Its not that.Net creates the possibility of writting code/systems that could not execute before, just that now, this code can run efficiently.
Currently with COM, cross language inter program communication (or cross machine program communication even in the same language) a lot of time has to be spent reading, interpreting, and converting data types (especially object types) into the native language of the program. So if you had a payroll tax program on another machine and you wanted it to update your employee record (object), you might have code that reads something like:
UpdateTaxes(MyEmployeeObj)
Under.net you'd be copying a chunk of memory, having the process update fields directly, and then copying it back.
Under traditional systems, the object your passing has to go through packing and unpacking of each field, in both directions
Recumbent advocacy literature does claim safety as a plus. Mostly, this is based on a low likelyhood of flying over the handlebars.
I'm also an urban cyclist, but I value my high perch, and pretty attached to it. Seeing over other cars in side streets, and being able to turn and see behind me (ok I know mirrors are an easy counter argument), makes me feel in control. The high perch allows you to take traffic laws "under advisement" in your riding. Not seeing as well, limits your opportunities to safely excersise your judgement. Its an issue for me, anyway:)
My point is that even if people have wrongly preconceived recumbents as less safe, they may these preconceptions firmly entrenched.
The top riders have 4-6 different bikes available during the tour so Lance would have the privilege of picking the recumbent on favourable days only.
I agree it would be great if they were mass produced and easily available at walmart, and in used sources. I'd buy one at those prices.
Maybe though they are not a better all-purpose bike for the mass market though. A higher seating position lets the rider feel more secure/confident in city traffic, and I think some people value the ability to get up hills easily more than top cruising speed.
Power assist (electric and converted gas weed wackers) seems like a better idea for recumbents than it does for uprights, and maybe thats the answer for mass appeal. Assistance seems more valuable in acceleration and hill climbing to a bike concept that naturally allows higher cruising speed and range, rather than as a range extension to upright bikes.
There are some issues that might make recumbents uncompetitive in the TDF.
First your math is wrong. If there were 60 miles of uphils and 60 miles of downhills, and Lance goes up at 20mph and down at 60mph. He completes a stage in 4 hours. If you go half speed uphill and double speed downhill, you finish in 6 and a half hours.
The TDF has some serious mofo mountains that are what make it the greatest race on earth. Some well trained athletes that thought they were fit enough to complete the tour drop out in the mountains unable to climb using technology that allows them to use the gravity of alternately standing on each pedal, as opposed to what looks like walking up a montain standing on your hands.
I have no experience with recumbents, but I'd be concerned that even the best athletes couldn't complete level 3 and higher TDF climbs.
If I'm mistaken, let me know. These are merely impressions.
Re:Why no recumbents in Tour de France?
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 1
Armstrong won the stage 18 time trial averaging almost 30mph over 74 minutes.
I believe you that recumbent racers could do far better (40mph?) I guess though, they'd risk falling/DQing out of standard (30 minutes behind leader) on the climbing stages.
taking 2 hours to the leader's 1 for the uphill portion does not get made up if they take 1 minute instead of 2 on the downhill side.
Its interesting that there is no sport body able to successfully promote HPV racing. The technology potential doesn't diminish the athletic acheivement the same way golf does, and its suprising because it gives the manufacturers more crap to sell, which one would assume drives the sport.
... Maybe I've been around the golf industry to long.
Why no recumbents in Tour de France?
on
Biking @ 80 MPH
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is there a rule that prevents recumbent bicycles from running in road races? Or is there a technical reason (maybe they're not so great for hill climbing ??) that makes them not the best choice.
Is there an application where many GBs would be piped, and where this throughput difference would then matter?
the NT+ pipes do a little more (though the linux ones seem far more useful by their simplicity) so its natural that they'd be slightly slower. And slightly slower is what win2k is compared to linux. It hardly matters. XP did bad, but its almost obviously a bug that will be patched eventually/soonish.
I mean, name one application or business purpose where faster linux pipe performance would win it a contract? There just aren't any.
You've made an excellent assessment. There are still so many contentious issues though.
Soviets had morale issues that are likely to impact US forces. They had extremely few KIAs, but massive deaths from disease. They were fighting a people that is very hard to vilify. Unlike Saddam, they have no oppressive power base, rich off corruption. The west is incapable of impressing on Afgans what their suffering is. The Afgan suffering is horrid.
