be made into a union. Now you wouldn't have to change every reference throughout your project (or use #define to simulate the old naming).
It may need some work, but letting your Linux box act as a file server for the Atari is really cool. (It emulate the disk hardware, so you can boot off of it and everything.)
The article mentions pcre (I believe that's the Posix C Regular Expression library).
On most systems, use `man regcomp` to see how to use regcomp, regexec, regerror, and regfree.
Essentially, you first compile the regular expressioin into a binary format with regcomp(), then use regexec() to match it against a string. It's all a little awkward to use until you get used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel has been very friendly to Linux in the past, and for good reason. Linux provides a means for Intel to take market share away from the likes of Sun and HP. Why buy a non-Intel server when you can do the job just fine with an Intel-based Linux server? (True for many tasks, debatable for others.)
On the other hand, Intel has much to fear from Linux. If there were a large enough market that didn't care about Windows, then it would become practical for Linux users to question whey they should run on an expensive Intel chip instead of a cheaper non-x86 CPU from another vendor. The lock-in to the instruction set would be gone. Intel would have to compete head-to-head with MIPS and the likes in the desktop market, not something they want to do.
There's no requirement to list every award and certification you have on your resume. If you don't think it will help you get the job, don't list it.
If you think you'll learn interesting things, and you have the time and money, take the class.
It was a bug because the original programmers had not intended for HAL to kill the crew. Hence, while it was following the program, the program was not telling it to do what the programmers had wanted it to do.
After all, isn't almost any software bug a case of the computer doing exactly what the program says to do, even though that is not what the programmer intended to have happen in that case?
If we're going to find nits to pick...
Actually, my post is correct. I simply stated that the Apple Store lists three versions of the iMac. I don't know what you mean by CTO ("Chief Technology Officer?"), but I don't see why it matters. Apple is clearly marketing the iMac at their online store as having three base models, even if the only difference between two of them is what options are selected. So technically, there is a version of the iMac that has Bluetooth and Airport Extreme built in, or at least sort of, as I indicated in the subject.
If you go to the Apple Store, there are three base models of iMacs to choose from. The top model has the AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth built-in.
Something like that would totally change how I use my ReplayTV. The whole point of these things is to let you control when you watch things. I like getting several weeks behind in my favorite shows so that I can watch several episodes together. I didn't even start Firefly or Birds of Prey until after they had aired the last episodes. If I had to worry about shows expiring, it would change my use to be much more like one of those old video tape systems.
So why would Japanese law have such a requirement? It can't apply to VCRs, so what makes PVRs legally different? Sure, I could understanding having a timeout built into something like the ReplayTV show sharing feature (which is being dropped in new models due to lawsuits), but for stuff that isn't leaving the system you recorded it on, it's already more restricted than video tape that you can loan to a friend.
EMC is now supporting iSCSI in their high-end Symmetrix DMX storage systems. It's just a matter of time before all storage vendors offer this. It's also just a matter of time before network cards that can talk native iSCSI are available (allowing you to boot from iSCSI, among other things).
[Note: I work for EMC and am friends with the iSCSI developers, so my views are a bit biased.]
Suspension of disbelief works when the story presents you with a world with consistent rules. When the rules of the world get violated, suspension of disbelief fails.
It's very similar to previews setting expectations for movies. If I see a preview that makes you think the movie is going to be a serious action movie, and it turns out to be an action comedy, I'm not going to enjoy it nearly as much as if I went in expecting comedy.
Perhaps what AMD wants is not their CPU, but the stuff that they've integrated in with it to create a single-chip PC. In a year or so, we might see a single-chip system based on one of the AMD processors.
The solution is to send a radio mix to the station, and sell the good mix on the CD. Of course, that requires more expenditure in production, so unless there's some trivial way to generate the louder radio version, it will never happen. (I'm not a sound engineer, can you tell?)
There's a theory that Shakespeare actually worked on the King James Bible. I never looked into it enough to decide if it was some nut trying to get attention or something with serious merrit.
It's due to excessive draw on the rivers that feed the sea for irrigation. According to the article, the much of the water is actually wasted due to poor-quality irrigation systems.
