... they would have instead had their scientists breed Judiasm out of the population
Oh, really? Please tell me how to breed "Judiasm" out of a population.
If that's what the Nazis wanted to do, they would have sterilized Jews. Instead, they turned them into lampshades and soap. The Nazis exterminated Jews because they needed someone to blame, and 2,000 years of Christian persecution served up a scapegoat that no one would object to.
People who minimize the crimes of the Nazis should be thrown in a concentration camp for a week.
But tell me, if instead of investing in space waiting for "direct or indirect returns", you invest directly in Earth technologies, what would you have achieved?
Clearly, you have never invented anything which has benefited a single human being. Side-effects and spinoffs from research and engineering efforts are usually how progress occurs.
Let's take for example, oh, the WWW. CERN does high-energy particle physics. They needed a system to share their internal papers electronically. As a side-effect, a world-wide system for communication was created. Nifty, eh?
Maybe the returns would have improved even aerospace tech. Certainly the Earth ones would be much better.
And how can you prove that the Earth would be a better place? Have you constructed an alternate reality with no aerospace industry?
I can share that going to space is good, but don't try to defend it with phony arguments.
But phony arguments are perfectly fine to support your opinions. I understand completely.
Read the article "Spinoff" by Robert Heinlein which summarizes his congressional testimony in the late 1970's on just this topic. He covers a huge range of technological advances which came about directly from NASA research. Considering that the information is over 20 years old, there are probably a great number of advances which have occured since then. You can find the article in "Expanded Universe," a collection of Heinlein's writing.
And by the by, the Microwave Oven was invented during WWII by a Raytheon (or one of the ur-companies which is now part of Raytheon) engineer who noticed that the choclate bar in his pocket melted while he was working near some equipment...
Way off topic, but it's time for a history (and current events) lesson.
1. After WWI, Germany got squat. In fact, Germany was forced to pay other countries for starting WWI. The high cost of reperations were one of the root causes of WWII (and indirectly responsible for the Great Depression, but I don't have time for that right now).
2. After WWII, Germany was OCCUPIED by the Allies. The Soviets royally screwed up East Germany (isn't it the most poluted country in the world?) and the reunified Germany is having a devil of a time trying to get eastern Germany up to western Germany's standard of living. Should the US, UK, and France occupy Russia for 10-15 years to teach them how to run a country?
3. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been given TONS of money by the US and tons of loans by the IMF and World Bank. The problem is that the economy is a low-trust system, where government officials are stealing big chunks of the money and mismanaging the rest.
Isn't the point of finalize() that you should clean up _memory_, not resources?
Nope. From the Java Language Spec (section 12.6):
"Finalizers provide a chance to free up resources (such as file descriptors or operating system graphics contexts) that cannot be freed automatically by an automatic storage manager. In such situations, simply reclaiming the memory used by an object would not guarantee that the resources it held would be reclaimed."
One of the nice side effects of finalize() is that finalize() can make an object "live" again. So if (for example) you roll your own connection pool and wrap the JDBC connection objects in a custom class, the connection can return itself to the pool (making itself live again) if the programmer forgets to explicitly return it to the pool. I don't think a destructor can do this, but my C++ is getting rusty.
It would add the benefit of automatic recycling of resources allocating their object-counterparts _on the stack_. It would be independent on syntax-scope and object-scope. It could also give you the convinience of telling the computer _excactly when_ the resource and object should be destructed, while retaining the formalization of the constructor/destructor concept, instead of calling an arbitrary Close().
If you don't want an arbitrary name for the resource-returning method, then you can explicitly call finalize(). I don't think there's a way to explicitly call a destructor in C++, though once again, I am getting rusty.
I think what this debate comes down to is determinism. C and C++ programmers like the illusion that they really KNOW what is going on. Java programmers learn to deal with the fact that behind the scenes, there is some Deep Magic going on. I know what the Deep Magic is (I deconstructed and modified the JVM for a graduate research project), but I don't want to think about it 90% of the time. I'll trust the computer to know what to do.
It's like an optimizing compiler (which I've written). In some specific cases, you might be able to do better than an optimizing compiler, but in general case, you just can't. Apply that attitude to memory and resource management and you get how I feel about Java.
People who haven't programmed in C++ really don't know what they've been missing out of. This is to much frustration of many C++ programmers that do see weaknesses in Java. Yes, there are many weaknesses in C++ too, so don't take it personally.