The Taliban was created by Pakistan explicitly to go back and control Afganistan. They have support of the afgani people because, they are the only ones capable of maintaining internal security and order. So even if nearly everyone is starving to death, the harsh criminal penalties keeps order. Other groups in charge would recreate the climate of civil infighting that the Taliban was able to stop.
I don't expect western tanks rolling into Afganistan. I see Helicopter gunships, helicopter transports, use of pakistani and tajik/northern alliance troops supported by gunships and weapons.
I don't know if the Taliban are a terrorist government. Presumably they tolerate the presense in their borders, and its important to us that they stop.
I agree that the WTC is a justifiable Military target. The same way key Serbian economic institutions (car factories) that supported its Governement were justified by Nato. Sorry for insensitivity. Continue ignoring the enemy's perspectives and just go destroy them, rather than reply to me.
I support the upcomming war against terrorism. I cannot see how terrorism will be eliminated as a result, but I guess I can watch them try for a while. Raining despair on the region will not create a climate conducive to eliminating terrorism. Killing all who may resent US foreign policy might work, but I think this would be unjustifiable... and if we're able to compare 2 unjustifiable acts unjustifiableness, killing them all would be more unjustifiable.
The terrorrists declared war a long time ago. Although US foreign policy fails to benefit many in the middle east, often their own governement's policies and skill at deflecting blame to the US plays a more direct role in causing despair and resentment.
This is seen as a great military opportunity to crush terrorism. That will never be successful. The great diplomatic opportunity to stop terrorism, though is hard to be cheerfully optimistic about, at least has some hope.
Not having the choice to reuse existing software, benefits you always because it forces you to fully understand the problem before re-implementing the solution?
If anything, haveing a peek at someone else's solution could be helpful
Your stance is exceptionally pro-Microsoft. In fact more extremem than their view. But anyways, how does MS prevent terrorists and spies from using Office?
He starts off the article with ".Net is an e-commerce platform"
That's about all you need to read to see that he's comming at.net from the clueless marketing perspective.
From a technical perspective,.net has plenty to offer desktop development. This is exactly where mono is concentrating: Developing a CLR for linux. The biggest value, and what happens to be easiest, is simply adopting MS's standard binary format for code and data representation, allowing rapid inter-language communication and interoperation.
Where peterly is being especially retarded is in assuming that MS has an ability to limit what authentication services the linux clr, or any mono application/service can use. Authentication protocols and APIs are fairly trivial.
Perhaps peterly meant that MS's future authentication services will be providing significant value, and the world needs a knee jerk response inhibitting MS's ability to deliver value in whatever shape.
The most obvious application is Xor encryption. A one time pad (series of bytes used only once) was the first uncrackable encryption method.
An easily computable stream that looks random, and cannot be prestored in its entirety seems tough to crack to me. And there's no difficulty in having everyone you want to read your message all having the same pad. Transmitting the starting position to be used is the only difficulty.
If your app is GUI, then your users are running i586/686 already.
Among the reasons people might choose kylix over gcc is productivity, and the possibility that they are new to both, and kylix is easier to learn/use.
PPC/Alpha/whatever else are hopefully all easy port targets. I think kylix is compiled with gcc (????), but for the same reasons you don't see kylix/ppc, you might not care so much about yourapp/ppc.
Exactly how serious I was or not isn't the issue here, and will be avoided diligently.
but the blimp that lifts the shuttle most of the way there instead seems like a great way to save on fuel costs. I don't see why it has to be disposable.
Timing of a shuttle blasting off around it, as the blimp purges helium partly to propel it forward and out of the way should all be manageable.
Or how bout you take one of those gigantic blimps designed to haul big freight mentioned here last week.
Fill it up with so much helium that it has acsends fast enough to keep momentum past the atmosphere, rendez vous with the rock, which has had a manageable piece cut out of it, attach to the blimp, catapult back down to earth.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume you've all seen the animation of the motor...
why does it need a sphere around the shaft? Couldn't the wobbly disc do the same if it were directly attached to the shaft?
This is not the same as perl.
.Net creates the possibility of writting code/systems that could not execute before, just that now, this code can run efficiently.
.net you'd be copying a chunk of memory, having the process update fields directly, and then copying it back.
Its not that
Currently with COM, cross language inter program communication (or cross machine program communication even in the same language) a lot of time has to be spent reading, interpreting, and converting data types (especially object types) into the native language of the program. So if you had a payroll tax program on another machine and you wanted it to update your employee record (object), you might have code that reads something like:
UpdateTaxes(MyEmployeeObj)
Under
Under traditional systems, the object your passing has to go through packing and unpacking of each field, in both directions
Recumbent advocacy literature does claim safety as a plus. Mostly, this is based on a low likelyhood of flying over the handlebars.
