The ONLY cause of the gas price increase was increased demand--because some idiots got it around that the prices would go up.
We have a scanner over here and we sometimes listen to cell calls. Let's just say, all of the "slower" people rushed on down to the gas station for gas. The "quicker" folks tried to explain that this bombing should have no significant effect on gas prices.
It's too bad self-fufilling proficies(?) can still come true.
I'm sure some idiot out there will be trying to sell us single page e-paper books. After all, it's all you really need...
I like the idea of my collection in one nicely bound--yes bound--256 page book. (512 pages also available.) For static text, you want to click 'next' as little as possible. The best interface for books is TURNING THE PAGE.
The book texts should be stored in the e-book; I don't need to worry about my PC trashing my library and I know that I own it. (This is more than knowing that I just have access to a text--even if it's free access.)
For any non-static text, moving images, or anything interactive, use some Trekie datapad.
Rational: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason. (Sounds about right.)
If you start with the postulates Bush starts with, you find that his decisions are perfectly reasoned.
You can disagree about the "facts" that lead to his path of reasoning if you like....
>Or.... Scinece coverage is so brainless it leads to an anti-intellectual attitude.
Exactly. Real science has margins of error, some meekness, and a little recognized uncertainty.
But, science reporting in the major news channels strips this away and just reports "Scientists just discovered how it is!" It sounds too sure, and it is.
When the results are improved it's "Scientists just discovered a better just how it is!"
When the results of some study are reversed, or a different scientist finds differing results or even something that might look contradictory, it's "Scientists were wrong about how it is. Now really sure this time."
1. Voyager had dialogue copied from the pages of "1001 Trite Cliché's"
2. The USS Voyager went parts shopping at the local Borg-e-mart. Just one cube can destroy the whole Federation and countless other civilizations, but **Voyager** can take'em on when need be.
3. Can you count Photon Torpedoes?
4. How many cool technologies were discovered, installed, then gone the next episode?
5. The ending and everything about it sucked goatse.
6. No morals, lessons, or deep thinking. Just, "Let's take our initial emotional response (and sometimes our reaction to that initial response), wait for a while with a long face, then call it Philosophy." The arguments and discussion on Voyager were filler, not real substantial thoughts.
7. Match the frequency. Reverse the polarity. Use an X particle beam. Need I say more?
I agree that MS hires some of the best programmers in the industry.
But--as always with MS--they still design & implement crap. It's a real mystery how this works... (To the point.) This research lab seems unproductive; almost stagnant.
I say evasive because when I click on the "Forth" button, I get pages and pages of strong claims and apparently no evidence offered to support them. They just are. (We all know strong claims require strong proof.)
I guess you are saying the evidence is scattered about in that verbose mess somewhere. I'll keep looking.
It would be helpfull if when you say, for example, factoring is the key to this, you briefly explain what factoring is. Without defining it as it's used, it stops being the key to everything and becomes the magical-mystery key to everything. (I shouldn't need to scroll down some other page to know what I'm reading now.)
When speed is supposedly increased by great amounts or size is reduced to near nothingness, explain exactly how and at what cost. The best evidence for some Forth advantage might be identical programs written in several languages (Forth, C, Asm) on the same architecture.
My skepticism kicks in when all positives and no negatives are spoken, and that's what I'm seeing. Everything has a downside and it's necessary to know what it is. Faster, smaller, less debugging time, less bugs, quicker to learn, and more perfect in every way does not reflect reality.
Many comments Chuck makes kick in my cook filter. Such as: "Forth application code is 100 times smaller than 'C' code.", "One thousand instructions ought to be enough for anything.", "I can reduce the amound of code by 90% to 99%.", "There ought not be an OS.", etc.
Worst of all, I hear things from others like, it's a lot faster than assembly. Everything seemed to point to cult, cook, or liar. The only thing that made me in any way unsure was the almost universal support/. gave to Forth. It was unusual.
Because of/. i'll retract my stance against this for the time being.
When I write to the metal, I use assembly. Writing assembly is intuitive, easy to read, and with architecture knowledge and some thought, very efficient. (For some people, almost as efficient as theoretically possible.)
This article got me looking at Forth for the first time; and I must say, it's not reader-friendly. It is perhaps one of the ugliest, most difficult to read languages I've ever seen. Brainfuc% made more sense to me! (Note, I didn't try to _write_ any Forth. You tell me how difficult that is...)
My impression after going over Forth programs is that programs written in Forth are small because large ones would be suicidal. The gains over assembly and C seem to be from feature-loss rather than any advantage of the language.
