Jeez dude, even when you're right you're wrong. I happen to share your dislike of Jackson's work. As you say, his dialogue sucks, and his overall stories are pretty lame. But anybody who thinks the special effects in his movies are "cartoonish" has their head up their ass.
In 5 years, it's possible that making everything
parallel will be a basic principle just like making modular
code.
Uh, no. Parallelism is just a special case of concurrent
programming, and trust me, that will never be as basic as modular
programming. Not that it won't be important, what with cheap
multicore systems. But breaking your program down into threads will
always be much harder than breaking your program down into modules.
You will see more use of compilers and runtimes that handle
common multithreading use cases (such as unrolling a loop so it
executes as multiple threads) for you. But that kind of thing will not
be managed by the individual programmer.
I've been tasked with re-writing this
document so that it describes Java concurrency in terms of JSR 166 instead of
the more primitive thread management currently described. It only took
a little research to convince me that I'll not be able to do more than
scratch the surface. It's a huge topic. What I plan to do is
guide the reader to a simple use case involving caching in a ConcurrentHashMap.
(I still haven't figured out what to cache: it has to be
resource-intensive enough to make the example realistic, but not too
complicated. Ideas, anyone?) Then I'll point people to several thick,
dense books such as this
one, this
one, and this
one. After which they're on their own.
So for scientific work, or other stuff that's seriously hammering the FPU, it's going to be a dog. Sun has never denied this. You're not going to take weather simulations and throw them on this thing; it'd be a waste of money. But for other applications -- database; web server; maybe financial simulations...
Provided, of course, you don't make the common mistake of using floating point to represent currency values! Of course, if you do that, your numbers will come out all wrong anyway. Makes me wonder about some of the "economic models" I hear about...
If I make a website, and don't link to Chinese pro-democracy sites, am I guilty of helping the Chinese government?
If you're a random web site that only a few people go to, then no. But if you're a search engine, and you're pretending that your results reflect a comprehensive spidering of the web, then not only are you helping the Chinese government, but you're breaking an implicit contract with your users.
From an implementor's POV maybe. But when you decide to save a graphic file and you have to decide what format to use, everything that's in the little drop down menu is the same category of fruit.
You're right about this product not being a PDF-killer, but for the wrong reasons.
- Support vector-based documents, allowing both text and graphics to scale to any size?
- Provide a way to cryptographicly sign a document?
- Support e-book DRM features?
These features are all essential to people who use them, but they are only used in a small fraction of PDF users. Probably the biggest use is preparing prepress page images in the traditional publishing industry. Aside from that PDF is mostly used to translate word processor and hard-copy documents into portable, attachable form. Not only is this easy to do, but once you have that PDF file, you can pretty much assume that anybody you give the document to can read it.
I don't much care for PDF, and I never use it for original work. But I still own a copy of Acrobat, because I get production work from knowing how to use it. I rarely get called on to do scripted documents, scalable vector graphics, or any of the other fancy features you mention. Mostly people just have traditional books they want on PDF. My last job was updating a set of forms that had previously been distributed in a loose-leaf binder, and providing the PDF to the client. Instead of being printed out, the PDF itself was distributed to users, who now print out invidual forms on an as-needed basis.
For my own use, the only thing I ever use PDF for is instead of fax machine. (I don't have a landline phone to hook a fax machine too.) When somebody asks me to fill out a form and fax it to them, I instead scan the form into PDF and send them the PDF file.
Yes, I know: sending a binary image by PDF wastes bandwidth; TIFF is much more efficient, and there are plenty of free TIFF viewers. But I can't assume that everybody has those viewers, and I'm not going to complicate my professional life by forcing people to download software when I know they already have software that will do the job.
And that, ultimately, is why it's going to be pretty much impossible to displace PDF: it's a de-facto standard.
Well, yeah, your life sucks so thorough (have you considered suicide?) that almost any change would be an improvement. The rest of the human race can afford to be choosy.