:)
I'm also an urban cyclist, but I value my high perch, and pretty attached to it. Seeing over other cars in side streets, and being able to turn and see behind me (ok I know mirrors are an easy counter argument), makes me feel in control. The high perch allows you to take traffic laws "under advisement" in your riding. Not seeing as well, limits your opportunities to safely excersise your judgement. Its an issue for me, anyway
My point is that even if people have wrongly preconceived recumbents as less safe, they may these preconceptions firmly entrenched.
The top riders have 4-6 different bikes available during the tour so Lance would have the privilege of picking the recumbent on favourable days only.
I agree it would be great if they were mass produced and easily available at walmart, and in used sources. I'd buy one at those prices.
Maybe though they are not a better all-purpose bike for the mass market though. A higher seating position lets the rider feel more secure/confident in city traffic, and I think some people value the ability to get up hills easily more than top cruising speed.
Power assist (electric and converted gas weed wackers) seems like a better idea for recumbents than it does for uprights, and maybe thats the answer for mass appeal. Assistance seems more valuable in acceleration and hill climbing to a bike concept that naturally allows higher cruising speed and range, rather than as a range extension to upright bikes.
There are some issues that might make recumbents uncompetitive in the TDF.
First your math is wrong. If there were 60 miles of uphils and 60 miles of downhills, and Lance goes up at 20mph and down at 60mph. He completes a stage in 4 hours. If you go half speed uphill and double speed downhill, you finish in 6 and a half hours.
The TDF has some serious mofo mountains that are what make it the greatest race on earth. Some well trained athletes that thought they were fit enough to complete the tour drop out in the mountains unable to climb using technology that allows them to use the gravity of alternately standing on each pedal, as opposed to what looks like walking up a montain standing on your hands.
I have no experience with recumbents, but I'd be concerned that even the best athletes couldn't complete level 3 and higher TDF climbs.
If I'm mistaken, let me know. These are merely impressions.
Armstrong won the stage 18 time trial averaging almost 30mph over 74 minutes.
I believe you that recumbent racers could do far better (40mph?) I guess though, they'd risk falling/DQing out of standard (30 minutes behind leader) on the climbing stages.
taking 2 hours to the leader's 1 for the uphill portion does not get made up if they take 1 minute instead of 2 on the downhill side.
Its interesting that there is no sport body able to successfully promote HPV racing. The technology potential doesn't diminish the athletic acheivement the same way golf does, and its suprising because it gives the manufacturers more crap to sell, which one would assume drives the sport.
... Maybe I've been around the golf industry to long.
Is there a rule that prevents recumbent bicycles from running in road races? Or is there a technical reason (maybe they're not so great for hill climbing ??) that makes them not the best choice.
... simply the most amazing thing no one has ever heard of!
Is there an application where many GBs would be piped, and where this throughput difference would then matter?
the NT+ pipes do a little more (though the linux ones seem far more useful by their simplicity) so its natural that they'd be slightly slower. And slightly slower is what win2k is compared to linux. It hardly matters. XP did bad, but its almost obviously a bug that will be patched eventually/soonish.
I mean, name one application or business purpose where faster linux pipe performance would win it a contract? There just aren't any.
I understand that live update actually works now (for some people). Much needed great news.
In the past, most attempts to grab rpms (urpmi or apt-rpm) from official mirrors would fail on dependencies. Made linux unuseable to me.
So does mandrake have a useful dependency gathering package manager pointing to a coherent database, yet?
You've made an excellent assessment. There are still so many contentious issues though.
Soviets had morale issues that are likely to impact US forces. They had extremely few KIAs, but massive deaths from disease. They were fighting a people that is very hard to vilify. Unlike Saddam, they have no oppressive power base, rich off corruption. The west is incapable of impressing on Afgans what their suffering is. The Afgan suffering is horrid.
The Taliban was created by Pakistan explicitly to go back and control Afganistan. They have support of the afgani people because, they are the only ones capable of maintaining internal security and order. So even if nearly everyone is starving to death, the harsh criminal penalties keeps order. Other groups in charge would recreate the climate of civil infighting that the Taliban was able to stop.