I've programmed in C++. I've got a BS and an MS in CS. I've built compilers. I know programming langagues. My reasons for not liking C++ are academic, not political or emotional.
I don't take attacks on Java personally; as I said, I think the marketplace will bear out my opinion on this. What annoys me is people making half-assed claims that are patently untrue.
And stop calling people idiots, it only reflects on yourself.
Why? Because I disagree with you? Because I'm not a java-loving sycophant? If those are the only criteria for idiot-hood then sign me up now. My being an idiot must be the reason that I have to turn down job offers all the time. Must also be why I consistently deliver, on time and free of serious bugs, high quality C++ code.
No, you're an idiot because you are mouthing off with an opinion on a subject you are clearly not qualified to evaluate. I don't care how good your C++ is. You are talking about Java. You don't know Java well enough to know basic tips of the trade, and you think your opinion is valid. That makes you an idiot in my book.
You're not seriously suggesting that it is better for the caller/consumer to clean up after an object than for an object to clean up after itself, are you? Hell, while we're at it, why don't we get rid of constructors and just initialize objects that way too? And who needs those pesky methods? Just unroll all the code and let the caller do it all!!!
If you want your resources to automatically return themselves, wrap them in Java classes which return themselves during finalize(). I've been doing that with JDBC Connection objects for two years. Works like a charm.
If you want resources that are returned when a exceptional event occurs, take advantage of exception handling. I don't see what's so hard about this, and I don't see what a destructor would add.
Funny, I learned it well enough to bill for it. Well enough, in fact, to write better code than the Java team that came before me wrote. Well enough to clean up their crap and write something better in less time.
Gee, being able to bill for Java work (or any programming work) doesn't take actual programmng ability, just the ability to convince a PHB that you know what you're doing. I've fired contractors who claimed to be Java experts when talking to a clueless manager, but turned out to be useless.
No need, Sun has done a good enough job for me. I won't even pick on the speed/bloat issues -- those are too easy. So how about lack of multiple inheritance? (No, inheriting multiple interfaces doesn't qualify as multiple inheritance.) Or do you buy into the Sun party line that MI is "too confusing" for developers to use?
I'm no longer wasting my time trying to convince people that Java is a vastly better language for development than C++. I pretty much count on the marketplace to teach people that lesson. In the meantime, my skillset becomes more valuable when there are more nitwits like you who think that because they've spent their whole lives using a rock to bang nails into wood, it must be a better tool than a hammer. Java is not a perfect language, but it's got most of the right features to get the jobs that I do (and from the looks of it, the jobs that most people do) done faster with fewer bugs.
Do you honestly believe that Java is going to kill C++? Sun can say that all they want -- has been for over 4 years now -- but that just won't make it so.
Yeah, I do think that C++ is on the way out for a variety of reasons, including Java. If you can't see the handwriting on the wall, it's your own damn fault.
The finally is executed no matter what. If there's a return statement in the try or catch, the finally is still executed.
Now go make up another reason for not liking Java. When you can't find a job in 5 years (like the VAX Admin I met a few years ago who never deigned to learn another OS), I'll be the one laughing at you.
I said Quartz, not Aqua. Apple almost certainly wrote QuickTime for Mac OS X to the Quartz API, just as they wrote QuickTime for Classic Mac OS to the QuickDraw API.
When QuickTime was ported to Windows, a large chunk of the QuickDraw API followed. People even used it as a limited porting layer.
The QuickTime movie image is being drawn on-screen via an API. Whether or not it's just "pushing pixels" is irrelevant. Starcraft is just pushing pixels, too. Why isn't it ported to Linux yet?
If you think that it's trivial to port the Quartz API from Mac OS X to Linux, go do so. The entire API is available on Apple's site. I'll bet large sums of money that you can't do it.
There is about a 0% chance that Mac OS X makes QT for Linux more viable. Linux doesn't have the graphics architecture (Quartz) that Mac OS X does. Until Quartz is ported to Linux (sometime after Satan skates to work), there ain't no easy port.
OK, I'm instituting a new policy for each knucklehead who claims that Apple is about to die. You pick the date, I'll pick the amount of money. If Apple Computer, Inc. is still in business on that day, you owe me. If they aren't, I owe you.
So, you going to put your money where your clueless mouth, er, fingers are?
