I think the part that matters most for accelerating is about 0-25, or the time between when you start and when you get through the intersection. I don't think the traffic matters too much for this range, because you've generally waited a little while to have space between you and the next car.
It feels to me like the critical thing is getting to second without trying to exceed the easily-available torque of the engine, which means that you want to start with a small acceleration and increase it as you get going. I find that with the particular car I drive, I want a little dip in acceleration to encourage it to shift at the right time.
Acceleration speed on a hybrid isn't going to matter nearly so much, because the electric motor will handle the acceleration efficiently (the electric gets good acceleration at low speeds; the gas maintains high speeds well).
In fact, the reason hybrids are starting to appear as top-of-the-line cars is that they can accelerate more effectively from a stop.
He's not really trying to convert anyone. The books are written with the assumption that the reader is already Christian of some sort. He is trying almost exclusively to improve the behavior of Christians. For that matter, the last book features fundamentalist Christians destroying the world, and nice pagans going to heaven.
In fact, someone reading the CoN without a Christian upbringing is unlikely to identify the Christian elements in it without having them pointed out, and is certainly unlikely to find any relationship between the events of the book and modern Christian practice. The message is really that you should have a particular morality, whatever your articles of faith happen to be. The Christian elements serve primarily to make this message more persuasive to Christian readers. It's actually more like complaining that The Fountainhead seems to promote architects than individualism.
If the project you code eight feet from your bed feeds you, it's not a hobby; it's your main job. The idea that the article is opposed to is that these things are done primarily by people with no occupation or with a different occupation who don't get income from the project. As it turns out, this is not the case in general. Even RMS was supporting himself by selling GNU for $150 when he wrote Emacs.
I've been working on git in my spare time, and it is obvious to me how much more gets done by people whose work overlaps with working on it.
According to the article, the broadcast flag is perfectly legal to use, legal to respect, but also legal to ignore. The FCC can't prohibit receivers that don't respect the flag, but manufacturers can voluntarily make receivers that do. Broadcasters can certainly use the broadcast flag, and probably ought to, just because. And the receivers might as well notice the broadcast flag and report it to the user, who might like to know.
The difference is not in "inventing" versus "creating". It's in "taking the initiative in doing something" versus "doing something". He obviously didn't do any of the work himself, but the people who did the work say that it couldn't have gotten done with his help in getting funding. It got done because he pushed for funding it, which is one way of taking the initiative.
It's easy to warp the quote into something incorrect, but impossible to do it innocently, unless you're unaware that Gore is a politician, or that what politicians do is allocate funding and pass laws. Politicians always talk about reducing crime and so forth, and they're never out on the streets catching crooks and saving victims. They're funding police departments, and nobody is confused by this.
Actually, current issues are also free at libraries, and back issues of things are generally more expensive to acquire than current issues (because you're paying for storage and irregular distribution as well as the original price). In all cases, only convenience and ownership cost money; people get the impression that the latest news is expensive, but that's just because they tend not to want to get a one-year-delayed subscription to the Times.
As for the idea of charging for archive access, I bet that most library systems would pay $50/computer to enable their computers to access the Times online archives. Us slashdot readers, individually, wouldn't pay, but we might be induced to get library cards, which makes the library's case for getting funding better.
The article actually says that 4.0.x will probably beat 3.4.x before long, and the reason for this is really Tree SSA. However, that doesn't mean it makes sense to actually compile things with a compiler which is lousy, but about to improve rapidly. His conclusion is that 4.0 doesn't take enough advantage of the new design to make it worthwhile to end users yet.
(Incidentally, the improvement isn't actually "SSA", but "Tree SSA"; that is, they're doing SSA at a higher level, which enables optimizations to be done with more information. Earlier versions did use SSA in implementing optimizations, but it was in the back end, not in the IR. This means that optimizations can be done more generally and easily.)
The original ShuttleTrack was broken most of the time, and was then abandoned. It's been reimplemented in PHP by a couple of students who missed the old functionality and is stable and reliable.