I don't expect western tanks rolling into Afganistan. I see Helicopter gunships, helicopter transports, use of pakistani and tajik/northern alliance troops supported by gunships and weapons.
I don't know if the Taliban are a terrorist government. Presumably they tolerate the presense in their borders, and its important to us that they stop.
I agree that the WTC is a justifiable Military target. The same way key Serbian economic institutions (car factories) that supported its Governement were justified by Nato. Sorry for insensitivity. Continue ignoring the enemy's perspectives and just go destroy them, rather than reply to me.
I support the upcomming war against terrorism. I cannot see how terrorism will be eliminated as a result, but I guess I can watch them try for a while. Raining despair on the region will not create a climate conducive to eliminating terrorism. Killing all who may resent US foreign policy might work, but I think this would be unjustifiable... and if we're able to compare 2 unjustifiable acts unjustifiableness, killing them all would be more unjustifiable.
The terrorrists declared war a long time ago. Although US foreign policy fails to benefit many in the middle east, often their own governement's policies and skill at deflecting blame to the US plays a more direct role in causing despair and resentment.
This is seen as a great military opportunity to crush terrorism. That will never be successful. The great diplomatic opportunity to stop terrorism, though is hard to be cheerfully optimistic about, at least has some hope.
Frankly, by that time in the morning, on that day, shooting down the plane is the obvious thing to do if you know its hijacked.
I wouldn't even call the person who made the call a Hero. You have every reason to believe the worst will happen if you don't shoot it down.
I think the military would admit to it, if they had done so. Certainly, the FBI and FAA would find out eventually.
... and finally, its a program with no UI.
is that selling the software would involve considerable effort, investment, and risk. Especially if some expectation of success is included.
Releasing can provide rewards, and open source makes the most benefits to everyone.
Are you saying:
Not having the choice to reuse existing software, benefits you always because it forces you to fully understand the problem before re-implementing the solution?
If anything, haveing a peek at someone else's solution could be helpful
Your stance is exceptionally pro-Microsoft. In fact more extremem than their view. But anyways, how does MS prevent terrorists and spies from using Office?
He starts off the article with ".Net is an e-commerce platform"
.net from the clueless marketing perspective.
.net has plenty to offer desktop development. This is exactly where mono is concentrating: Developing a CLR for linux. The biggest value, and what happens to be easiest, is simply adopting MS's standard binary format for code and data representation, allowing rapid inter-language communication and interoperation.
That's about all you need to read to see that he's comming at
From a technical perspective,
Where peterly is being especially retarded is in assuming that MS has an ability to limit what authentication services the linux clr, or any mono application/service can use. Authentication protocols and APIs are fairly trivial.
Perhaps peterly meant that MS's future authentication services will be providing significant value, and the world needs a knee jerk response inhibitting MS's ability to deliver value in whatever shape.
I think your confusing RSA public key cryptography with encryption.
RSA is one of many encryption techniques. Few others (if any in common use) depend on the fact that factoring large numbers is a difficult problem.
As I told my girlfriend last evening,
as fat as your ass seems, it is far less than infinite, and somewhat smaller than the universe.
The most obvious application is Xor encryption. A one time pad (series of bytes used only once) was the first uncrackable encryption method.
An easily computable stream that looks random, and cannot be prestored in its entirety seems tough to crack to me. And there's no difficulty in having everyone you want to read your message all having the same pad. Transmitting the starting position to be used is the only difficulty.
If your app is GUI, then your users are running i586/686 already.
Among the reasons people might choose kylix over gcc is productivity, and the possibility that they are new to both, and kylix is easier to learn/use.
PPC/Alpha/whatever else are hopefully all easy port targets. I think kylix is compiled with gcc (????), but for the same reasons you don't see kylix/ppc, you might not care so much about yourapp/ppc.
its actually possible that this is just another nuissance suit presented entirely from the nuissance's point of view.
man this sshit is funny
Exactly how serious I was or not isn't the issue here, and will be avoided diligently.
but the blimp that lifts the shuttle most of the way there instead seems like a great way to save on fuel costs. I don't see why it has to be disposable.
Timing of a shuttle blasting off around it, as the blimp purges helium partly to propel it forward and out of the way should all be manageable.
pretty cool plan.
Or how bout you take one of those gigantic blimps designed to haul big freight mentioned here last week.
Fill it up with so much helium that it has acsends fast enough to keep momentum past the atmosphere, rendez vous with the rock, which has had a manageable piece cut out of it, attach to the blimp, catapult back down to earth.