Well, I live in Austin, and the State of Texas just executed a kid last week. He was 17 when he was convicted.
As for Vietnam and Cambodia, I fail to understand why I should sink into the morass of "we murdered fewer people than you!" Murder is murder, and I'm not proud that someone else posted higher numbers.
Regarding coups the US has instigated or backed, I've seen way too many lines of evidence, FOIA-gathered gov papers, and even congressional testimony supporting my claims to discard them in favor of your 4 word rebuttal.
As for Kyoto, I'm not going to chase your posts all over the board. Link or go away.
I would argue that the US does. Perhaps you disagree, but be prepared to provide cites if so...
10 years of war in Vietnam (and My Lai was the rule rather than the exception), invading neutral Cambodia, supporting Indonesian massacres in East Timor, financing and training tinpot dictators in Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc, Iran-Contra, training the Iraqis and the mujahadein in Afghanistan with full knowledge of what they were about, coups in Iran, Guatemala, Turkey, Chile, and many others, attacking civilians i.e. 'collatoral damage'.
We execute minors, keep the world's largest percentage of population imprisoned, deny people jury trials (called 'summary judgements'), rescinded the 4th Amendment when pursuing drug 'crimes' (see civil forfeiture), and generally are working hard to bring our treatment of foreigners back home to our citizenry.
Open your eyes. If you want cites, just follow up. But I'm stunned that you could miss every one of the above. And that list is by no means complete.
I think it's a fair guess that you'll play the 'Unamerican!' card against me, so let me restate: I love my country, but am terribly saddened by what we have become. The historical irony is that Germany became fascist to fight the communists. After knocking the Nazis off, we slowly started growing into that role. I'd really like that to stop.
Choosing not to sign nonsense treaties like Kyoto is not the same as `breaking' them.
How is the Kyoto agreement 'nonsense'? Is there a particular line item that disagrees with you, or do you think all pollution controls defy logic?
It just boggles the mind to look at the list of folks filing AMICI CURIAE briefs in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act case. Here is just a random sampling of the names:
<snip>
David Foster Wallace
Oh, just great. Now the judges will die before they finish reading the briefs.
Can anyone tell me if there is a 'win by default' ruling in court if no judges show up?
How else do you think a country with a few million people would take over Australia, Canada, India etc?
Hunger. The British had the most boring food on earth; they were motivated to build their empire by conquering countries with tasty cuisine. They co-opted the dozens of distinct forms of Indian food, a share of Chinese food from Hong Kong and Canton, the Thai-type food of Singapore, Arabic food from Palestine and Egypt, Ethiopian, and numerous others. Even new food was created to help build the cuisinary empire, for example India Pale Ale, an extra-hoppy beer, was made to survive the ocean trip so the conquerers could still get good beer in India. It worked: go eat in London now.
It was the most successful food run in human history.
The way I remember it, clones would buy the chips from the same people who built the IBM PC's boards, and use the Phoenix/Compaq bios. But since they couldn't get the contract breaks that IBM did, they were pinched for margins to compete with IBM. When the chipsets were condensed, the clones could build boards for less than IBM (who didn't have a tradition of rapidly minaturizing board designs -- see any mid-80's mainframe), and really ate the market alive. That also started a trend: PC board design moved tremendously fast, as everyone tried to out-minaturize everyone else. Thus the conquest of the market.
I did omit the clone BIOSes, but for good reason: those just gave compatability; the new chip designs gave lower cost and supercedence.
And to develop your argument, I point out that 'better manufacturing processes' here means "fit everything onto a single chip". The importance of that cannot be understated -- moving from a multi-chip board to a single-chip design means you no longer have to design, build, and test all the wire traces between chips, which is the large repeatable cost per unit (chips are essentially free once designed). And the single-chip integration means the yield comes way up, as you have only one point of fab failure, as opposed to n chips and a connecting board....and yield is *everything* in electronics.
