At my workplace we... run[ning] . . . a large number of Java Apps. There is no reason we could not use Linux. My understanding is that the Linux threading model (pthreads actually map to processes that share memory space instead of "true" kernel threads) doesn't really work well with Java, since it's easy to generate Java threads, they map to processes, and you swamp the computer. The next Linux (2.6 or 3.0 whatever it's called) I believe has better threads, something more like kernel threads. Please someone corect me if I'm wrong, I'm interested in this too.
but it would be very cool if the typical command line experience was a little more cohesive. I love the command line too, but there are limitations. The data is constrained to be a stream. All data has to be marshalled and unmarshalled to the constraints of the the streams. The only "metadata" organization you can have is whitespace and maybe some headers. These are constrained to be in the same stream and need to be extracted from the normal data. Pretty much the entire reason for awk is parsing the output of commands and rearrange them to be the proper input for other commands. Having all these commands constrained to streams makes for a lot of interoperability but you lose a lot of context. The simplicity of a stream is somewhat countered by the occasional need to use another tool (like awk) within a pipe. I wonder what an XML-aware toolchain would look like. Would having the extra context of XML input/output improve certain tasks (after the learning curve) or would the complexity be too heavy for even power users to use on any consistent basis? Might be an interesting research project for some school.
The other major limitation of the pipe heavy shell is that the pipe has no knowledge or control of internal program state. You can control initial program state (inputs, command line args) but thats it, everything else is pretty much controlled by the program's internal state machine, and not by you. Again awk helps a little - a pipe friendly program that allows programming looping and conditional constructs, but you're stil limited. AppleEvents are very interesting. They allow you to pass data, structured data, from program to program, and allow the script to interact with the programs internal state while it's running. I'm sure VBA is something like this as well, but I have no experience with it.
I'm not sure if Linux can ever have this. Too many disparate developers. No one to really "bless" a single scripting language, so there are multiple. Linus has repeatedly said he doesn't really care about the userland, so it won't be from him, maybe RedHat will bless something. But that still doesn't mean developers will use it. Both Apple and MS have certification programs. To get an Apple/MS logo, you have to submit it, and follow some APIs, including AppleEvent or VBA compatibility. Linux doens't have that, won't have it any time soon, and probably never will.
I think this was pulled a couple months back; it confused newbies, and was really applicable back in the old days of tractor feed dot-matrix printers where a jam really would cause a fire (or at least make your printer smoke) but not in Laser Printer days. Someone missed it so much he made a patch against the kernel to restore it.
Fast de-icing of car windows. Already done. Ford has had this for a while, if you see an older Ford with a bronze-ish tinted front windshield, it has this. GM I think has something like this, but it's clear.
The database boys at my job have a pretty big (though not 42") display that they run DB monitor apps on. Since they're monitor apps, they're on continuously, and the display has them all burned in. From what I hear CRTs are largely burn-proof now, and LCDs always have been. Is this a problem with plasma displays?
Outlook IS virus prone, it has insecure scripting capabilities that allow virus to execute without a user opening anything but an email!
Some Outlook viruses weren't even attachments. Since OutLook shows HTML email with IE components, it inherited some insecurities, including some powerful OCX components that were marked "safe for scripting" that could actually do some damage. Just reading an email that used those components could cause damage to your system.
I seem to recall a big problem with Windows in India. Some OS applet, date/time I think, showed Pakistan with the bulk of Kashmir. As we all know, that's a fairly sensitive issue around those parts, and there was even talk about an Indian boycott of Windows. Can anyone add more info on this?
You wake up in the morning and smell the coffee brewing in your networked coffeemaker. Its smart enough to know not to make coffee if you're not home, or make it a bit later during the weekends.
It is incredible that you can speak of enjoying free software and curse RMS in the same breath.
