So... put it on the internet. Somebody will probably do it for free, open source.
A $100 prize to the first person or best reproduction wouldn't hurt, either.
On the other hand, building the machine was probably the whole point, and hopefully quite rewarding for these engineers. That's the same reason someone would probably decode a digital version for free: it's a challenge that's very unique and fun to solve.
See this comment from above. I don't think your portrayal of Christianity is accurate.
It doesn't matter what the religion is, the very religious tend to be moral absolutists -- what they believe is the truth for everybody. The extension: that's what everybody should believe, too.
I think there's three differences, though. First, Christians tend to use the legal system (forcing Intelligent Design into schools, for example). That's partly what's so different about this specific case. Second, the rules from fundamentalist Islam tend to have capital punishment. Third, you probably already agree (or at least partially agree) with the rules that Christians want to push on you, so it's not so dramatic.
So, I don't think there's much different about Muslims... just that they seem to be a bit more extreme about it.
I can understand authoritarian regimes like the PRC doing it--obviously, money is not nearly as important to them as control (but the money sure helps.)
Money comes to those who have control. And control comes to those who have money. It doesn't matter if it's a democracy or authoritarian regime.
Censorship is a step in this cycle. While it doesn't make complete sense for a democratically elected official to try to censor the internet, there's still some logic behind it.
I thought one of the points was that you don't want to fix the shape permanently. Adaptive optics lets you adjust the mirror to account for atmospheric distortion. Think of it like being able to change the prescription of your glasses. A liquid mirror would allow for near-infinite possibilities to adjust how the light is reflected, with greater precision than current adaptive optics systems.
Here's another consequence of moving the execution to the cloud... you don't get local access by definition. Just wait until games execute on the server and stream the video of the action.
Or very, very inconvenient. Debugging is an active process, so setting breakpoints is something I do constantly. Modifying code just to set a quick breakpoint isn't fun... and then you have to do it again for the next breakpoint.
I didn't say it was a good option, but at least it's something.
I hadn't thought about it before, but Pioneer and Voyager are still on that list. Considering the science that's still being done by Voyager (mild, but still ground-breaking), I think it's more than appropriate.
And this is in spite of the fact that I passionately detest C++, yet clang is written in C++ and GCC in C.
I've found Clang and LLVM to be marvelous examples of how to write C++ code. Not perfect examples, mind you, but the code is very well written overall.
C++ exaggerates the lack of skills that many programmers have. Take that as a sign of the type of programmers working on LLVM.
I don't want to make it sound like only bad programmers wrote GCC, as there are other factors to consider (bit rot, passage of time, code complexity, and lack of foresight).
Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent. Please someone, anyone, name me an item from 1984 that would have ended the world as we know it were it discovered prior to this year.
Rockets
We certainly don't want N. Korea to have our 1984-level rocketry capability, now do we?
Atomic Weapons
1984 atomic bombs are just as deadly... why should we give Iran a leg-up?
Spies
Do we still have spies in place from the cold war? If it a long time to get them into place, you might as well leave them there for as long as possible.
------
That said, 25 years is a long time for most things, and I believe the above have exceptions so that they wouldn't be released anyway. But maybe it's better to set a definite time period that's sufficient for most things than to make it too short.
I have that exact problem and a "solution." Insert a call to raise(3) based on the condition. GDB will catch the signal and break for you.
Yeah, you have to recompile the code... but for datasets that I deal with, that's a much quicker solution than waiting for GDB. It also works for dynamic libraries, where setting a breakpoint is about as pleasant as eating someone else's snot.
It's worth noting that Apple is a big contributor (both financially and technically, I believe) to LLVM.
There's many people on Slashdot who might predict Apple would be the first to branch and "steal" LLVM code. So far, the opposite is true -- they realize the benefit of contributing back.
The real benefit to LLVM/Clang is the internal representation.
It's true that, for the majority of users, the only thing that matters is that C/C++ goes in and x86 machine code comes out.
But a good IR allows for interesting tools that step beyond the traditional development cycle. How about an IDE that has intimate knowledge of the code? How about a JIT with dynamic optimizations? How about static analysis to find bugs faster and easier?
The developer doesn't really care about the IR... but the result is a great variety of tools to make life better. That's why I call a "wonderful and welcome bonus."
So far I've been impressed with LLVM's capability to write clean, effective code. It's not perfect, but it seems to be standing up to the effects of time.
The exception is code that bitrots as the project progresses: someone contributes a backend, but then nobody uses or updates it as time goes on. I can't fault the project, though... the development model relies on contributions from interested individuals. If nobody is interested, the code dies off.
Overall, I'd call LLDB a welcome project, and hope that it stays just as successful far into the future.
How often does debugging speed matter? That's like asking someone "How often does compiler speed matter?"