A basic history of electronics demonstrates, repeatedly, how process changes like the above makes and breaks market share. For example, C&T, after IBM released the PC, figured out how to condense the 13 chips that ran the motherboard into 1 (the 'chipset'). As a result, C&T could build IBM PC boards cheaper than even IBM, and lo and behold, the PC clone market was born.
The only funny thing here is that Sony didn't drop the price sooner. They can probably make PS2s for $40 now; the DVD Consortium licensing might be one of the largest costs in the machine.
Everyone can blow up watermelons with potatoes. What the hell kind of guns are you building that can't? How large is your gas vaporization chamber? 10cc?
The "standard" design (3 inch width PVC pipe, spherical gas chamber of 300 - 500 ccs, electric ignition), can consistently explode watermelons. Someone you know has probably done it.
Of course "explode" is a relative term; it's hard to visibly calculate VE transfer over several different gun designs when any of them will cause a watermelon to shatter. I suggest you look for other measurement tools; at the minimum, distance of fragment dispersal.
Okay, on the one hand, you have a console that was just launched, has $500 million in advertising backing it up, should be in a high-sales-yet-growing area of the sales curve, and people buy it knowing it has a future.
On the other hand, the other console was released a hair over 6 years ago, has no advertising, is essentially overpriced considering the 100 million! previous sales are heading to the used console market, is way past the tapered end of the sales curve, and people are buying it knowing that it has no future and may in fact be best suited for use as a lawn ornament.
With that in mind, I would say, YES for the love of bug-fuck 3000 for an end-of-life box is more than 1800 for a new, hyped, growing box. What, you're complaining about the totals? Bah. Look at the sales curves: normally, you see the opening week spike, sales fall to a fraction (but still sizeable) for the next month or two as the early adopters get their gear; as they taper off everyone else gets around to buying. Slowly the sales figures grow and level off at 1/4 to 1/3 of the launch, where they stay for another 3 years or so. The Xbox curve: opening week spike, gradual fall, complete plummet following broken hardware snafu; their curve is now below a relic and still falling. And for a finale, there is little to no historical precedent to show that a company can pull out of a dive like that.
ciao, Xbox. See you in 5 years.
Thats not what I would call outselling.
That's what we would call 'a freakish divergence of plotted sales figures'.
Didn't have any problems with my sex life being affected by my programming until, while in college, I learned about recursion. Everything went fine until the bed ran out of stack space and it all fell over.
Silly luser! You should be using tail recursion to convert your funcalls to have O(1) space requirements.
As for me, I tried a lot of continuations after leaving college, but grew disenchanted because you could never be sure if they were GC'ed or if you would be interrupted at an inopportune time....
The other poster's cynical point are correct, but not technically useful. I'll handle that.
CMS is software to define rules to manage content production and publication. So if you were to download and install the aD CMS, you would get all of the above, except integrated. So you post content as with the publishing system like Slash, but you can collaboratively author and manage said content a la SourceForge. The previous four are part of the basic ACS system; they are necessary but not sufficient to describe CMS. Additionally, the focus of CMS is to manage content -- so the CMS software also allows you to write the control flow of content and integrate it with all the above. So rather than being limited to the rules for posting on/. or Scoop, you can define the rules for "such and such must review, approve here, loop and edit, comment, publish, email, repeat" or whatever you come up with on-site.
Of course, unless you have a penchant for Java-flavoured pain, it might be easier to use the CMS with OpenACS 4.5beta1 than the packages from a defunct company that fired most of their programmers. Still, it's nicer than what Vignette will charge you 6 figures for.
I'm serious. Microsoft has an ever-increasing number of programmers with little to do. Their culture is noted as being obessive about being around the office, even when you're burnt out and contributing nothing. So every grandiose project that reinvents the wheel mitigates that. The 'grandiose' part is not to be overlooked -- it's so much better for marketing to be able to say "we're developing a comprehensive solution for language conformity" versus "we're solidly on the treadmill of building quality interfaces for languages calling foreign functions". One promise is resignation towards mature engineering, the other is a 'build once and forget it' christmas morning fantasy.