-jon
P.S. I'll also take bets on when the Java "fad" is going to end...
Sheesh, yesterday I'm accused of bashing Canada for pointing out the US' declining crime rate and Canda's past and present racial troubles. Today I'm bashing the US for pointing out basic American history facts. Some consistancy, please...;-)
The historically illiterate post I was replying to implied that the US government has, since the end of WWII, become more repressive of free speech and that this was a new trend. I was pointing out that this was not, in fact, a new trend. I was pointing out that the self-same founding fathers, who could do no wrong in the eyes of flag-waving Yahoos across the fruited plain, were responsible for an amazingly reprehensible law. My post had nothing to do with the crimes of other countries. The fact that your post was moderated up is proof that the ability to read standard English isn't a requirement for either posting or moderating.
IMHO, the US has been far better at protecting the rights of its citizens than the vast majority of countries in the history of, well, history. But let's get some historical perspective here. The fight for free speech isn't a new development in American history, but an on-going struggle.
What a way to welcome in D-Day. Every year since 1944, we have been losing more and more freedom. Geez, in the late 40's and 50's the government tried to prosecute people for their political beliefs.
Man, when is basic knowledge of American history going to actually be required before people spout off on how much things have gotten worse?
Ever heard of the Alien and Sedition acts (no, they don't have anything to do with the X-Files)? How about the Palmer raids? Those are just two lovely examples of governmental infractions of political opinion. The A & S acts date from 1798 (passed by many of those founding fathers that American knuckleheads worship) and the Palmer raids took place in the 1919-1920. (Use Google to look them up; it's not my job to completely educate every nincompoop that posts.)
Losing political freedom is nothing new, even in the good ol' US of A.
Wrong. In Toronto, as the diversity of the population has been increasing, the rate of violent crime has been DECREASING. If you walk down a street anywhere here, you will see people from all walks of life, living in harmony. In the US, crime and racism are rampant, you have slums and ghettos and places where it's simply not safe to go. In Toronto, there are a few poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates but it's never bad enough that I don't feel safe walking down the street.
Been watching too much TV again, eh?
The fact is that violent crime has been steadily dropping in the US for about 10 years. New York City, while having a bit of an upswing this year, has had its murder rate decline to the level it was at in the 1960's.
As for racism in the US, it's also decreasing. Compared to 30 years ago, it's like a whole new country. And it's not like Canada hasn't had cultural/race problems, too. Didn't a bunch of Canadian Indians (Iraquois? Mohawk?) stage a revolt with semi-automatic weapons a few years ago? And what about the reasons why Quebec has wanted to bolt from Canada? How many English-speaking people bolted from the provence? It might not be over the color of skin, but it's still based on bigotry and discrimination.
However, I have to say that I think there will be a self-limiting feedback involved. As the cost of living spirals upward, more companies will choose spots like Reston VA, Rockville MD or Ottawa ON.
Um, Rockville, MD is already overcrowded. I used to live around there. In 1991, you could pretty quickly zip up Rockville Pike from the Beltway to White Flint Mall (maybe 3 miles, total). The last time I was in the area (six months ago), it took at least 10 minutes. The pike was jam-packed.
The same is true for virtually everything near the DC Beltway. Housing prices are about as bad as they are in Sonoma County (about 50 miles north of San Francisco). Traffic is just as bad. Unlike Northern California, bad weather (snow and ice in the winter, torrential rains in the summer) make driving conditions worse. The cost of living is virtually the same. Rockville is NOT an improvement on the Valley.
The traditional reason given by those who are for free trade with China and an embargo on Cuba is that you don't use the same weapon against an elephant and a mosquito. Cuba is tiny and weak. The US is trying to starve Castro out by refusing to do business with Cuba. It's like stepping on a bug. China is very large and somewhat powerful. Free trade is like an elephant gun; punch a hole in the outside and watch the elephant die.
Now, I think the embargo against Cuba is stupid, because it doesn't actually hurt Castro, just the men on the street. Castro can then blame the US for Cuba's piss-poor shape rather than Communism. End the embargo and Castro would be gone in a year. But if you want to win Florida (which has the 3rd or 4th largest population in the US and a TON of electoral votes) in a presidential election, then you are going to keep the embargo. Such is the nature of politics.
I have been programming for the last 10 years. I am pursuing a PhD in computer science. I have installed Linux networks, and even have coded some Linux device drivers. I can thus be called fairly familiar with computers.