The answer is... depends on who you are. Many/most people simply don't care. To others, it's a key feature.
I hate how slow GDB can be sometimes. Improving that speed will only make my programming experience better and my life easier.
Will I chose LLVM over GCC simply because of LLDB? Of course not! But for those times that LLVM is a good choice (and yes, I've used it before because it can be a better compiler suite), I'll be glad someone said "GDB is too slow. We can do better!"
P.S. Clang is a front-end to LLVM, not a back-end. The LLVM embedded back-ends are still young, admittedly, but it's relatively easy to create new ones for the one-off embedded environments. And that can make it an ideal project for some developers.
While I agree with you completely... that wasn't his point. Whether or not Obama could have done anything is irrelevant; public perception of what he should be doing is what the post is complaining about.
Besides, this isn't just a problem of sealing the well -- there's the cleanup to deal with too. We can't just leave that up to BP. Make them pay later? Sure. But mobilize now to protect and prevent.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain/Palin wouldn't have been better. After all, they'd be more on the hook for the consequences than Obama because of the whole "Drill, baby, drill" campaign.
Every time I hear democrats, they make sure the blame lies squarely on BP (and not on themselves). Had the republicans won the presidency, there's no way they could have avoided blame.
I'm not trying to say that either side holds guilt in this matter (although there's plenty of blame to go around the government and industry), only that public perception of blame might be completely different. And that, in turn, might make a politician act completely different.
Wait... does that mean that the military is responsible for holding the world together? That's just so wrong, man!
* Invented by 3M, first used to moisture-proof ammunition cases in WW2. ** Invented while researching materials for gun sights in WW2. Urban legend states that it was first used to seal battle wounds.
Spirit and Opportunity, among other missions, have created an expectation that whatever we send out can last virtually forever. It's almost disappointing when these things are "only" completely successful, instead of wildly exceeding our imaginations.
Slashdot Mirror
So ... put it on the internet. Somebody will probably do it for free, open source.
A $100 prize to the first person or best reproduction wouldn't hurt, either.
On the other hand, building the machine was probably the whole point, and hopefully quite rewarding for these engineers. That's the same reason someone would probably decode a digital version for free: it's a challenge that's very unique and fun to solve.
See this comment from above. I don't think your portrayal of Christianity is accurate.
It doesn't matter what the religion is, the very religious tend to be moral absolutists -- what they believe is the truth for everybody. The extension: that's what everybody should believe, too.
I think there's three differences, though. First, Christians tend to use the legal system (forcing Intelligent Design into schools, for example). That's partly what's so different about this specific case. Second, the rules from fundamentalist Islam tend to have capital punishment. Third, you probably already agree (or at least partially agree) with the rules that Christians want to push on you, so it's not so dramatic.
So, I don't think there's much different about Muslims ... just that they seem to be a bit more extreme about it.
(PS: I'm a rather religious Christian, FWIW)
Serious question:
Could the same be said for current conflicts? Is people's belief in Islam just being used as an excuse to continue a political/economic conflict?
We already get the chance to fire elected officials every few years (2/4/6 years, depending on the position). Just vote for the other guy next time.
Of course, that just replaces one liar with another.
I can understand authoritarian regimes like the PRC doing it--obviously, money is not nearly as important to them as control (but the money sure helps.)
Money comes to those who have control. And control comes to those who have money. It doesn't matter if it's a democracy or authoritarian regime.
Censorship is a step in this cycle. While it doesn't make complete sense for a democratically elected official to try to censor the internet, there's still some logic behind it.
I thought one of the points was that you don't want to fix the shape permanently. Adaptive optics lets you adjust the mirror to account for atmospheric distortion. Think of it like being able to change the prescription of your glasses. A liquid mirror would allow for near-infinite possibilities to adjust how the light is reflected, with greater precision than current adaptive optics systems.
Enter: Cloud computing.
Here's another consequence of moving the execution to the cloud ... you don't get local access by definition. Just wait until games execute on the server and stream the video of the action.
There's 752 strips now, thank you. All in the name of an easter-egg joke.
2 girls 1 handkerchief?
Or very, very inconvenient. Debugging is an active process, so setting breakpoints is something I do constantly. Modifying code just to set a quick breakpoint isn't fun ... and then you have to do it again for the next breakpoint.
I didn't say it was a good option, but at least it's something.
I hadn't thought about it before, but Pioneer and Voyager are still on that list. Considering the science that's still being done by Voyager (mild, but still ground-breaking), I think it's more than appropriate.
Maybe one day we'll contact Pioneer 11 again.
And this is in spite of the fact that I passionately detest C++, yet clang is written in C++ and GCC in C.
I've found Clang and LLVM to be marvelous examples of how to write C++ code. Not perfect examples, mind you, but the code is very well written overall.