Another reason is that the above is *hard*. It's simple to call functions across languages -- it's much harder to make languages agree on a binary format for data representation so objects can be passed between languages. Sure , if the computing world had grasped LISP back in the 50's & 60's we wouldn't have most of the 'design goals' needed to patch over Algol, but they didn't and we did.
But hopefully this won't cause a major split similar to what happend to Unix in the 60's/70's.
60's & 70's? You're off your rocker.
There *was* no Unix in the 60's, at least, there was no Unix until 1969, and even then 'Unix' was just a filesystem design on a chalkboard and a set of paper tapes for a PDP-7. It wasn't until 1972 that Unix was written in C. IIRC, Unix wasn't available outside Bell Labs until 1973. It really started spreading in 1976 when Ritchie went on sabbatical and spread the word. So far, nothing that looks like a linux-kernel split that you are trying to find an analogy for.
The Unix splits happened in the 80's, after Sun decided to be a hardware company and specialize BSD to its own purpose, copyrighted of course, and everyone else decided to play as well. Things got worse when these companies decided to play ball with windowing standards: Sun had an advanced system that they killed with paranoia, X won by default, and then everyone got another round fighting over the X toolkits! Fun!!
I'm guessing you are referring to *those* Unix splits.
To rebut, I'd argue that Linux doesn't have to fear as much chaos. The focus of all of the above wars were each company's total control of what they thought as 'their' IP. Those splits were over money, not technical agreements; furthermore, those splits *couldn't* be resolved, as none of the companies would open any of that code. Linux could fork into 100 different trees, but the splits (as they are GPLed) can all be brought back in by anyone willing enough.
Personally I'd be glad to see the linus tree knocked off, at least for a time. It would be interesting, and certainly in line with how Linus feels about design by evolution. A good solution, if mundane, would mirror the gcc - egcs - gcc schism/re-merge of 1-2 years ago, as Alan Cox so helpfully pointed out.
And keep those accusations of "trolling" down--listen for a change and try to understand what people are saying.
I'll apologize for calling you a troll, but I think you are widely misinformed and here on/. the two go hand in hand, thus my mistake.
No, it's not "far off". Microkernels have been around for years. But what Linux could do is, rather than imposing a microkernel architecture throughout, allow the loading of some modules into a protected space.
I meant far-off in terms of when Linus would feel like it is necessary. And I think he would think it was necessary when lots of subsystem like TUX were trying to get in, and he needed a harder seperation. For the time being, this is almost a non-issue, b/c most of the things you can do in a kernel subsystem people are implementing in user space, and quite well I should point out.
You are missing the point, which is that if you have modules, many of them need to be recompiled.
You didn't qualify your statement, which allows for non-module setups. Sure, if you have modules, etc, etc..
Well, wonderful for you. But imagine where Windows or OSX were if the premise was "in order to make your sound card work, please download these 30Mbytes of stuff, a complete development environment, and recompile everything". Don't you even begin to see the folly of that suggestion?
How about, "in order to make your sound card work", please go get in your car, drive over to a retailer, and get a CD with the new minor release of our operating system. Or download a service pack in excess of 30MB." I see folly in either direction. I do not see where you think the latter in some kind of panacea.
There are several alternatives to "make", any of which could be distributed with the kernel.
Please tell us more! I am not interested in antagonizing you; I genuinely want to know of a superior alternative, as each I have tried has proven to be less useful than make.
I do, and it doesn't work. The kernel keeps complaining about version mismatches when tryikng to load those modules.
I do, and it does work. Perhaps you are confusing a refusal to load with just a message of mismatch -- when it loads across version boundaries, insmod reports the message but loads anyway. All my modules from 2.2.19 have loaded into my 2.4 kernels. Perhaps you have a specific problematic module?
I follow the instructions in the kernel: after changing configuration parameters in menuconfig, I type "make dep; make; make modules". That recompiles the whole kernel. How am I supposed to know in what cases it is safe to type just "make modules"?
Oof. You just nailed me to the wall with that one. You're right, someone unfamiliar with make dev environments wouldn't know that. Hmm.. better docs could fix that, but another approach would be superior. There is much to consider here. Thank you.