This statement is heresy ONLY if you believe Free Software and RMS are synonymous. I believe they are not. Free Software existed well before RMS, and will exist well after he is gone. He only "created" Free Software if you accept his conceit that Free Software is only software that follows his definitions of Free. I do not. He has contributed a lot to this world, but didn't invent the world. Many people don't realize that The Cathedral and the Bazaar wasn't necessarily contrasting the development styles of commercial software vs. free software, but different styles of development within Free Software itself, and the RMS driven gcc was the example of the "closed" Cathedral. Because of the lack of innovation in gcc, especially around the time ANSI C++ came out and it needed large changes, folks forked gcc into egcs, a more "bazaar" style development model, that eventually became the offical gcc. Or are you saying Eric Raymond has nothing to say on the topic of Free Software because he differs with RMS?
I'm not a zealot, I believe in the right tool for the job. I'm lucky enough that I understand programs and programming fairly quickly and can use a variety of toolsets. I do not assume that everyone is like me, and everyone makes the same value decisions on ease of use. free/libre, support and all that. I think that is where RMS and other zealots fail. RMS is a programmer, a pretty good one in fact, but his views are sometimes colored by that.
I think an unbiased TCO analysis is kind of hard now. Each side has an agenda to push. Depending on what you investigate you can come up with different numbers. The only survey I can think of that I consider did a decent job on TCO is an survey that shows apache on linux is cheaper than the main alternatives. That obviously doesn't show "user" apps, just servers.
As far as the bias goes, I think the way TCO is asked is biased as well. I rarely see people include the cost of Microsoft's essentially forced upgrades or the time and effort tracking obtaining and tracking licenses. There are also some intagibles, such as not being locked in, being able to look "under the hood" - the US government's post-9/11 intelligence gathering, MSes history of tracking have people a bit wary now. Those are real, though hard to put dollar number on, concerns.
There are companies that offer support for OpenSource apps, they're not as big name as Linux itself, they tend to be smaller shops.
The other thing is that the switchover cost, at least as it currently looks, is a one time cost, vs. continuous costs (MS forced upgrades) albeit that are lower. The problem is you have to at some point bite the bullet. Things like Crossover are making this easier and a gradual conversion.
I'm not saying everything should be opensource, but things like WordProcessing make sense. It's a very mature app, fairly stable code base once you get to "modern" wordprocessing feature levels, and it's dangerous to have your important data locked in a proprietary format. If the Justice Department really wanted to make a dent in the MS Monopoly they would have forced MS to open up completely all past, present, and future Office formats. This would guarantee compatibility with competing apps, and MS would have to compete on features, not on lock-in. it would also ensure people could read and write their old Office files and not have to upgrade. It would be pretty ironic if outside apps had better support for MS's old formats than Word does.
I would be interested to hear if anyone has tried to learn an Indian language in order to communicate with their intercontinental coworkers. 1) Why? They're a former British Colony, just like the US and Canada, and the Brits drilled English into them years ago. Whether this is good or bad in general depends on your take on Imperialism, but it's definitely good for them being able to work in American jobs. 2) Which language? I believe India has on the order of > 80 main languages, with hundreds of dialects.
Once when Microsoft stole the code to make NT They really didn't do this. IBM and Microsoft were co-developers on OS/2, WinNT and they were supposed to be somewhat compatible. Well, we see how well that panned out. The best WinNT did was a half-assed compatiblity layer for OS/2 command line apps that technically fulfilled the letter of the agreement, but nothing close to the spirit.
A better example would be how MS kept on screwing up OS/2 running Windows apps underneath. Anybody who remembers OS/2 when it first came out, they touted themselves as a better environment to run Win3.1 apps than either Win3.1 or Win95 (which was brand new at the time). MS played with stuff until it didn't work.
I think one way of seeing how bad of a monopoly MS is that even though companies know that MS is gonna screw them, they still make deals with them. MS killed Stac and Spyglass, Spyglass in a beautiful move that crushed both NCSA commercial spinoffs (Spyglass and Netscape) It severely crippled both Citrix and Mainsoft. But with all that, companies feel they must deal with the devil because they hold all the cards.