No, you can be called fairly familiar with the computers you USE on a regular basis. My BS and MS in computer science and programming experience dating back to the early 80s doesn't make me a OS/390 guru. Ask me about a Commodore 64 though, and I'll spin your head;-)
(Aside: isn't logic still a required course for computer science? I forget the name of the logical fallacy where expertise in one area is used as proof of expertise in another area.)
The Macintosh is even worse. You just can't order it to do something if it is not proposed in the standard choices. Some system options, for instance in PPP, are hidden in some obscure dialog boxes and no documentation is available. I have just spent some time trying to get a Mac to export a drawing into PostScript: impossible, or there is yet another obscure choice to make.
If you want to setup PPP and you don't know how to do it, you could go to the Help menu in the Finder, choose "Mac OS Help" and type "PPP" into the search bar. It will then show you what to do. If you want to know what those "Obscure options" in the Remote Access control panel do, click the "?" icon and point at the text. The balloon help will explain all. I guess this is too simple for someone working on a PhD.
To print to a postscript file, you create a PostScript printer and tell it to save to a file. Or you can download a half-dozen utils to make.eps files out of PICTs or whatever. This information could be gleaned from about 5 minutes of searching on the web. I thought PhDs learned how do research when exploring new areas....
If it's not OK to use someone else's copy of IP, then does the judge think that borrowing a video tape from someone else is illegal?
Methinks this is far from over...
-jon
Re:IBM Native Threads implementation inefficient
on
IBM JDK 1.3 For Linux
·
· Score: 1
For a good report on how different JVMs scale (the new IBM 1.3 JVM for Linux isn't included, as this report dates from the end of March, 2000), check out: http://www.volano.com/report.html.
The title of the/. article is seriously misleading. They aren't hacking a 68K machine. They are hacking the CASE of a 68K machine. If you read through the site, you'll see that the innards of these machines have all been replaced by PowerPCs (in one case, a G3).
Considering how cramped those cases are, this is pretty impressive demonstration of how cool the PowerPC chips run. Imagine stuffing a PIII into a case that size, with the monitor, hard drive, and an Ethernet card!
I remember when the Drop Squad did their damage, and it was kinda funny six years ago (as an aside, I can't believe that someone is still paying for the domain name to remember a prank that occured in 1994!). But is this the only way that my Alma Mater can get mentioned on/.?
Remember the last great CISC->RISC migration undertaken by a consumer device company: Apple's move from 68K to PowerPC. One of the things that really hurt Apple was their CISC->RISC migration was managed very poorly and in my opinion set back developer innovation on the Mac a good two years.
Wha?
Apple has been roundly praised for the seamlessness of their CISC->RISC migration. I am able to run crufty Mac desk accesories from 1985 on my iMac DV without problem, even though there isn't a single bit of hardware in common between the machine that software was developed for and the one on which it is currently running.
What (nearly) killed Apple was the release of Windows 95 and Apple's piss-poor response to it. Rather than actually develop a modern operating system which had interesting (to end users) differences from Win95 and a spot-on marketing campaign to advertise this, Apple ran a stupid ad campaign saying that Win95 was just like a Mac (well, gee, it was just like a Mac, and the machines were compatible and cost hundreds less! Why buy a Mac?). Apple had wasted hope, money, and time on the half-promises that were Copland, and then spent effort on OpenDoc, even though the only possible end result for OpenDoc would be to hurt the large developers that had kept Apple afloat in the first place (Microsoft and Adobe/Aldus, especially). Setting up a cloning system that actually managed to lose them money was the next brilliant mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, really? Please tell me how to breed "Judiasm" out of a population.
If that's what the Nazis wanted to do, they would have sterilized Jews. Instead, they turned them into lampshades and soap. The Nazis exterminated Jews because they needed someone to blame, and 2,000 years of Christian persecution served up a scapegoat that no one would object to.
People who minimize the crimes of the Nazis should be thrown in a concentration camp for a week.
-jon
Clearly, you have never invented anything which has benefited a single human being. Side-effects and spinoffs from research and engineering efforts are usually how progress occurs.
Let's take for example, oh, the WWW. CERN does high-energy particle physics. They needed a system to share their internal papers electronically. As a side-effect, a world-wide system for communication was created. Nifty, eh?