And you accuse me of trolling? C++ imposes no unexpected overhead in space or time. If you don't use a feature, it doesn't cost you (at least in a good C++ implementation).
I repeat -- C++ doesn't offer enough in the way of language to make it worth stepping farther away from the machine. C is almost an assembly language, albeit a machine-independent one. Once you're down mucking in page frames, you know the machine pretty well, and you need to know what your dev language compiles into. C is easy to understand the output of; C++ output is much more difficult. So there is a real cost problem there. So unless you can point out precisely where C++ makes development so much simpler and safer, and how those approaches are excessively onerous for a skilled C programmer to emulate, it is hard to justify its use. Note that I am not down on that level -- these days I work in Ruby, SQL, and Common LISP, so I'm not some kind of C bigot who disdains high-level langs.
If so many bits and pieces of functionality need to be approved by one person, that really is an architecture problem. Imagine where the whole Linux system were if any command line program needed to be approved by the shell maintainer and then merged into a single, huge source tree.
Firstly, your analogy is flawed, although it does look a lot like computers before the development of operating systems. But as for the architectural complaint, please tell us what is better. Most systems everywhere hinge on a high level person making the call. I don't know why you've ignored this fact. OSS systems at least offer the option of variants, so you can alan's tree, ingo's tree, rik's tree, etc; which is superior to closed source systems and certainly more to your liking.
I haven't messed at all with APM. Sorry about the nasty luck there.
I think your message is highly misinformed and borders on trolling. Maybe you're just new.
Many hardware setups require recompiling the kernel and experimenting endlessly.
This is true. On machines with really exotic hardware, I have had to recompile a great many kernel configurations. Usually, however, I can just rmmod & insmod to test the new configurations without rebooting, so the experimenting phase is not overlong.
Every time you recompile the kernel, you need to recompile some kernel modules.
You are in no way forced to compile anything as a module -- the kernel will live quite happily as a solitary elf executable. So don't tell me 'every time'.
Dependencies and recompilation aren't working correctly--some things don't recompile when they should, and lots of things recompile over and over and over again.
That's possible anywhere, and I have seen little evidence for your recompiliation loop. It has been some time since I have last seen an incorrect dependency in the kernel build. And on an average uniprocessor machine, my full builds complete in under two minutes. So I'm not crying for time.
The kernel itself is a 30Mbyte download.
Cry me a river. Get DSL. Or learn to use the patch command -- that's why all those patch files are on the kernel mirrors. I've been pulling kernel sources off a 33k modem link for the last 6 months, and I'm not hurting for the speed.
And the list of problems goes on and on.
All of which are apparently handwaving. Let's watch.
The kernel hackers keep telling us that C and make are just great tools for building kernels.
I agree with you that make sucks. Unfortunately, it still sucks less than almost everything on the field. Please suggest an alternative. I also agree that C sucks. OTOH, C++ sucks even harder, and for its extra demands of space and time and its ability to obfuscate, C++ doesn't deliver any of the benefits that a real language (like LISP) does. C++ has been out for 20 years, and it still hasn't superseded C in close-to-the-metal progging. Figure it out.
This is not a system I can recommend to non-technical users--commercial distributions can't cover all the possible kernel configurations (even with fully modularized kernels), and recompilation is out of the question for many users.
I have to agree with you on that, but recent kernels are pretty complete -- most users won't need to recompile.
It must be possible to write drivers and other kernel modules that can be compiled separately from the kernel and work across many versions. Binary modules really should keep working across minor version number changes (2.2 to 2.4, for example).
You can do that. Say yes to 'attach version information to modules' in the kernel config.
It must be possible to write kernel modules with more safety in mind. There should also be some way to apply some memory protection to kernel modules when desired.
I agree with you, but that's pretty far off. The MIT exokernel is I think the shining example of what you are looking for. In the meantime, most people get the same effect by running your theoretic modules outside of the kernel, in daemons or shared libs or something. The user/kernel protections are usually enough.