While a handheld pen-sized scanner may intrigue, it's not very new...
Indeed, Slashdot's sibling site, ThinkGeek, used to sell little monochrome scanners meant for OCR work. I actually bought one, but found it too hard to hold it steady enough to work reliably. And come to think of it, the first scanner I ever bought was a little handheld thing. I didn't buy it (ten years ago, I think) because it was small, I bought it because it was cheap. But again, too hard to hold steady.
If you look carefully at a typical $100 scanner, you'll realize that the electronics contribute very little to its size. Most of the bulk is due to the mechnical stuff that holds the paper in place and moves the sensors across it.
That kind of mechanical engineering has clearly hit its fundamental limits in terms of size. To get a real breakthrough, you'd have to find a way to do without moving the sensor over the image. You can already image a piece of paper with a digital camera — and some digital cameras are very tiny indeed. But they don't include the ability to correct the image for the arbitrary positioning of the camera. Invent that, and you'd have a handheld scanner worth talking about.
It seems to me that, just as AC power is standardised, portable electronics power requirements should be also be standardised, with a standard wall outlet and car outlet at, say, 5V, and a standard device cable and interface. Electronics manufacturers would save money on power adapters, and the consumer would have the cost of the converter written in to home construction or automobile construction costs.
I like the idea, but forget about it ever happening. Manufacturers have no incentive to standardize. It might be cheaper to manufacture power supplies all with the same voltage, but not by much — power supplies are already pretty cheap.
Actually, such a change would cost manufacturers a huge amount, because they'd have to retool every gadget that doesn't fit the new standard!
Getting people to accept new standards is hard, even when there's a cost or safety benefit. Wall power is standarized because the system wouldn't work without it. That's obviously not true for DC devices.
I was once housesitting for a couple that had a cable modem in their living room, and dialup access in their home office. Apparently the broadband connection was for recreational use by the husband when he came home from work, while the wife, who worked at home, used the dialup conection on the odd occasions she needed to go online.
Since these folks were being kind enough to let me stay in their home, I thought to repay them by helping them install a LAN so the wife could share the broadband connection. Aside from being more convenient, it'd save them the cost of an extra phone line and ISP. But they just couldn't be bothered!
"Microevolution"? What a stupid word! It's a way of pretending that evolution doesn't happen, even though we see it happening right in front of our eyes. You're allowed to use mutation to explain why cane toads have longer legs, but not to explain why people resemble apes or chickens resemble dinosaurs. This, from people who insist that evolution is "just a theory"!
... if they actually got off their Windows high-horse, they probably could sell application software for Linux.
And so what? The Linux market is tiny, so it's not like they're losing a lot of money. And very few people would buy Microsoft applications because they had Linux version. People buy MS apps because they have to have that particular app, usually because all the people they work with also have that app.
As things stand, someone who needs a Microsoft app, usually has to buy either Windows or MacOS to run it on. Almost always they choose Windows, so Microsoft has a total lock on the OS market. If Microsoft apps all ran on Linux, that lock would go away.
It's not a high horse, it's a sound business strategy. Also a monopolistic one, which is why Microsoft should be forced to split into separate platform and application vendors.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeez dude, even when you're right you're wrong. I happen to share your dislike of Jackson's work. As you say, his dialogue sucks, and his overall stories are pretty lame. But anybody who thinks the special effects in his movies are "cartoonish" has their head up their ass.
I've been tasked with re-writing this document so that it describes Java concurrency in terms of JSR 166 instead of the more primitive thread management currently described. It only took a little research to convince me that I'll not be able to do more than scratch the surface. It's a huge topic. What I plan to do is guide the reader to a simple use case involving caching in a ConcurrentHashMap. (I still haven't figured out what to cache: it has to be resource-intensive enough to make the example realistic, but not too complicated. Ideas, anyone?) Then I'll point people to several thick, dense books such as this one, this one, and this one. After which they're on their own.
More "realistic" bullshit.