I liked it too, it was a great action flick with a little bit of mysticism, and massive holes in the plot. Why did the Matrix let these programs in? Is there no MacAffee to stop the "TrinityAndNeoWithLotsOfGuns" program? Besides the whole physics aspect of it, why select humans as your battery? Why select the one animal that could organize enough to rise up? If the agents can make Keanu's mouth disappear (which would be freakish for him, and break out of the "Matrix respects physics" kinda mode) but the agents can't make his gun jam or him run out of bullets? Why would Cypher sell out? He can get all the pseudo-stuff he wants in the computers on the ship, he doens't need the Matrix to give it to him. I could go on with holes for hours, but it was a good action film, with groundbreaking special effects, though I've never been happy that a movie that revolutionized filmmaking has anything to do with Keanu.
Though the special effects set new standards, a lot of this was due to the marrying of Hong Kong style action to a big budget Hollywood film. Check out some of John Woo's work, especially with Tony Leung and Chow Yun Phat and you'll see some good stuff. Teh Matrix stuff wasn't really groundbreaking compared to whats been going on in HK for years, just bigger budget, and more people saw it.
As far as the sequels stuff goes, my opinion is that there are two types of sequels, those to make money and those to continue the story. Those ther just to make money, generally suck. They forget that one of the reasons we liked the first movie is that they showed us new people, new characters, new actions. Then they find various ways of re-hashing. Another 48 hours, Rocky series, Police Academy series. Nothing new. The better ones have a story to tell, a different one. The Matrix sequels seem to have that a bit, though I have more hope for 3 (when they fight in the real world) then in 2, in which they fight in the Matrix, which they've already done to some extent.
1) In general I find FreeBSD more stable. Evidently so does Yahoo. Hotmail used to, but MS couldn't have a different OS on "their" servers, so they tried to change it. Problem is, FreeBSD just worked better and they had a big problem in changing off of it. FreeBSD tends to be more stable under load than Linux. Though Linux has better SMP, neither Linux 2.4 nor FreeBSD 4.7 have good threading models, which is crucial for stuff my business would use. FreeBSD 5.0 has real threads and better SMP support. I'm going to try to have us look into it, though I don't know where thast going to lead. I don't follow linux enough to see where 2.5 (soon to be 2.6) stands on gettign real threads in, I should look at this, from a pragmatic, not a religious "FreeBSD is better, no Linux is" approach, just find the right tool for the job.
2) Linux I believe has had some missteps in the 2.4 kernel. In the "stable" series they've changed Virtual Memory, added a new scheduler, and added an optimization to the VFS code that corrupted the default filesystem in some configurations (though not the default one).
3) Who the f*ck cares about what I think (and by extension you) about points 1 or 2? People make their own damn decisions.
I think a lot of the problems with the "FreeBSD is dying" crap is that it lacks the sound and the fury of Linux development. Every Linux debate, every RHS quote, every "accidentally" leaked "internal" MS memo, RedHat good news, Mandrake bad news, Caldera no news, gets played out on the front page of Slash and a couple hundred advocacy sites. The FreeBSD camp just sits back and writes good code.
"If you see a product more than a couple of times on e-mail, that means that product is selling," Finn said. "No one would be sending it repeatedly if was not selling."
I guess breast enlargement for men is selling, 'cause I'm a guy, and I get a couple of these a week. Hmm, down from a couple a day, so I guess they're not quite as popular, but still....
Re:pthreads using rfork? I looked at the man page, this seems similar to the clone call on Linux, which they wrapped pthreads around. Aren't there performance issues on this, that it's a process not a thread? I could see issues with signals as well.
I remember reading a comment by somebody, somewhere (gee, can I be more vague?)...