They probably won't notice that their shell does any of that stuff until they've mastered emacs. It's not like people coming from windows are likely to expect their shell to have reverse-search-through-history and be trying to figure out how to get it. So long as the arrow keys and backspace work, they'll be happy. If they end up learning emacs keysfor some reason, they'll be happy to find that their shell uses the keys they know.
(In point of fact, emacs doesn't wish it was an operating system. It wishes it was a desktop environment. That saying was just coined before there were desktop environments other than emacs.)
With a good inlining compiler, you could actually make this a function in a header file, and eliminate the first comment from the code (in favor of set_serial_big_endian(slurp);) and move the second comment to the inline function body, where it only tells people who really care where you got that implementation.
It's amazing how nice having a real compiler for your microcontroller is, especially if you can get it to optimize out big conditionals in inlines called on constants, so you can have the compiler look things up in tables for you.
Organizations like the Red Cross got into trouble because people donated money thinking they were donating money to x, when really they weren't.
If they wanted to donate money to X, maybe they ought to have sent it to, say, Debian...
But, in general, organizations hate it when you donate money for a specific purpose, because that purpose invariably goes out of date before the money is entirely spent. For example, the server aspects of Debian are already so good that you don't bother to change them; what good does throwing more money at that do?
Now let's get back to actually working on this replacement...
That interferes a bit too much with my day job, unfortunately. I'm also waiting just a little bit longer for complaints about my.git/refs/ idea (and ideally, have cogito use it instead of its current system).
Linus has always felt that his main role was to reject patches. If you take just anything, people won't refine patches to the point where they maintain or improve the overall quality of the code. Andrew and Linus essentially do a good cop/bad cop routine on patches.
Of course, he's essentially been on vacation from Linux work, developing git. I'd guess that writing his own thing has make him feel a lot better about the BitKeeper mess. He certainly seemed to be having fun coming up with brilliant solutions to problems, rather than the current kernel situation of endless refinement.
As for testing, the article is misinterpreting its own quotes. There's no lack of testing, and Andrew didn't say there was. There is a lack of reporting of test results and a lack of credit to people who would provide them. There is a lack of communication infrastructure for getting bug reports to people who might be able to fix them, to other people who may or may not be seeing the same problem (and can provide more details on when the bugs are triggered).
Of course, slowing down releases would make testing more difficult, because people don't test kernels that aren't released, and testing fewer releases just means that more people report the same bugs, because the fixes for those bugs are held up waiting for the next release.
The lack of properly stable releases should be fixed by the 2.6.x.y process; now an effective reporting process is needed to help the maintainers find out about bugs people hit, and determine whether correctness fixes actually deal with cases that happen in practice.
Someone's already written a version that supports deltas. The issue is that the deltas are each the size of the complete file, because in most filesystems a file's size is rounded up to a 4K block. So if you have a 7K source file and you change it, storing the whole thing compressed is 4K, and storing a delta is also 4K, plus you need the old version of the file to apply the delta to.
Additionally, using deltas means that if you want to combine two commits, you need to create a new representation of the files for the combined change; with full files, you get create a commit that goes from the first tree to the last tree, both of which you're already storing.
It's counterintuitive, but deltas aren't really efficient in practice.
It's not too uncommon for movies to be played with previews for movies that some of the audience might object to. If the DVDs are similar, some of the scenes that this bill is about letting you skip are probably in the previews. For that matter, I haven't heard of DVDs which prevent you from skipping parts of the actual movie (which would just be strange; if you want to skip the content and need something else to watch that much sooner, why would they stop you?), so this is probably most particular to the nude scenes in the previews.
I've been in a J2EE project completed on time and on budget. We were smart enough to avoid almost all of J2EE and wrap the portions we had to deal with in sane interfaces. There is a bit of useful code in the Servlet section such that you don't have to write quite all of it yourself.
The main problem is that LSB specifies some stuff that people think are broken. (In particular, RPM and a C++ ABI that is both obsolete and newer than what people actually use). To the extent that the things LSB specifies are not broken, all the distros do things that way, and you don't need any certification to know you can use them. For applications, they only care about standardization if they need something that can't just be assumed, and these things aren't covered by LSB.