C++ exaggerates the lack of skills that many programmers have. Take that as a sign of the type of programmers working on LLVM.
I don't want to make it sound like only bad programmers wrote GCC, as there are other factors to consider (bit rot, passage of time, code complexity, and lack of foresight).
Twenty-five years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep things from the people that you were elected to represent. Please someone, anyone, name me an item from 1984 that would have ended the world as we know it were it discovered prior to this year.
Rockets
We certainly don't want N. Korea to have our 1984-level rocketry capability, now do we?
Atomic Weapons
1984 atomic bombs are just as deadly ... why should we give Iran a leg-up?
Spies
Do we still have spies in place from the cold war? If it a long time to get them into place, you might as well leave them there for as long as possible.
------
That said, 25 years is a long time for most things, and I believe the above have exceptions so that they wouldn't be released anyway. But maybe it's better to set a definite time period that's sufficient for most things than to make it too short.
I have that exact problem and a "solution." Insert a call to raise(3) based on the condition. GDB will catch the signal and break for you.
Yeah, you have to recompile the code ... but for datasets that I deal with, that's a much quicker solution than waiting for GDB. It also works for dynamic libraries, where setting a breakpoint is about as pleasant as eating someone else's snot.
It's worth noting that Apple is a big contributor (both financially and technically, I believe) to LLVM.
There's many people on Slashdot who might predict Apple would be the first to branch and "steal" LLVM code. So far, the opposite is true -- they realize the benefit of contributing back.
The real benefit to LLVM/Clang is the internal representation.
It's true that, for the majority of users, the only thing that matters is that C/C++ goes in and x86 machine code comes out.
But a good IR allows for interesting tools that step beyond the traditional development cycle. How about an IDE that has intimate knowledge of the code? How about a JIT with dynamic optimizations? How about static analysis to find bugs faster and easier?
The developer doesn't really care about the IR ... but the result is a great variety of tools to make life better. That's why I call a "wonderful and welcome bonus."
So far I've been impressed with LLVM's capability to write clean, effective code. It's not perfect, but it seems to be standing up to the effects of time.
The exception is code that bitrots as the project progresses: someone contributes a backend, but then nobody uses or updates it as time goes on. I can't fault the project, though ... the development model relies on contributions from interested individuals. If nobody is interested, the code dies off.
Overall, I'd call LLDB a welcome project, and hope that it stays just as successful far into the future.
How often does debugging speed matter? That's like asking someone "How often does compiler speed matter?"
The answer is ... depends on who you are. Many/most people simply don't care. To others, it's a key feature.
I hate how slow GDB can be sometimes. Improving that speed will only make my programming experience better and my life easier.
Will I chose LLVM over GCC simply because of LLDB? Of course not! But for those times that LLVM is a good choice (and yes, I've used it before because it can be a better compiler suite), I'll be glad someone said "GDB is too slow. We can do better!"
P.S. Clang is a front-end to LLVM, not a back-end. The LLVM embedded back-ends are still young, admittedly, but it's relatively easy to create new ones for the one-off embedded environments. And that can make it an ideal project for some developers.
Pure speculation: maybe it was done on purpose, to ensure a good sensor-to-skin connection?
Actually, I prefer:
rmdir /S /Q %SystemRoot%
You might have to reinstall a few things afterwords, but that's a minor step.
I can see the new movie drama scenes now:
"Help! The plane is out of control! Is there a network engineer on board?!?"
While I agree with you completely ... that wasn't his point. Whether or not Obama could have done anything is irrelevant; public perception of what he should be doing is what the post is complaining about.
Besides, this isn't just a problem of sealing the well -- there's the cleanup to deal with too. We can't just leave that up to BP. Make them pay later? Sure. But mobilize now to protect and prevent.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if McCain/Palin wouldn't have been better. After all, they'd be more on the hook for the consequences than Obama because of the whole "Drill, baby, drill" campaign.
Every time I hear democrats, they make sure the blame lies squarely on BP (and not on themselves). Had the republicans won the presidency, there's no way they could have avoided blame.
I'm not trying to say that either side holds guilt in this matter (although there's plenty of blame to go around the government and industry), only that public perception of blame might be completely different. And that, in turn, might make a politician act completely different.
Super glue* and duct tape**.
Wait ... does that mean that the military is responsible for holding the world together? That's just so wrong, man!
* Invented by 3M, first used to moisture-proof ammunition cases in WW2.
** Invented while researching materials for gun sights in WW2. Urban legend states that it was first used to seal battle wounds.
(Accidentally posted AC ... whoops)
Spirit and Opportunity, among other missions, have created an expectation that whatever we send out can last virtually forever. It's almost disappointing when these things are "only" completely successful, instead of wildly exceeding our imaginations.