Perhaps worse than Forth itself is the creator of the language, or rather, the claims he makes. He makes amazing claims about speed and size with about the same level of professionalism as claiming "Compute with amazing crystal power! The computing power of Atlantis could be yours!"--and with about as much evidece to back up his claims. Am I to believe a computer scientist on faith?
After claims of programs that are so many 1000's of times smaller and so many 10's of times faster, I finally (and with great effort) get enough detail on his programs to discover how this is: they are all but non-functional. His programs have been stripped down to the point at which there is almost no possible use for them; and have consequently attracted almost no users.
I prefer minimalism--I can enjoy Mozart as well as the next guy--but this is two 32'nd notes and nearly a staff.
I'm skeptical, as anyone should be. He claims that for 30 years, and after uncounted billions of dollars spent, computer scientists were just doing it wrong. He would propose a "superior" alternative. Programs that are faster and smaller, chips that use less power and are far cheaper, so on. All untrue claims.
Give this man the crackpot award. Maybe some brownie points if he really believes in what he's doing. Just don't get Chuck, Katz, and Alex Chiu together in the same room.
I've been reading the ultratechnology site, and I'm dissatisfied with the lack of real details. It almost seems evasive. (It reminds of the writing of new-age gurus.)
But, what I want to know is, what is that software you make really like? Can you take us through a real-world use of OKAD?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point.
The ONLY cause of the gas price increase was increased demand--because some idiots got it around that the prices would go up.
We have a scanner over here and we sometimes listen to cell calls. Let's just say, all of the "slower" people rushed on down to the gas station for gas. The "quicker" folks tried to explain that this bombing should have no significant effect on gas prices.
It's too bad self-fufilling proficies(?) can still come true.
The US did alot of things during the cold war, but it was still a war of sorts.
Have they done anything since?
I'm sure some idiot out there will be trying to sell us single page e-paper books. After all, it's all you really need...
I like the idea of my collection in one nicely bound--yes bound--256 page book. (512 pages also available.) For static text, you want to click 'next' as little as possible. The best interface for books is TURNING THE PAGE.
The book texts should be stored in the e-book; I don't need to worry about my PC trashing my library and I know that I own it. (This is more than knowing that I just have access to a text--even if it's free access.)
For any non-static text, moving images, or anything interactive, use some Trekie datapad.
You dumb fuck, the [any party] are a bunch of corrupt swindling pig-fucking idiots.
Scratch that. (Need to read articles before posting...)
Wasn't this a state action--as in Texas?
Mozilla was doomed from the start.
They were certain no-one wanted a "better browser." They wanted an everything-environment--an interface to everyone by all channels.
WRONG!
I want my Galeon. Native interface, bookmarks, HTML/CSS rendering. I don't need much more, but I want it fast and stable.
My e-mail, instant messanging, ftp, and newsgroups can be better handled by other programs.
Rational: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason. (Sounds about right.)
If you start with the postulates Bush starts with, you find that his decisions are perfectly reasoned.
You can disagree about the "facts" that lead to his path of reasoning if you like....
>It'd be naive to think that the DOJ is acting contrary Bush's wishes.
He pays little attention to his cabinet--ie Ashcroft and the DOJ. So, I wouldn't say he exactly runs a tight ship.
It seems entirely plausible to me that the DOJ was just guessing what Bush wanted, or didn't even consider it.
The AG acting in proxy to bush is different than Bush actually making a decision.
It changes who's the CorpWhore, who we should blame, and who's wrong.
1 os monopoly. 1 apps/internet monopoly.
think for once.
As for Microsoft, I couldn't guess what her actions might be.
Ashcroft's still better than Reno.
She would've had everyone in that nice little russian company shot in an unprovoked rade--then torched their building.
>Or.... Scinece coverage is so brainless it leads to an anti-intellectual attitude.
Exactly. Real science has margins of error, some meekness, and a little recognized uncertainty.
But, science reporting in the major news channels strips this away and just reports "Scientists just discovered how it is!" It sounds too sure, and it is.
When the results are improved it's "Scientists just discovered a better just how it is!"
When the results of some study are reversed, or a different scientist finds differing results or even something that might look contradictory, it's "Scientists were wrong about how it is. Now really sure this time."
Into the troll's snare....
1. Voyager had dialogue copied from the pages of "1001 Trite Cliché's"
2. The USS Voyager went parts shopping at the local Borg-e-mart. Just one cube can destroy the whole Federation and countless other civilizations, but **Voyager** can take'em on when need be.