It is, however, useful, but only really as documentation of common practice. You don't have to wonder whether you're ahead of the curve on adopting a version of zlib, because the LSB says what version you can expect.
A substantial segment of current Linux development is in improving support for embedded devices, which generally have less processing power than your machine. Granted, it's not older hardware, but it is similar in many ways that matter.
Assuming that there are some online licensees for AP content, Google News will cite them. I'd actually prefer that Reuters quit letting sites post their content locally; it annoys me to see "Headline" and 225 copies of the same Reuters text. Thanks, I can read Reuters articles via the link to reuters.com; if I choose Ha'aretz as my reference for a story, I'd like a Israeli perspective, not a Reuters story that an Israeli paper decided to license. Of course, if I'm reading Ha'aretz, I'd like to have a blurb and a link to the reuters site for the story, if they decided to print it.
There's plenty of advancement in that curve, and a lot of retreat. It's not like we're worse off now than in '61. The trend is rapid improvement when people care, and falling back to lower levels when people don't. With 6 years of people caring, that gives substantial progress. Remember also that there has been steady improvement in unmanned techniques, which is likely to be more important if we're sending something to an incoming asteroid and want to accelerate with more force than passengers would survive.
As for money, the financial situations of governments aren't really that simple. The government can just offer bonds, and, if people care, they'll buy them, funding the government's projects (and the government then pays the people to work on the project, allowing them to buy more bonds...). That's why popular wars are generally a boon to the economy; the people are willing to enlarge the shared fiction of the total amount of money in the system.
SCO still hasn't made any claims against IBM that they can even try to argue. They want to add more claims. They're supposed to argue next Thursday that they should be allowed to add something. They want to delay that argument until June. The court refuses to change the date.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the part that matters most for accelerating is about 0-25, or the time between when you start and when you get through the intersection. I don't think the traffic matters too much for this range, because you've generally waited a little while to have space between you and the next car.
It feels to me like the critical thing is getting to second without trying to exceed the easily-available torque of the engine, which means that you want to start with a small acceleration and increase it as you get going. I find that with the particular car I drive, I want a little dip in acceleration to encourage it to shift at the right time.
Acceleration speed on a hybrid isn't going to matter nearly so much, because the electric motor will handle the acceleration efficiently (the electric gets good acceleration at low speeds; the gas maintains high speeds well).
In fact, the reason hybrids are starting to appear as top-of-the-line cars is that they can accelerate more effectively from a stop.
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow."
Clearly, Red Hat is going to be bought out by the terrain feature.
He's not really trying to convert anyone. The books are written with the assumption that the reader is already Christian of some sort. He is trying almost exclusively to improve the behavior of Christians. For that matter, the last book features fundamentalist Christians destroying the world, and nice pagans going to heaven.
In fact, someone reading the CoN without a Christian upbringing is unlikely to identify the Christian elements in it without having them pointed out, and is certainly unlikely to find any relationship between the events of the book and modern Christian practice. The message is really that you should have a particular morality, whatever your articles of faith happen to be. The Christian elements serve primarily to make this message more persuasive to Christian readers. It's actually more like complaining that The Fountainhead seems to promote architects than individualism.
If the project you code eight feet from your bed feeds you, it's not a hobby; it's your main job. The idea that the article is opposed to is that these things are done primarily by people with no occupation or with a different occupation who don't get income from the project. As it turns out, this is not the case in general. Even RMS was supporting himself by selling GNU for $150 when he wrote Emacs.
I've been working on git in my spare time, and it is obvious to me how much more gets done by people whose work overlaps with working on it.
According to the article, the broadcast flag is perfectly legal to use, legal to respect, but also legal to ignore. The FCC can't prohibit receivers that don't respect the flag, but manufacturers can voluntarily make receivers that do. Broadcasters can certainly use the broadcast flag, and probably ought to, just because. And the receivers might as well notice the broadcast flag and report it to the user, who might like to know.