The build system needs to get fixed. There is no reason why adding or removing a module should result in a recompilation of the whole kernel. Maybe it's time to get rid of "make" altogether for the kernel.
There *is* no reason to recompile the whole kernel to add a module. What are you smoking? "make modules","cd to blah","cp blah.o/lib/modules/x.y.z/","depmod". Or just "make modules; make modules_install". As for 'getting rid of make', what would you use to replace it?
I saved this one for last:
Important and mature packages like MOSIX require patching the kernel and aren't integrated into the kernel.
You see, that's what we call not in the linus kernel. Your impressions of importance and maturity of the patch are really something you should take up with Linus himself. I, for one, wish Ingo's TUX subsystem makes it into the linus tree sometime soon. But you have no basis to say that just b/c a kernel patch is out, and linus hasn't integrated it into his stable tree, the linux process is flawed. Get a clue! Independent patches come out much faster than anyone can pull them into the core; they are usually conflictive and compete with other patches to solve the same problem. So it takes a while. If you want it in the linus tree sooner, help out. Welcome to open source.
you're right... a dolphin really doesn't connect well with 'database'. OTOH, 'dolphin' really doesn't connotate 'must lock tables and runs like a dog under concurrent load' nor 'speaks a tiny subset of SQL'. So maybe a trick playing, sailor diverting mascot is good for them.
As a undergrad student in Information Sciences (my shitty school doesn't offer Computer Science, so we're more oriented to management),
If you think your school is shitty, and you have posted good grades (showing your determination to do the work), then transfer to a real school. I'm serious. Go now. Life is too short to waste time as a fraud -- in a bad school, job, relationship, whatever.
That's the only time this month I will play counselor to a/. kiddie. Take the advice.
On the other hand, there's some truth to what CNBC said in that when it comes time to develop XBOX 2, 3-5 years down the road, Microsoft can reap many of the benefits of the PC world's progression and save time, whereas other manufacturers will be designing consoles from scratch or moving over more to off-the-shelf parts.
Congratulations. You are now qualified to become a McKinsey consultant and run a company into the ground. Yes, in many cases outsourcing is a great boon. But what if one of the game companies (cough*Sony*) happens to be an electronics R&D house? Why would they suddenly be behind? Developing new systems is what they do all the time. Year round, for the next 3-5 years, Sony will have teams working on console technology. This is their core competence -- there is no defensible reason to believe that they would be well served by moving to off-the-shelf systems. Remember, of course, the down side, which is that yielding a large cut to each outsourcing vendor means that MS is losing major cash on each XBox sold, but Sony is actually turning a profit per unit.
1996 to 2000 saw several hale, dominant Unix vendors crumble (HP, SGI) or even be destroyed (DEC) in a span of a couple of years. Their mistake? They all decided to toss their years of experience in their own systems and move to off-the-shelf hardware (Intel) and software (NT). The lesson here is the same: never throw away your core competency, or you enter a field where any kid in his basement can build your products cheaper.
This is kind of rambling, but I hope my point is clear -- outsourcing works for MS b/c they have nothing in-house. But Sony has it *all* in-house, which can make them formidable indeed.
Did I miss an expansion pack? Where is the 'play for seven years' map in Civilization? What's the time scale on that mission?
It's like The Sims, only someone is playing you...
Re:What it'll do for me
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're the 1st "green" I've ever heard admit this. I applaud you! Nuclear power is by far the best option we have for safe, efficient, environmentally friendly power.
You need to get out more. There's a schism in the enviro community, between nerds who are looking at consumption numbers and working to affect industrial choice towards greener policies (which are usually cheaper for the companies involved), and the lib arts crowd that is more or less reflexively against anything that isn't cute and furry. The constant annoyance between them is one group is using science to benefit the environment, the other blames science for all the evils in the world.
The only problem is storage of the radioactive waste. If they would finally approve Yucca Mountain that would also be (mostly) solved.