Maybe the returns would have improved even aerospace tech. Certainly the Earth ones would be much better.
And how can you prove that the Earth would be a better place? Have you constructed an alternate reality with no aerospace industry?
I can share that going to space is good, but don't try to defend it with phony arguments.
But phony arguments are perfectly fine to support your opinions. I understand completely.
-jon
Read the article "Spinoff" by Robert Heinlein which summarizes his congressional testimony in the late 1970's on just this topic. He covers a huge range of technological advances which came about directly from NASA research. Considering that the information is over 20 years old, there are probably a great number of advances which have occured since then. You can find the article in "Expanded Universe," a collection of Heinlein's writing.
And by the by, the Microwave Oven was invented during WWII by a Raytheon (or one of the ur-companies which is now part of Raytheon) engineer who noticed that the choclate bar in his pocket melted while he was working near some equipment...
-jon
1. After WWI, Germany got squat. In fact, Germany was forced to pay other countries for starting WWI. The high cost of reperations were one of the root causes of WWII (and indirectly responsible for the Great Depression, but I don't have time for that right now).
2. After WWII, Germany was OCCUPIED by the Allies. The Soviets royally screwed up East Germany (isn't it the most poluted country in the world?) and the reunified Germany is having a devil of a time trying to get eastern Germany up to western Germany's standard of living. Should the US, UK, and France occupy Russia for 10-15 years to teach them how to run a country?
3. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been given TONS of money by the US and tons of loans by the IMF and World Bank. The problem is that the economy is a low-trust system, where government officials are stealing big chunks of the money and mismanaging the rest.
-jon
Nope. From the Java Language Spec (section 12.6):
"Finalizers provide a chance to free up resources (such as file descriptors or operating system graphics contexts) that cannot be freed automatically by an automatic storage manager. In such situations, simply reclaiming the memory used by an object would not guarantee that the resources it held would be reclaimed."
One of the nice side effects of finalize() is that finalize() can make an object "live" again. So if (for example) you roll your own connection pool and wrap the JDBC connection objects in a custom class, the connection can return itself to the pool (making itself live again) if the programmer forgets to explicitly return it to the pool. I don't think a destructor can do this, but my C++ is getting rusty.
It would add the benefit of automatic recycling of resources allocating their object-counterparts _on the stack_. It would be independent on syntax-scope and object-scope. It could also give you the convinience of telling the computer _excactly when_ the resource and object should be destructed, while retaining the formalization of the constructor/destructor concept, instead of calling an arbitrary Close().
If you don't want an arbitrary name for the resource-returning method, then you can explicitly call finalize(). I don't think there's a way to explicitly call a destructor in C++, though once again, I am getting rusty.
I think what this debate comes down to is determinism. C and C++ programmers like the illusion that they really KNOW what is going on. Java programmers learn to deal with the fact that behind the scenes, there is some Deep Magic going on. I know what the Deep Magic is (I deconstructed and modified the JVM for a graduate research project), but I don't want to think about it 90% of the time. I'll trust the computer to know what to do.
It's like an optimizing compiler (which I've written). In some specific cases, you might be able to do better than an optimizing compiler, but in general case, you just can't. Apply that attitude to memory and resource management and you get how I feel about Java.
People who haven't programmed in C++ really don't know what they've been missing out of. This is to much frustration of many C++ programmers that do see weaknesses in Java. Yes, there are many weaknesses in C++ too, so don't take it personally.
I've programmed in C++. I've got a BS and an MS in CS. I've built compilers. I know programming langagues. My reasons for not liking C++ are academic, not political or emotional.
I don't take attacks on Java personally; as I said, I think the marketplace will bear out my opinion on this. What annoys me is people making half-assed claims that are patently untrue.
And stop calling people idiots, it only reflects on yourself.
I call's 'em as I see's 'em.
-jon
No, you're an idiot because you are mouthing off with an opinion on a subject you are clearly not qualified to evaluate. I don't care how good your C++ is. You are talking about Java. You don't know Java well enough to know basic tips of the trade, and you think your opinion is valid. That makes you an idiot in my book.
You're not seriously suggesting that it is better for the caller/consumer to clean up after an object than for an object to clean up after itself, are you? Hell, while we're at it, why don't we get rid of constructors and just initialize objects that way too? And who needs those pesky methods? Just unroll all the code and let the caller do it all!!!