Almost all the virus problems are Windows-based, and a large majority of the problems occur after Microsoft has released patches. Hence, any comprehensive security plan should include some method of insuring that all critical security updates are applied throughout the company.
Beyond that, it's a race between Microsoft patching bugs and the anti-virus companies detecting the exploits.
Note that Charities, Politicians, and Surveys are exempt.
That means that instead of selling a product, they'll call with a slanted survey about the product. It will be an adaptation of the political calls known as "push polls."
Personally, I think the exemption for charities and political calls should be limited to non-paid callers. If the cause is legitimate, they should be able to find volunteers. (Oh, and pre-recorded calls should be banned, of course.)
Network Solutions may be responsible for two reasons:
First, their security may have been so poor as to be considered negligent.
Second, they appear to have failed to take corrective action upon being notified of the problem.
Yes, OSF (later The Open Group after they merged with X/Open) created OSF/1, which was originally going to be the Unix for all the member companies. I think that included DEC, HP, and IBM, but not Sun. In the end, only DEC moved away from using their own home-grown system, so it could be considered a failure based on the original goals.
Later, The Open Group developed mk, based on the Mach 3 microkernel. While the Unix personality for the kernel was tainted with AT&T code, the microkernel was able to be released for free. The free mk was released with a Linux-based server, with the package known as mkLinux. Some (most?) of the funding for mk came from Apple, and I believe that it is the basis for OS X.
There was a little-known project called mk++, which was a complete re-write of the Mach microkernel interfaces using C++. There was a plan to release a book on mk++ along with a CD containing mk++Linux. Unfortunately, a month or so before it was to be sent off, all development efforts were shut down, and The Open Group became a Unix branding organization.
NOTE: I worked briefly at The Open Group, doing work on mk and mk++.
Interesting trivia--you weigh 1% less in India than average.
I don't mind having my biometric information stored in my passport. What I care about is having my biometric information in a government database. Once the government starts collecting this information, they're going to save a copy for themselves. Then the database will be available whenever they want to determine who someone is, such as when analyzing photos of protests.
I think of options as a zero-interest risk-free loan used to buy stock. If the price goes down, you lose nothing. If it goes up, you repay the loan when you exercise the options. So the first data point to use in valuing the options is the strike price times the number of shares. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of where you expect the stock price to go between now and when you're likely to exercise them.
One thing that has always bugged me about C++ is that when they added object-oriented features, they also threw in a bunch of other useful stuff that has nothing to do with OO.
Wouldn't it make sense to put out both a new C and C++ standard at the same time, where C contains everything from C++ that isn't object-related?
Yes, I am suggesting a core feature to improve code maintainability. I've seen many cases where elements in a structure have been moved into a substructure (sometimes with a union thrown in as well). So instead of x.y, you get x.a.b.y2. And instead of changing hundreds of references throughout the project, they #define y to be a.b.y2.
The #define solution works, but is ugly, and breaks things if 'y' is used as a name elsewhere.
Changing all the references is painful and obsoletes all the documentation (sometimes in printed books, as is the case with BSD).
Actually, if someone adds a member 'j' to foo, then there's no reason to assume it would compile fine. In fact, I would suggest that such a case should be specified as illegal, as it is essentially identical to having two elements of a structure with the same name.
I've wanted this feature for many years, but mostly in the context of structs and unions.
Suppose I have:
struct foo {
int i;
struct bar {
int j;
int k;
} s;
} n;
Now to reference j, I have to say n.s.j. But why not leave the s out so that I can just reference n.j?
This becomes really useful is when you have a huge project and you decide that some element of a struct should be made into a union. Now you wouldn't have to change every reference throughout your project (or use #define to simulate the old naming).
http://www.crowcastle.net/preston/atari/
It may need some work, but letting your Linux box act as a file server for the Atari is really cool. (It emulate the disk hardware, so you can boot off of it and everything.)
The article mentions pcre (I believe that's the Posix C Regular Expression library).
On most systems, use `man regcomp` to see how to use regcomp, regexec, regerror, and regfree.
Essentially, you first compile the regular expressioin into a binary format with regcomp(), then use regexec() to match it against a string. It's all a little awkward to use until you get used to it.