Another problem, also political, is refinement. Back in Carter's day an order was signed forbidding the refinement of nuclear waste to restore the useful elements. This order was undertaken as an attempt to prevent terrorists from capturing weapon grade fuels refined from waste in civilian plants. As an aside: USians, take a look at terrorism in Europe in the 70's to see why this was a valid concern. This order still stands, so we have enormous quantities of 'waste' standing around, that could be refined into fuel, non-rad waste, and a much smaller amount of rad waste that would be easier to store.
This is a problem of intellectual property law in general. We've all seen how copyright law gets manipulated to serve the interests of large corporations, patent law's no different. However, while I acknowledge this problem with both structures, I also think that the real problem is more of a structural problem with the legal system: the little guy can't get effective legal help.
We agree in intent but differ in methods. I think it is more substantially an error in the patent law system -- it is overly broad to the point of making everyone a criminal. In such an environment there is no sound judgement and lawyers can, and must, dictate law rather than fair and sound rulings by informed judges. I'd like to fix that first, as deep changes to the legal system will take longer; besides which the two changes are not exclusive.
Your conception of patents does not reflect their current use. If Unreal patented their advance, they would still be in violation of id's hypothetical patents. In this case, the two companies would cross-license their patents, which the large companies do on a regular basis, which doesn't help the little guy. I find this telling -- the same huge companies which demand absurd patent protection actually cross-license to make the patent minefield just 'go away'.
You appear to overly obsess with code. I think algorithms are way more important. Monkeys can make code once the algorithm is worked out; perhaps this is where we disagree, and if so, prolly this argument is over.
This line is just wierd. What's the difference between algorithms and code? It's just translation between mathematics notation (algorithms) to von Neumann machine instructions (imperative code). In some functional languages, the algorithm is the code.
I'm just going to assume that you are under the age of 20.
When you are down in the dirt stuffing shells into cartridges and digging your best friend's teeth out of your thigh with a knife, please remember that there is a great deal less suffering brought about by getting involved in a political process rather than waiting for some kind of apocalyptic dream war fed by fantasy novels and jigoistic nationalist retroactive "history".
Get the hell out of your trench and get involved. A fatalistic refusal to participate in your own democracy is the most lazy and weak political stance anyone can take.
"[Guns] will secure more freedom than any laws." -- really? After your 'revolution', what are you and your buddies going to do for social structure? No laws, just shoot every third person who annoys you? I encourage you to go to Sierra Leone and research this idea -- but exercise first, cannabalism is back in style over there, and everyone needs to eat better.
Unfortunately, you are giving far too much credit to the courts. The Sups already ruled that business methods can be patented, and (IIRC) math theorems. Moving on...even assuming that the courts have a change of heart, which is unlikely, I care. The underground isn't a very comfortable place to be right now with the power grab going on in Washington. The patent system is so totally fucked that everyone is a criminal. And when everyone is a criminal, money and guns are the only access to freedom.
So I'd like to fix the laws. You might want to help.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice little club we're in.
As for Vietnam and Cambodia, I fail to understand why I should sink into the morass of "we murdered fewer people than you!" Murder is murder, and I'm not proud that someone else posted higher numbers.
Regarding coups the US has instigated or backed, I've seen way too many lines of evidence, FOIA-gathered gov papers, and even congressional testimony supporting my claims to discard them in favor of your 4 word rebuttal.
As for Kyoto, I'm not going to chase your posts all over the board. Link or go away.
We execute minors, keep the world's largest percentage of population imprisoned, deny people jury trials (called 'summary judgements'), rescinded the 4th Amendment when pursuing drug 'crimes' (see civil forfeiture), and generally are working hard to bring our treatment of foreigners back home to our citizenry.
Open your eyes. If you want cites, just follow up. But I'm stunned that you could miss every one of the above. And that list is by no means complete.
I think it's a fair guess that you'll play the 'Unamerican!' card against me, so let me restate: I love my country, but am terribly saddened by what we have become. The historical irony is that Germany became fascist to fight the communists. After knocking the Nazis off, we slowly started growing into that role. I'd really like that to stop.