The difference is not in "inventing" versus "creating". It's in "taking the initiative in doing something" versus "doing something". He obviously didn't do any of the work himself, but the people who did the work say that it couldn't have gotten done with his help in getting funding. It got done because he pushed for funding it, which is one way of taking the initiative.
It's easy to warp the quote into something incorrect, but impossible to do it innocently, unless you're unaware that Gore is a politician, or that what politicians do is allocate funding and pass laws. Politicians always talk about reducing crime and so forth, and they're never out on the streets catching crooks and saving victims. They're funding police departments, and nobody is confused by this.
Actually, current issues are also free at libraries, and back issues of things are generally more expensive to acquire than current issues (because you're paying for storage and irregular distribution as well as the original price). In all cases, only convenience and ownership cost money; people get the impression that the latest news is expensive, but that's just because they tend not to want to get a one-year-delayed subscription to the Times.
As for the idea of charging for archive access, I bet that most library systems would pay $50/computer to enable their computers to access the Times online archives. Us slashdot readers, individually, wouldn't pay, but we might be induced to get library cards, which makes the library's case for getting funding better.
They should definitely do trailers for The Salmon of Doubt, just to drive people crazy.
Of course, I'm waiting for DVD bonus feature with Neil Gaiman as Douglas Adams in Innsbruck.
The article actually says that 4.0.x will probably beat 3.4.x before long, and the reason for this is really Tree SSA. However, that doesn't mean it makes sense to actually compile things with a compiler which is lousy, but about to improve rapidly. His conclusion is that 4.0 doesn't take enough advantage of the new design to make it worthwhile to end users yet.
(Incidentally, the improvement isn't actually "SSA", but "Tree SSA"; that is, they're doing SSA at a higher level, which enables optimizations to be done with more information. Earlier versions did use SSA in implementing optimizations, but it was in the back end, not in the IR. This means that optimizations can be done more generally and easily.)
MIT's iLab and ShuttleTrak services
The original ShuttleTrack was broken most of the time, and was then abandoned. It's been reimplemented in PHP by a couple of students who missed the old functionality and is stable and reliable.
They probably won't notice that their shell does any of that stuff until they've mastered emacs. It's not like people coming from windows are likely to expect their shell to have reverse-search-through-history and be trying to figure out how to get it. So long as the arrow keys and backspace work, they'll be happy. If they end up learning emacs keysfor some reason, they'll be happy to find that their shell uses the keys they know.
(In point of fact, emacs doesn't wish it was an operating system. It wishes it was a desktop environment. That saying was just coined before there were desktop environments other than emacs.)
With a good inlining compiler, you could actually make this a function in a header file, and eliminate the first comment from the code (in favor of set_serial_big_endian(slurp);) and move the second comment to the inline function body, where it only tells people who really care where you got that implementation.
It's amazing how nice having a real compiler for your microcontroller is, especially if you can get it to optimize out big conditionals in inlines called on constants, so you can have the compiler look things up in tables for you.
Organizations like the Red Cross got into trouble because people donated money thinking they were donating money to x, when really they weren't.
If they wanted to donate money to X, maybe they ought to have sent it to, say, Debian...
But, in general, organizations hate it when you donate money for a specific purpose, because that purpose invariably goes out of date before the money is entirely spent. For example, the server aspects of Debian are already so good that you don't bother to change them; what good does throwing more money at that do?
Now let's get back to actually working on this replacement...
.git/refs/ idea (and ideally, have cogito use it instead of its current system).
That interferes a bit too much with my day job, unfortunately. I'm also waiting just a little bit longer for complaints about my
Linus has always felt that his main role was to reject patches. If you take just anything, people won't refine patches to the point where they maintain or improve the overall quality of the code. Andrew and Linus essentially do a good cop/bad cop routine on patches.
Of course, he's essentially been on vacation from Linux work, developing git. I'd guess that writing his own thing has make him feel a lot better about the BitKeeper mess. He certainly seemed to be having fun coming up with brilliant solutions to problems, rather than the current kernel situation of endless refinement.
