You can't make money if you don't spend money. If a grocery store only stocked according to what it had sold the previous week, one bad product line would put it out of business.
Besidrs, balanced budgets cause inflation, unbalancing the budget.
The correct strategy is to decide what you actually need to get done, then determine what you need to invest in to cover that cost, calculate what you still have then raise the extra money needed to do both.
Good investments mean you don't need to raise as much. If you want low taxes, invest wisely.
But to really understand what works and why, you want examples.
I hope, now the Itanium 3 has been discontinued for a while, that and the Intel iWarp are open sourced. Doubt it, but one can always hope.
Between the MIPS, the T2, the GPLed SPARC, the RISC-V, the open source elements of the AMULET series and everything on Open Cores, we've a substantial body of knowledge on very large numbers of threads, very high performance, asynchronous computing and advanced ALU.
Throw in the two above as well and our understanding is almost complete.
Not getting sued is easy. Just set your repository up on a server on the island they use as a tax haven and go completely anonymous with it.
There's no way they'd risk violating the anonymity by omerta, it would expose all the stuff they want kept secret and piss off the banks who have no official records of Oracle opening those other accounts.
Always use your enemy's bank account as a body shield.
China will likely have fusion in the next 10-15 years, since it, oh, spends money on science. Maybe earlier, if Europe decides to pool resources with it. Which it may well do.
If China does, India will have no choice but to switch to fission for energy or sell up to China. It can't compete on diesel or oil.
The EU will remain important, but you're right, nobody else will. Competition against a technologically advanced society is pointless.
The FSF has repeatedly rejected the concept. Theo design Raadt has despoiled the libertarian notion by rejecting DARPA funding and decrying military use of his product.
It is only the open source group, LAST on the scene, hijackers of the ideology, and largely the least successful lot, who have the problems.
No, open source is NOT as old as claimed, back then you had FREE AS IN FREEDOM, where each group defined the key freedom they wished you to be free in. This was fixed. There was no corruption, there still isn't.
Open Source rejected all that. It renounced the free as in freedom model and forced licenses to conform to a very different ideology.
You can argue as to which way was better, this or that. Feel free. Maybe you'll even be right. What you cannot argue is that the old way is perverting the new by remaining as it always was. No. They are not equivalent things.
All the article convinces me if is that the early objectors to open source were right. The free licenses, such as GNU and BSD, are better, are honest and are exactly the same in spirit as they were when created by different branches of academia.
The total spent on fusion since 1954 is $24 billion. Wonder how much that is per facility per year. After all, the Manhattan Project only cost $22 billion and fusion can't be any more difficult than banging two rocks together really hard.
The total spent on fossil fuel is $21 trillion a year. Obviously that can't work, either. They'd been trying to build computers since 100 BC, obviously those are impossible.
They'd been trying to find a Higgs boson since the 1960s. Obviously they don't exist.
They'd been trying to discover how to make fire since 5 million BC. Obviously can't be done.
Wake me up when... no, don't bother waking me up. This level of stupidity is too great to stomach.
It doesn't meet the original design criteria, it's unclear it meets the current one either, it's abysmally slow, it encourages bad programming and it causes profuse profanities.
So it's still better than C#, but really isn't fit for any kind of professional setting.
Badly designed code, comment and corrective action.
Good code should have contracts that prevent breakage from (ideally) compiling or, at worst, passing absolutely any of the tests in the test harness you've got rigged to run on code checked in to the repository.
Good comments should explain what is done, not simply justify it. Code reviews should validate that future changes to the code do not invalidate the description.
The corrective action for checking in broken code, regardless of the nature of the breakage, should involve said coder discovering what the U.S. military mean by being taken for a helicopter ride.
The idea of open source being that if you don't like something, you write fixes. Sorry, the procedure worked entity as designed. If there are undocumented features to it, submit patches.
Those who prioritize quality in code don't use Windows, Linux, *BSD or any other general purpose OS, except as a text editor. And, frankly, I doubt more than three or four of us use Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
If I want two OS', I use a hypervisor or a virtual machine. OS-in-OS works with Linux running in Linux or RTAI because Linux and RTAI are fast.
Windows is slow, violently unstable, insecure, doesn't provide the necessary low level support, and was only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.
I've never had a problem with a Linux tablet.
Ah, I see your problem, you forgot to turn it on.
You can't make money if you don't spend money. If a grocery store only stocked according to what it had sold the previous week, one bad product line would put it out of business.
Besidrs, balanced budgets cause inflation, unbalancing the budget.
The correct strategy is to decide what you actually need to get done, then determine what you need to invest in to cover that cost, calculate what you still have then raise the extra money needed to do both.
Good investments mean you don't need to raise as much. If you want low taxes, invest wisely.
Because the States did a bloody awful job of it all and would do a worse job today.
No, they didn't.