How is the Kyoto agreement 'nonsense'? Is there a particular line item that disagrees with you, or do you think all pollution controls defy logic?Jesus of Nazareth: 6 B.C. - 27 A.D.? (again, vague records, and some monastic monkeying with chronology)
so...
early?? No.
Can anyone tell me if there is a 'win by default' ruling in court if no judges show up?
It was the most successful food run in human history.
I did omit the clone BIOSes, but for good reason: those just gave compatability; the new chip designs gave lower cost and supercedence.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/06/133725 0&mode=thread&tid=127
And to develop your argument, I point out that 'better manufacturing processes' here means "fit everything onto a single chip". The importance of that cannot be understated -- moving from a multi-chip board to a single-chip design means you no longer have to design, build, and test all the wire traces between chips, which is the large repeatable cost per unit (chips are essentially free once designed). And the single-chip integration means the yield comes way up, as you have only one point of fab failure, as opposed to n chips and a connecting board....and yield is *everything* in electronics.
A basic history of electronics demonstrates, repeatedly, how process changes like the above makes and breaks market share. For example, C&T, after IBM released the PC, figured out how to condense the 13 chips that ran the motherboard into 1 (the 'chipset'). As a result, C&T could build IBM PC boards cheaper than even IBM, and lo and behold, the PC clone market was born.
The only funny thing here is that Sony didn't drop the price sooner. They can probably make PS2s for $40 now; the DVD Consortium licensing might be one of the largest costs in the machine.
The "standard" design (3 inch width PVC pipe, spherical gas chamber of 300 - 500 ccs, electric ignition), can consistently explode watermelons. Someone you know has probably done it.
Of course "explode" is a relative term; it's hard to visibly calculate VE transfer over several different gun designs when any of them will cause a watermelon to shatter. I suggest you look for other measurement tools; at the minimum, distance of fragment dispersal.
On the other hand, the other console was released a hair over 6 years ago, has no advertising, is essentially overpriced considering the 100 million! previous sales are heading to the used console market, is way past the tapered end of the sales curve, and people are buying it knowing that it has no future and may in fact be best suited for use as a lawn ornament.
With that in mind, I would say, YES for the love of bug-fuck 3000 for an end-of-life box is more than 1800 for a new, hyped, growing box. What, you're complaining about the totals? Bah. Look at the sales curves: normally, you see the opening week spike, sales fall to a fraction (but still sizeable) for the next month or two as the early adopters get their gear; as they taper off everyone else gets around to buying. Slowly the sales figures grow and level off at 1/4 to 1/3 of the launch, where they stay for another 3 years or so. The Xbox curve: opening week spike, gradual fall, complete plummet following broken hardware snafu; their curve is now below a relic and still falling. And for a finale, there is little to no historical precedent to show that a company can pull out of a dive like that.
ciao, Xbox. See you in 5 years.
That's what we would call 'a freakish divergence of plotted sales figures'.As for me, I tried a lot of continuations after leaving college, but grew disenchanted because you could never be sure if they were GC'ed or if you would be interrupted at an inopportune time....
CMS is software to define rules to manage content production and publication. So if you were to download and install the aD CMS, you would get all of the above, except integrated. So you post content as with the publishing system like Slash, but you can collaboratively author and manage said content a la SourceForge. The previous four are part of the basic ACS system; they are necessary but not sufficient to describe CMS. Additionally, the focus of CMS is to manage content -- so the CMS software also allows you to write the control flow of content and integrate it with all the above. So rather than being limited to the rules for posting on /. or Scoop, you can define the rules for "such and such must review, approve here, loop and edit, comment, publish, email, repeat" or whatever you come up with on-site.
Of course, unless you have a penchant for Java-flavoured pain, it might be easier to use the CMS with OpenACS 4.5beta1 than the packages from a defunct company that fired most of their programmers. Still, it's nicer than what Vignette will charge you 6 figures for.