I think it was in SF, and they got called for a survey about crime. They got asked "how do you feel about crime rates?" They asnwered "I think they're going up, Enron is stealing millions WorldCom is stealing millions, so is Xerox and a bunch of other guys." The survey taker was taken somewhat by surprise by this. "Um, no I mean street crime". "Oh you mean some guy who's going to steal $6 from my wallet instead of a couple thousand dollars from my grandma's pension fund?" The survey taker sid "um, yes." "Oh, I think that's getting better, though crime overall is bad."
... but I swear, I feel like.NET was written by someone ELSE. It was, or at least the central idea was. MS was looking for a Java killer, and found it at some university (damn for the life of me I can't find out where), where they had the CLR pretty much already done. C# is pretty much a 1:1 mapping of capabilities of the runtime to a language with C++/Java syntax, and the other languages are existing MS languages bashed into the CLR. Not to say MS hasn't contributed to it, it has greatly, but it follows the MS pattern of not really innovating new things, but taking someone else's idea and executing it much better than they were able to.
Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid.
I agree with this. I saw Star Wars (err, now Star Wars: New Hope) when I was 6 or so when it first came out in the theater. I used to think it was the best movie ever, saw it again when I was 13 or so. Still good. Now I'm on the + side of 30, decided to show it to my gf - she's a foreigner, never saw the original - and it sucked. I almost turned it off. All the stuff about we say now regarding Attack of the Clones and Lucas not being able to tell a story was present in the first film as well, it was just too new and cutting edge for us to care. Now that we have better examples of movies that weave together science fiction and storyline (the original Terminator comes to mind) it seems kind of feeble in comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
At my workplace we ... run[ning] . . . a large number of Java Apps. There is no reason we could not use Linux.
My understanding is that the Linux threading model (pthreads actually map to processes that share memory space instead of "true" kernel threads) doesn't really work well with Java, since it's easy to generate Java threads, they map to processes, and you swamp the computer. The next Linux (2.6 or 3.0 whatever it's called) I believe has better threads, something more like kernel threads. Please someone corect me if I'm wrong, I'm interested in this too.
but it would be very cool if the typical command line experience was a little more cohesive.
I love the command line too, but there are limitations. The data is constrained to be a stream. All data has to be marshalled and unmarshalled to the constraints of the the streams. The only "metadata" organization you can have is whitespace and maybe some headers. These are constrained to be in the same stream and need to be extracted from the normal data. Pretty much the entire reason for awk is parsing the output of commands and rearrange them to be the proper input for other commands. Having all these commands constrained to streams makes for a lot of interoperability but you lose a lot of context. The simplicity of a stream is somewhat countered by the occasional need to use another tool (like awk) within a pipe. I wonder what an XML-aware toolchain would look like. Would having the extra context of XML input/output improve certain tasks (after the learning curve) or would the complexity be too heavy for even power users to use on any consistent basis? Might be an interesting research project for some school.
The other major limitation of the pipe heavy shell is that the pipe has no knowledge or control of internal program state. You can control initial program state (inputs, command line args) but thats it, everything else is pretty much controlled by the program's internal state machine, and not by you. Again awk helps a little - a pipe friendly program that allows programming looping and conditional constructs, but you're stil limited. AppleEvents are very interesting. They allow you to pass data, structured data, from program to program, and allow the script to interact with the programs internal state while it's running. I'm sure VBA is something like this as well, but I have no experience with it.
I'm not sure if Linux can ever have this. Too many disparate developers. No one to really "bless" a single scripting language, so there are multiple. Linus has repeatedly said he doesn't really care about the userland, so it won't be from him, maybe RedHat will bless something. But that still doesn't mean developers will use it. Both Apple and MS have certification programs. To get an Apple/MS logo, you have to submit it, and follow some APIs, including AppleEvent or VBA compatibility. Linux doens't have that, won't have it any time soon, and probably never will.
I think this was pulled a couple months back; it confused newbies, and was really applicable back in the old days of tractor feed dot-matrix printers where a jam really would cause a fire (or at least make your printer smoke) but not in Laser Printer days. Someone missed it so much he made a patch against the kernel to restore it.