I haven't had a raise in 20 years and know several others who haven't either. Certain IT sectors will do anything to avoid giving one.
Ideally, we need several.
But to really understand what works and why, you want examples.
I hope, now the Itanium 3 has been discontinued for a while, that and the Intel iWarp are open sourced. Doubt it, but one can always hope.
Between the MIPS, the T2, the GPLed SPARC, the RISC-V, the open source elements of the AMULET series and everything on Open Cores, we've a substantial body of knowledge on very large numbers of threads, very high performance, asynchronous computing and advanced ALU.
Throw in the two above as well and our understanding is almost complete.
I dunno, SGI went bankrupt after moving from MIPS to Intel. It wasn't due to the extra horsepower dragging them along.
Not getting sued is easy. Just set your repository up on a server on the island they use as a tax haven and go completely anonymous with it.
There's no way they'd risk violating the anonymity by omerta, it would expose all the stuff they want kept secret and piss off the banks who have no official records of Oracle opening those other accounts.
Always use your enemy's bank account as a body shield.
China will likely have fusion in the next 10-15 years, since it, oh, spends money on science. Maybe earlier, if Europe decides to pool resources with it. Which it may well do.
If China does, India will have no choice but to switch to fission for energy or sell up to China. It can't compete on diesel or oil.
The EU will remain important, but you're right, nobody else will. Competition against a technologically advanced society is pointless.
And their code won't compile, no matter what they do.
Eventually, they'll give up and go back to reading "Fly Fishing" by J. R. Hartley.
There's the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in Warrington.
Studies show meetings lower intelligence and the ability to absorb new information, whilst increasing susceptibility to yes-man syndrome.
Why do you think academics avoid meetings in favour of symposia and conferences? (Basically the bazaar model, in ESR terms.)
News at 11!
Followed by our story on 60 people trying to put in a wooden post.
Obviously that's true for open source.
It is not true for free software, which is a different concept.
The problem is, the article conflates these two. A lot of people do, precisely something RMS has warned of for years.
You can resolve the apparent problem of a rigid specification be moving from the OSI model to the free model.
The FSF has repeatedly rejected the concept. Theo design Raadt has despoiled the libertarian notion by rejecting DARPA funding and decrying military use of his product.
It is only the open source group, LAST on the scene, hijackers of the ideology, and largely the least successful lot, who have the problems.
No, open source is NOT as old as claimed, back then you had FREE AS IN FREEDOM, where each group defined the key freedom they wished you to be free in. This was fixed. There was no corruption, there still isn't.
Open Source rejected all that. It renounced the free as in freedom model and forced licenses to conform to a very different ideology.
You can argue as to which way was better, this or that. Feel free. Maybe you'll even be right. What you cannot argue is that the old way is perverting the new by remaining as it always was. No. They are not equivalent things.
All the article convinces me if is that the early objectors to open source were right. The free licenses, such as GNU and BSD, are better, are honest and are exactly the same in spirit as they were when created by different branches of academia.
YMMV.
The total spent on fusion since 1954 is $24 billion. Wonder how much that is per facility per year. After all, the Manhattan Project only cost $22 billion and fusion can't be any more difficult than banging two rocks together really hard.
The total spent on fossil fuel is $21 trillion a year. Obviously that can't work, either.
They'd been trying to build computers since 100 BC, obviously those are impossible.
They'd been trying to find a Higgs boson since the 1960s. Obviously they don't exist.
They'd been trying to discover how to make fire since 5 million BC. Obviously can't be done.
Wake me up when... no, don't bother waking me up. This level of stupidity is too great to stomach.
It doesn't meet the original design criteria, it's unclear it meets the current one either, it's abysmally slow, it encourages bad programming and it causes profuse profanities.
So it's still better than C#, but really isn't fit for any kind of professional setting.
Urban legend, long since... dismissed.
Badly designed code, comment and corrective action.
Good code should have contracts that prevent breakage from (ideally) compiling or, at worst, passing absolutely any of the tests in the test harness you've got rigged to run on code checked in to the repository.
Good comments should explain what is done, not simply justify it. Code reviews should validate that future changes to the code do not invalidate the description.
The corrective action for checking in broken code, regardless of the nature of the breakage, should involve said coder discovering what the U.S. military mean by being taken for a helicopter ride.
Then you don't have to worry.
Mankind: zombie process
The idea of open source being that if you don't like something, you write fixes. Sorry, the procedure worked entity as designed. If there are undocumented features to it, submit patches.
NewSpeak is what American Republicans, Libertarians and Democrats use.
Those left may or may not, depends on the day.
Those who prioritize quality in code don't use Windows, Linux, *BSD or any other general purpose OS, except as a text editor. And, frankly, I doubt more than three or four of us use Slashdot.
Any highly reactive compound is a cancer risk.
I would not consider cancer a particular concern. Brain damage, but not cancer.