If you want your resources to automatically return themselves, wrap them in Java classes which return themselves during finalize(). I've been doing that with JDBC Connection objects for two years. Works like a charm.
If you want resources that are returned when a exceptional event occurs, take advantage of exception handling. I don't see what's so hard about this, and I don't see what a destructor would add.
Funny, I learned it well enough to bill for it. Well enough, in fact, to write better code than the Java team that came before me wrote. Well enough to clean up their crap and write something better in less time.
Gee, being able to bill for Java work (or any programming work) doesn't take actual programmng ability, just the ability to convince a PHB that you know what you're doing. I've fired contractors who claimed to be Java experts when talking to a clueless manager, but turned out to be useless.
No need, Sun has done a good enough job for me. I won't even pick on the speed/bloat issues -- those are too easy. So how about lack of multiple inheritance? (No, inheriting multiple interfaces doesn't qualify as multiple inheritance.) Or do you buy into the Sun party line that MI is "too confusing" for developers to use?
I'm no longer wasting my time trying to convince people that Java is a vastly better language for development than C++. I pretty much count on the marketplace to teach people that lesson. In the meantime, my skillset becomes more valuable when there are more nitwits like you who think that because they've spent their whole lives using a rock to bang nails into wood, it must be a better tool than a hammer. Java is not a perfect language, but it's got most of the right features to get the jobs that I do (and from the looks of it, the jobs that most people do) done faster with fewer bugs.
Do you honestly believe that Java is going to kill C++? Sun can say that all they want -- has been for over 4 years now -- but that just won't make it so.
Yeah, I do think that C++ is on the way out for a variety of reasons, including Java. If you can't see the handwriting on the wall, it's your own damn fault.
-jon
You're an idiot.
If you are worried about a resource in Java not being returned due to an exception, use finally. Observe:
SomeResource foo = null;
try {
foo = ResourceManager.getSomeResource();
foo.doStuff();
} catch(AwfulException e) {
System.out.println("Oh, no!");
throw e;
} finally {
if(foo != null) {
foo.close();
}
}
The finally is executed no matter what. If there's a return statement in the try or catch, the finally is still executed.
Now go make up another reason for not liking Java. When you can't find a job in 5 years (like the VAX Admin I met a few years ago who never deigned to learn another OS), I'll be the one laughing at you.
-jon
When QuickTime was ported to Windows, a large chunk of the QuickDraw API followed. People even used it as a limited porting layer.
The QuickTime movie image is being drawn on-screen via an API. Whether or not it's just "pushing pixels" is irrelevant. Starcraft is just pushing pixels, too. Why isn't it ported to Linux yet?
If you think that it's trivial to port the Quartz API from Mac OS X to Linux, go do so. The entire API is available on Apple's site. I'll bet large sums of money that you can't do it.
-jon
-jon
So, you going to put your money where your clueless mouth, er, fingers are?
-jon
P.S. I'll also take bets on when the Java "fad" is going to end...
The historically illiterate post I was replying to implied that the US government has, since the end of WWII, become more repressive of free speech and that this was a new trend. I was pointing out that this was not, in fact, a new trend. I was pointing out that the self-same founding fathers, who could do no wrong in the eyes of flag-waving Yahoos across the fruited plain, were responsible for an amazingly reprehensible law. My post had nothing to do with the crimes of other countries. The fact that your post was moderated up is proof that the ability to read standard English isn't a requirement for either posting or moderating.
IMHO, the US has been far better at protecting the rights of its citizens than the vast majority of countries in the history of, well, history. But let's get some historical perspective here. The fight for free speech isn't a new development in American history, but an on-going struggle.
-jon
I need to proof myself better before posting. Replace that with "governmental suppression of political opinion." Going one way, fingers go another...
-jon
Man, when is basic knowledge of American history going to actually be required before people spout off on how much things have gotten worse?
Ever heard of the Alien and Sedition acts (no, they don't have anything to do with the X-Files)? How about the Palmer raids? Those are just two lovely examples of governmental infractions of political opinion. The A & S acts date from 1798 (passed by many of those founding fathers that American knuckleheads worship) and the Palmer raids took place in the 1919-1920. (Use Google to look them up; it's not my job to completely educate every nincompoop that posts.)
Losing political freedom is nothing new, even in the good ol' US of A.
-jon
Been watching too much TV again, eh?