I saw DNF in a bunch of posts, first thing I thought of was racing Abbreviation
DNF: Did Not Finish.
NoPopIE [daishar.com]....
At first glance of the sig I saw NoPoopie... housebreaking tools on Slashdot? Click Here! to rid your kid of those pesky diapers?
Fast de-icing of car windows.
Already done. Ford has had this for a while, if you see an older Ford with a bronze-ish tinted front windshield, it has this. GM I think has something like this, but it's clear.
The database boys at my job have a pretty big (though not 42") display that they run DB monitor apps on. Since they're monitor apps, they're on continuously, and the display has them all burned in. From what I hear CRTs are largely burn-proof now, and LCDs always have been. Is this a problem with plasma displays?
Outlook IS virus prone, it has insecure scripting capabilities that allow virus to execute without a user opening anything but an email!
Some Outlook viruses weren't even attachments. Since OutLook shows HTML email with IE components, it inherited some insecurities, including some powerful OCX components that were marked "safe for scripting" that could actually do some damage. Just reading an email that used those components could cause damage to your system.
I seem to recall a big problem with Windows in India. Some OS applet, date/time I think, showed Pakistan with the bulk of Kashmir. As we all know, that's a fairly sensitive issue around those parts, and there was even talk about an Indian boycott of Windows. Can anyone add more info on this?
You wake up in the morning and smell the coffee brewing in your networked coffeemaker. Its smart enough to know not to make coffee if you're not home, or make it a bit later during the weekends.
Been done
It is incredible that you can speak of enjoying free software and curse RMS in the same breath.
This statement is heresy ONLY if you believe Free Software and RMS are synonymous. I believe they are not. Free Software existed well before RMS, and will exist well after he is gone. He only "created" Free Software if you accept his conceit that Free Software is only software that follows his definitions of Free. I do not. He has contributed a lot to this world, but didn't invent the world. Many people don't realize that The Cathedral and the Bazaar wasn't necessarily contrasting the development styles of commercial software vs. free software, but different styles of development within Free Software itself, and the RMS driven gcc was the example of the "closed" Cathedral. Because of the lack of innovation in gcc, especially around the time ANSI C++ came out and it needed large changes, folks forked gcc into egcs, a more "bazaar" style development model, that eventually became the offical gcc. Or are you saying Eric Raymond has nothing to say on the topic of Free Software because he differs with RMS?
Or if this was a troll, nevermind.
I'm not a zealot, I believe in the right tool for the job. I'm lucky enough that I understand programs and programming fairly quickly and can use a variety of toolsets. I do not assume that everyone is like me, and everyone makes the same value decisions on ease of use. free/libre, support and all that. I think that is where RMS and other zealots fail. RMS is a programmer, a pretty good one in fact, but his views are sometimes colored by that.
I think an unbiased TCO analysis is kind of hard now. Each side has an agenda to push. Depending on what you investigate you can come up with different numbers. The only survey I can think of that I consider did a decent job on TCO is an survey that shows apache on linux is cheaper than the main alternatives. That obviously doesn't show "user" apps, just servers.
As far as the bias goes, I think the way TCO is asked is biased as well. I rarely see people include the cost of Microsoft's essentially forced upgrades or the time and effort tracking obtaining and tracking licenses. There are also some intagibles, such as not being locked in, being able to look "under the hood" - the US government's post-9/11 intelligence gathering, MSes history of tracking have people a bit wary now. Those are real, though hard to put dollar number on, concerns.
There are companies that offer support for OpenSource apps, they're not as big name as Linux itself, they tend to be smaller shops.
The other thing is that the switchover cost, at least as it currently looks, is a one time cost, vs. continuous costs (MS forced upgrades) albeit that are lower. The problem is you have to at some point bite the bullet. Things like Crossover are making this easier and a gradual conversion.