3. Can you count Photon Torpedoes?
4. How many cool technologies were discovered, installed, then gone the next episode?
5. The ending and everything about it sucked goatse.
6. No morals, lessons, or deep thinking. Just, "Let's take our initial emotional response (and sometimes our reaction to that initial response), wait for a while with a long face, then call it Philosophy." The arguments and discussion on Voyager were filler, not real substantial thoughts.
7. Match the frequency. Reverse the polarity. Use an X particle beam. Need I say more?
I agree that MS hires some of the best programmers in the industry.
But--as always with MS--they still design & implement crap. It's a real mystery how this works... (To the point.) This research lab seems unproductive; almost stagnant.
Why is this?
It's one thing to read the papers of others and advance the technology, it's another to buy someone's research staff.
With just 2 rabbit nerves it can perform a MUL.
I say evasive because when I click on the "Forth" button, I get pages and pages of strong claims and apparently no evidence offered to support them. They just are. (We all know strong claims require strong proof.)
/. gave to Forth. It was unusual.
/. i'll retract my stance against this for the time being.
I guess you are saying the evidence is scattered about in that verbose mess somewhere. I'll keep looking.
It would be helpfull if when you say, for example, factoring is the key to this, you briefly explain what factoring is. Without defining it as it's used, it stops being the key to everything and becomes the magical-mystery key to everything. (I shouldn't need to scroll down some other page to know what I'm reading now.)
When speed is supposedly increased by great amounts or size is reduced to near nothingness, explain exactly how and at what cost. The best evidence for some Forth advantage might be identical programs written in several languages (Forth, C, Asm) on the same architecture.
My skepticism kicks in when all positives and no negatives are spoken, and that's what I'm seeing. Everything has a downside and it's necessary to know what it is. Faster, smaller, less debugging time, less bugs, quicker to learn, and more perfect in every way does not reflect reality.
Many comments Chuck makes kick in my cook filter. Such as: "Forth application code is 100 times smaller than 'C' code.", "One thousand instructions ought to be enough for anything.", "I can reduce the amound of code by 90% to 99%.", "There ought not be an OS.", etc.
Worst of all, I hear things from others like, it's a lot faster than assembly. Everything seemed to point to cult, cook, or liar. The only thing that made me in any way unsure was the almost universal support
Because of
When I write to the metal, I use assembly. Writing assembly is intuitive, easy to read, and with architecture knowledge and some thought, very efficient. (For some people, almost as efficient as theoretically possible.)
This article got me looking at Forth for the first time; and I must say, it's not reader-friendly. It is perhaps one of the ugliest, most difficult to read languages I've ever seen. Brainfuc% made more sense to me! (Note, I didn't try to _write_ any Forth. You tell me how difficult that is...)
My impression after going over Forth programs is that programs written in Forth are small because large ones would be suicidal. The gains over assembly and C seem to be from feature-loss rather than any advantage of the language.
Perhaps worse than Forth itself is the creator of the language, or rather, the claims he makes. He makes amazing claims about speed and size with about the same level of professionalism as claiming "Compute with amazing crystal power! The computing power of Atlantis could be yours!"--and with about as much evidece to back up his claims. Am I to believe a computer scientist on faith?
After claims of programs that are so many 1000's of times smaller and so many 10's of times faster, I finally (and with great effort) get enough detail on his programs to discover how this is: they are all but non-functional. His programs have been stripped down to the point at which there is almost no possible use for them; and have consequently attracted almost no users.
I prefer minimalism--I can enjoy Mozart as well as the next guy--but this is two 32'nd notes and nearly a staff.
I'm skeptical, as anyone should be. He claims that for 30 years, and after uncounted billions of dollars spent, computer scientists were just doing it wrong. He would propose a "superior" alternative. Programs that are faster and smaller, chips that use less power and are far cheaper, so on. All untrue claims.
Give this man the crackpot award. Maybe some brownie points if he really believes in what he's doing. Just don't get Chuck, Katz, and Alex Chiu together in the same room.
I've been reading the ultratechnology site, and I'm dissatisfied with the lack of real details. It almost seems evasive. (It reminds of the writing of new-age gurus.)
But, what I want to know is, what is that software you make really like? Can you take us through a real-world use of OKAD?
But, what functionality does it have?
Weren't asynch chips experimented with in the 70's? Is it so great to be doing it for 10 years?
Do you plan to implement any 'non-standard' designs in the OS such as in EROS or Aegis? What's your take on them?
OOPS!! My see #5's should be see #6's!
My bad.