Another reason is that the above is *hard*. It's simple to call functions across languages -- it's much harder to make languages agree on a binary format for data representation so objects can be passed between languages. Sure , if the computing world had grasped LISP back in the 50's & 60's we wouldn't have most of the 'design goals' needed to patch over Algol, but they didn't and we did.
Oh, and MS needed another line item to crush Sun.
There *was* no Unix in the 60's, at least, there was no Unix until 1969, and even then 'Unix' was just a filesystem design on a chalkboard and a set of paper tapes for a PDP-7. It wasn't until 1972 that Unix was written in C. IIRC, Unix wasn't available outside Bell Labs until 1973. It really started spreading in 1976 when Ritchie went on sabbatical and spread the word. So far, nothing that looks like a linux-kernel split that you are trying to find an analogy for.
The Unix splits happened in the 80's, after Sun decided to be a hardware company and specialize BSD to its own purpose, copyrighted of course, and everyone else decided to play as well. Things got worse when these companies decided to play ball with windowing standards: Sun had an advanced system that they killed with paranoia, X won by default, and then everyone got another round fighting over the X toolkits! Fun!!
I'm guessing you are referring to *those* Unix splits.
To rebut, I'd argue that Linux doesn't have to fear as much chaos. The focus of all of the above wars were each company's total control of what they thought as 'their' IP. Those splits were over money, not technical agreements; furthermore, those splits *couldn't* be resolved, as none of the companies would open any of that code. Linux could fork into 100 different trees, but the splits (as they are GPLed) can all be brought back in by anyone willing enough.
Personally I'd be glad to see the linus tree knocked off, at least for a time. It would be interesting, and certainly in line with how Linus feels about design by evolution. A good solution, if mundane, would mirror the gcc - egcs - gcc schism/re-merge of 1-2 years ago, as Alan Cox so helpfully pointed out.
I haven't messed at all with APM. Sorry about the nasty luck there.
I saved this one for last:
You see, that's what we call not in the linus kernel. Your impressions of importance and maturity of the patch are really something you should take up with Linus himself. I, for one, wish Ingo's TUX subsystem makes it into the linus tree sometime soon. But you have no basis to say that just b/c a kernel patch is out, and linus hasn't integrated it into his stable tree, the linux process is flawed. Get a clue! Independent patches come out much faster than anyone can pull them into the core; they are usually conflictive and compete with other patches to solve the same problem. So it takes a while. If you want it in the linus tree sooner, help out. Welcome to open source.you're right... a dolphin really doesn't connect well with 'database'. OTOH, 'dolphin' really doesn't connotate 'must lock tables and runs like a dog under concurrent load' nor 'speaks a tiny subset of SQL'. So maybe a trick playing, sailor diverting mascot is good for them.
That's the only time this month I will play counselor to a /. kiddie. Take the advice.
1996 to 2000 saw several hale, dominant Unix vendors crumble (HP, SGI) or even be destroyed (DEC) in a span of a couple of years. Their mistake? They all decided to toss their years of experience in their own systems and move to off-the-shelf hardware (Intel) and software (NT). The lesson here is the same: never throw away your core competency, or you enter a field where any kid in his basement can build your products cheaper.
This is kind of rambling, but I hope my point is clear -- outsourcing works for MS b/c they have nothing in-house. But Sony has it *all* in-house, which can make them formidable indeed.
It's like The Sims, only someone is playing you...
When you are down in the dirt stuffing shells into cartridges and digging your best friend's teeth out of your thigh with a knife, please remember that there is a great deal less suffering brought about by getting involved in a political process rather than waiting for some kind of apocalyptic dream war fed by fantasy novels and jigoistic nationalist retroactive "history".
Get the hell out of your trench and get involved. A fatalistic refusal to participate in your own democracy is the most lazy and weak political stance anyone can take.
"[Guns] will secure more freedom than any laws." -- really? After your 'revolution', what are you and your buddies going to do for social structure? No laws, just shoot every third person who annoys you? I encourage you to go to Sierra Leone and research this idea -- but exercise first, cannabalism is back in style over there, and everyone needs to eat better.
So I'd like to fix the laws. You might want to help.