I'm not saying everything should be opensource, but things like WordProcessing make sense. It's a very mature app, fairly stable code base once you get to "modern" wordprocessing feature levels, and it's dangerous to have your important data locked in a proprietary format. If the Justice Department really wanted to make a dent in the MS Monopoly they would have forced MS to open up completely all past, present, and future Office formats. This would guarantee compatibility with competing apps, and MS would have to compete on features, not on lock-in. it would also ensure people could read and write their old Office files and not have to upgrade. It would be pretty ironic if outside apps had better support for MS's old formats than Word does.
Have you ever had to deal with any developers who um, had issues?
Normally they just go on to start OpenBSD...
I would be interested to hear if anyone has tried to learn an Indian language in order to communicate with their intercontinental coworkers.
1) Why? They're a former British Colony, just like the US and Canada, and the Brits drilled English into them years ago. Whether this is good or bad in general depends on your take on Imperialism, but it's definitely good for them being able to work in American jobs.
2) Which language? I believe India has on the order of > 80 main languages, with hundreds of dialects.
Once when Microsoft stole the code to make NT
They really didn't do this. IBM and Microsoft were co-developers on OS/2, WinNT and they were supposed to be somewhat compatible. Well, we see how well that panned out. The best WinNT did was a half-assed compatiblity layer for OS/2 command line apps that technically fulfilled the letter of the agreement, but nothing close to the spirit.
A better example would be how MS kept on screwing up OS/2 running Windows apps underneath. Anybody who remembers OS/2 when it first came out, they touted themselves as a better environment to run Win3.1 apps than either Win3.1 or Win95 (which was brand new at the time). MS played with stuff until it didn't work.
I think one way of seeing how bad of a monopoly MS is that even though companies know that MS is gonna screw them, they still make deals with them. MS killed Stac and Spyglass, Spyglass in a beautiful move that crushed both NCSA commercial spinoffs (Spyglass and Netscape) It severely crippled both Citrix and Mainsoft. But with all that, companies feel they must deal with the devil because they hold all the cards.
I liked it too, it was a great action flick with a little bit of mysticism, and massive holes in the plot. Why did the Matrix let these programs in? Is there no MacAffee to stop the "TrinityAndNeoWithLotsOfGuns" program? Besides the whole physics aspect of it, why select humans as your battery? Why select the one animal that could organize enough to rise up? If the agents can make Keanu's mouth disappear (which would be freakish for him, and break out of the "Matrix respects physics" kinda mode) but the agents can't make his gun jam or him run out of bullets? Why would Cypher sell out? He can get all the pseudo-stuff he wants in the computers on the ship, he doens't need the Matrix to give it to him. I could go on with holes for hours, but it was a good action film, with groundbreaking special effects, though I've never been happy that a movie that revolutionized filmmaking has anything to do with Keanu.
Though the special effects set new standards, a lot of this was due to the marrying of Hong Kong style action to a big budget Hollywood film. Check out some of John Woo's work, especially with Tony Leung and Chow Yun Phat and you'll see some good stuff. Teh Matrix stuff wasn't really groundbreaking compared to whats been going on in HK for years, just bigger budget, and more people saw it.
As far as the sequels stuff goes, my opinion is that there are two types of sequels, those to make money and those to continue the story. Those ther just to make money, generally suck. They forget that one of the reasons we liked the first movie is that they showed us new people, new characters, new actions. Then they find various ways of re-hashing. Another 48 hours, Rocky series, Police Academy series. Nothing new. The better ones have a story to tell, a different one. The Matrix sequels seem to have that a bit, though I have more hope for 3 (when they fight in the real world) then in 2, in which they fight in the Matrix, which they've already done to some extent.
Read about The Matrix' bad movie Physics from the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics Page
I shouldn't respond to trolls, but...