The fact is that violent crime has been steadily dropping in the US for about 10 years. New York City, while having a bit of an upswing this year, has had its murder rate decline to the level it was at in the 1960's.
As for racism in the US, it's also decreasing. Compared to 30 years ago, it's like a whole new country. And it's not like Canada hasn't had cultural/race problems, too. Didn't a bunch of Canadian Indians (Iraquois? Mohawk?) stage a revolt with semi-automatic weapons a few years ago? And what about the reasons why Quebec has wanted to bolt from Canada? How many English-speaking people bolted from the provence? It might not be over the color of skin, but it's still based on bigotry and discrimination.
-jon
Um, Rockville, MD is already overcrowded. I used to live around there. In 1991, you could pretty quickly zip up Rockville Pike from the Beltway to White Flint Mall (maybe 3 miles, total). The last time I was in the area (six months ago), it took at least 10 minutes. The pike was jam-packed.
The same is true for virtually everything near the DC Beltway. Housing prices are about as bad as they are in Sonoma County (about 50 miles north of San Francisco). Traffic is just as bad. Unlike Northern California, bad weather (snow and ice in the winter, torrential rains in the summer) make driving conditions worse. The cost of living is virtually the same. Rockville is NOT an improvement on the Valley.
-jon
Now, I think the embargo against Cuba is stupid, because it doesn't actually hurt Castro, just the men on the street. Castro can then blame the US for Cuba's piss-poor shape rather than Communism. End the embargo and Castro would be gone in a year. But if you want to win Florida (which has the 3rd or 4th largest population in the US and a TON of electoral votes) in a presidential election, then you are going to keep the embargo. Such is the nature of politics.
-jon
No, you can be called fairly familiar with the computers you USE on a regular basis. My BS and MS in computer science and programming experience dating back to the early 80s doesn't make me a OS/390 guru. Ask me about a Commodore 64 though, and I'll spin your head ;-)
(Aside: isn't logic still a required course for computer science? I forget the name of the logical fallacy where expertise in one area is used as proof of expertise in another area.)
The Macintosh is even worse. You just can't order it to do something if it is not proposed in the standard choices. Some system options, for instance in PPP, are hidden in some obscure dialog boxes and no documentation is available. I have just spent some time trying to get a Mac to export a drawing into PostScript: impossible, or there is yet another obscure choice to make.
If you want to setup PPP and you don't know how to do it, you could go to the Help menu in the Finder, choose "Mac OS Help" and type "PPP" into the search bar. It will then show you what to do. If you want to know what those "Obscure options" in the Remote Access control panel do, click the "?" icon and point at the text. The balloon help will explain all. I guess this is too simple for someone working on a PhD.
To print to a postscript file, you create a PostScript printer and tell it to save to a file. Or you can download a half-dozen utils to make .eps files out of PICTs or whatever. This information could be gleaned from about 5 minutes of searching on the web. I thought PhDs learned how do research when exploring new areas....
-jon
-jon
Methinks this is far from over...
-jon
-jon
Considering how cramped those cases are, this is pretty impressive demonstration of how cool the PowerPC chips run. Imagine stuffing a PIII into a case that size, with the monitor, hard drive, and an Ethernet card!
-jon
-jon
Even at places like HP or Agilent, Palms outnumber Journadas. The PocketPC might change this, but somehow I doubt it.
-jon
Wha?
Apple has been roundly praised for the seamlessness of their CISC->RISC migration. I am able to run crufty Mac desk accesories from 1985 on my iMac DV without problem, even though there isn't a single bit of hardware in common between the machine that software was developed for and the one on which it is currently running.
What (nearly) killed Apple was the release of Windows 95 and Apple's piss-poor response to it. Rather than actually develop a modern operating system which had interesting (to end users) differences from Win95 and a spot-on marketing campaign to advertise this, Apple ran a stupid ad campaign saying that Win95 was just like a Mac (well, gee, it was just like a Mac, and the machines were compatible and cost hundreds less! Why buy a Mac?). Apple had wasted hope, money, and time on the half-promises that were Copland, and then spent effort on OpenDoc, even though the only possible end result for OpenDoc would be to hurt the large developers that had kept Apple afloat in the first place (Microsoft and Adobe/Aldus, especially). Setting up a cloning system that actually managed to lose them money was the next brilliant mistake.
-jon
-jon