OK, I stand corrected. And I wouldn't mind seeing the TV series revived. But I'm not holding my breath.
Don't get too hooked. Joss Whedon announced that Firefly was gone for good some time ago.
A memory card in a memory slot!
Taco's Razor: Never ascribe to hyperbole what can be properly ascribed to sloppy prose.
I don't much care for PDF, and I never use it for original work. But I still own a copy of Acrobat, because I get production work from knowing how to use it. I rarely get called on to do scripted documents, scalable vector graphics, or any of the other fancy features you mention. Mostly people just have traditional books they want on PDF. My last job was updating a set of forms that had previously been distributed in a loose-leaf binder, and providing the PDF to the client. Instead of being printed out, the PDF itself was distributed to users, who now print out invidual forms on an as-needed basis.
For my own use, the only thing I ever use PDF for is instead of fax machine. (I don't have a landline phone to hook a fax machine too.) When somebody asks me to fill out a form and fax it to them, I instead scan the form into PDF and send them the PDF file.
Yes, I know: sending a binary image by PDF wastes bandwidth; TIFF is much more efficient, and there are plenty of free TIFF viewers. But I can't assume that everybody has those viewers, and I'm not going to complicate my professional life by forcing people to download software when I know they already have software that will do the job.
And that, ultimately, is why it's going to be pretty much impossible to displace PDF: it's a de-facto standard.
Sure, it's not as hypothetical as I thought. But my main point was that shrinking down scanners by eliminating the machinery was pointless.
That's ironic. You're practically a poster child for obscenity as a substitute for self-expression.
Well, yeah, your life sucks so thorough (have you considered suicide?) that almost any change would be an improvement. The rest of the human race can afford to be choosy.
If you look carefully at a typical $100 scanner, you'll realize that the electronics contribute very little to its size. Most of the bulk is due to the mechnical stuff that holds the paper in place and moves the sensors across it.
That kind of mechanical engineering has clearly hit its fundamental limits in terms of size. To get a real breakthrough, you'd have to find a way to do without moving the sensor over the image. You can already image a piece of paper with a digital camera — and some digital cameras are very tiny indeed. But they don't include the ability to correct the image for the arbitrary positioning of the camera. Invent that, and you'd have a handheld scanner worth talking about.
Probably they did. But back in 1880, there were rather fewer electrical gadgets to throw away.
Actually, such a change would cost manufacturers a huge amount, because they'd have to retool every gadget that doesn't fit the new standard!
Getting people to accept new standards is hard, even when there's a cost or safety benefit. Wall power is standarized because the system wouldn't work without it. That's obviously not true for DC devices.
Since these folks were being kind enough to let me stay in their home, I thought to repay them by helping them install a LAN so the wife could share the broadband connection. Aside from being more convenient, it'd save them the cost of an extra phone line and ISP. But they just couldn't be bothered!
Actually, OS/2 is vulnerable to viruses through its Windows compatibility mode. For true virus resistence, I recommend Apple DOS!
Which goes with my point: that "theory" is not a negative concept.
"Microevolution"? What a stupid word! It's a way of pretending that evolution doesn't happen, even though we see it happening right in front of our eyes. You're allowed to use mutation to explain why cane toads have longer legs, but not to explain why people resemble apes or chickens resemble dinosaurs. This, from people who insist that evolution is "just a theory"!
Rape != Sex. If you had any experience with either, you'd know that.
Sigh. My post was an ironic reference to people who dismiss all opinions that disagree with those held by W as "compulsive Bush bashing".
The point of making some bluetooth is to eliminate wires. If you want bluetooth and headphones, get bluetooth headphones.
As things stand, someone who needs a Microsoft app, usually has to buy either Windows or MacOS to run it on. Almost always they choose Windows, so Microsoft has a total lock on the OS market. If Microsoft apps all ran on Linux, that lock would go away.
It's not a high horse, it's a sound business strategy. Also a monopolistic one, which is why Microsoft should be forced to split into separate platform and application vendors.