1) In general I find FreeBSD more stable. Evidently so does Yahoo. Hotmail used to, but MS couldn't have a different OS on "their" servers, so they tried to change it. Problem is, FreeBSD just worked better and they had a big problem in changing off of it. FreeBSD tends to be more stable under load than Linux. Though Linux has better SMP, neither Linux 2.4 nor FreeBSD 4.7 have good threading models, which is crucial for stuff my business would use. FreeBSD 5.0 has real threads and better SMP support. I'm going to try to have us look into it, though I don't know where thast going to lead. I don't follow linux enough to see where 2.5 (soon to be 2.6) stands on gettign real threads in, I should look at this, from a pragmatic, not a religious "FreeBSD is better, no Linux is" approach, just find the right tool for the job.
2) Linux I believe has had some missteps in the 2.4 kernel. In the "stable" series they've changed Virtual Memory, added a new scheduler, and added an optimization to the VFS code that corrupted the default filesystem in some configurations (though not the default one).
3) Who the f*ck cares about what I think (and by extension you) about points 1 or 2? People make their own damn decisions.
I think a lot of the problems with the "FreeBSD is dying" crap is that it lacks the sound and the fury of Linux development. Every Linux debate, every RHS quote, every "accidentally" leaked "internal" MS memo, RedHat good news, Mandrake bad news, Caldera no news, gets played out on the front page of Slash and a couple hundred advocacy sites. The FreeBSD camp just sits back and writes good code.
"If you see a product more than a couple of times on e-mail, that means that product is selling," Finn said. "No one would be sending it repeatedly if was not selling."
I guess breast enlargement for men is selling, 'cause I'm a guy, and I get a couple of these a week. Hmm, down from a couple a day, so I guess they're not quite as popular, but still....
Re:pthreads using rfork?
I looked at the man page, this seems similar to the clone call on Linux, which they wrapped pthreads around. Aren't there performance issues on this, that it's a process not a thread? I could see issues with signals as well.
I remember reading a comment by somebody, somewhere (gee, can I be more vague?)...
I think it was in SF, and they got called for a survey about crime. They got asked "how do you feel about crime rates?" They asnwered "I think they're going up, Enron is stealing millions WorldCom is stealing millions, so is Xerox and a bunch of other guys." The survey taker was taken somewhat by surprise by this. "Um, no I mean street crime". "Oh you mean some guy who's going to steal $6 from my wallet instead of a couple thousand dollars from my grandma's pension fund?" The survey taker sid "um, yes." "Oh, I think that's getting better, though crime overall is bad."
Some junkie jonesing for a fix steals some car parts, goes to prison. WorldCom execs lie and still get millions from bankrupt companies.
Can't .... resist ... the ... urge...
Maybe you should get a Beowulf cluster of readers?
It was, or at least the central idea was. MS was looking for a Java killer, and found it at some university (damn for the life of me I can't find out where), where they had the CLR pretty much already done. C# is pretty much a 1:1 mapping of capabilities of the runtime to a language with C++/Java syntax, and the other languages are existing MS languages bashed into the CLR. Not to say MS hasn't contributed to it, it has greatly, but it follows the MS pattern of not really innovating new things, but taking someone else's idea and executing it much better than they were able to.
This is like trying to breed cats and dogs.
God shmod, I want my monkey man!!!
-- Bartholomew J. Simpson
Let's see, one Stealth Bomber = approximately 1.8 million company hams ...
Damn, thats some expensive hams.
1 B2 stealth => $1 Billion US.
$1 Billion US / 1.8 million company hams =>
$555 per ham. WOW
Nothing will ever live up to the stuff you saw as a kid.
I agree with this. I saw Star Wars (err, now Star Wars: New Hope) when I was 6 or so when it first came out in the theater. I used to think it was the best movie ever, saw it again when I was 13 or so. Still good. Now I'm on the + side of 30, decided to show it to my gf - she's a foreigner, never saw the original - and it sucked. I almost turned it off. All the stuff about we say now regarding Attack of the Clones and Lucas not being able to tell a story was present in the first film as well, it was just too new and cutting edge for us to care. Now that we have better examples of movies that weave together science fiction and storyline (the original Terminator comes to mind) it seems kind of feeble in comparison.