As for testing, the article is misinterpreting its own quotes. There's no lack of testing, and Andrew didn't say there was. There is a lack of reporting of test results and a lack of credit to people who would provide them. There is a lack of communication infrastructure for getting bug reports to people who might be able to fix them, to other people who may or may not be seeing the same problem (and can provide more details on when the bugs are triggered).
Of course, slowing down releases would make testing more difficult, because people don't test kernels that aren't released, and testing fewer releases just means that more people report the same bugs, because the fixes for those bugs are held up waiting for the next release.
The lack of properly stable releases should be fixed by the 2.6.x.y process; now an effective reporting process is needed to help the maintainers find out about bugs people hit, and determine whether correctness fixes actually deal with cases that happen in practice.
Someone's already written a version that supports deltas. The issue is that the deltas are each the size of the complete file, because in most filesystems a file's size is rounded up to a 4K block. So if you have a 7K source file and you change it, storing the whole thing compressed is 4K, and storing a delta is also 4K, plus you need the old version of the file to apply the delta to.
Additionally, using deltas means that if you want to combine two commits, you need to create a new representation of the files for the combined change; with full files, you get create a commit that goes from the first tree to the last tree, both of which you're already storing.
It's counterintuitive, but deltas aren't really efficient in practice.
It's not too uncommon for movies to be played with previews for movies that some of the audience might object to. If the DVDs are similar, some of the scenes that this bill is about letting you skip are probably in the previews. For that matter, I haven't heard of DVDs which prevent you from skipping parts of the actual movie (which would just be strange; if you want to skip the content and need something else to watch that much sooner, why would they stop you?), so this is probably most particular to the nude scenes in the previews.
I've been in a J2EE project completed on time and on budget. We were smart enough to avoid almost all of J2EE and wrap the portions we had to deal with in sane interfaces. There is a bit of useful code in the Servlet section such that you don't have to write quite all of it yourself.
The main problem is that LSB specifies some stuff that people think are broken. (In particular, RPM and a C++ ABI that is both obsolete and newer than what people actually use). To the extent that the things LSB specifies are not broken, all the distros do things that way, and you don't need any certification to know you can use them. For applications, they only care about standardization if they need something that can't just be assumed, and these things aren't covered by LSB.
It is, however, useful, but only really as documentation of common practice. You don't have to wonder whether you're ahead of the curve on adopting a version of zlib, because the LSB says what version you can expect.
A substantial segment of current Linux development is in improving support for embedded devices, which generally have less processing power than your machine. Granted, it's not older hardware, but it is similar in many ways that matter.
Assuming that there are some online licensees for AP content, Google News will cite them. I'd actually prefer that Reuters quit letting sites post their content locally; it annoys me to see "Headline" and 225 copies of the same Reuters text. Thanks, I can read Reuters articles via the link to reuters.com; if I choose Ha'aretz as my reference for a story, I'd like a Israeli perspective, not a Reuters story that an Israeli paper decided to license. Of course, if I'm reading Ha'aretz, I'd like to have a blurb and a link to the reuters site for the story, if they decided to print it.
There's plenty of advancement in that curve, and a lot of retreat. It's not like we're worse off now than in '61. The trend is rapid improvement when people care, and falling back to lower levels when people don't. With 6 years of people caring, that gives substantial progress. Remember also that there has been steady improvement in unmanned techniques, which is likely to be more important if we're sending something to an incoming asteroid and want to accelerate with more force than passengers would survive.
As for money, the financial situations of governments aren't really that simple. The government can just offer bonds, and, if people care, they'll buy them, funding the government's projects (and the government then pays the people to work on the project, allowing them to buy more bonds...). That's why popular wars are generally a boon to the economy; the people are willing to enlarge the shared fiction of the total amount of money in the system.
SCO still hasn't made any claims against IBM that they can even try to argue. They want to add more claims. They're supposed to argue next Thursday that they should be allowed to add something. They want to delay that argument until June. The court refuses to change the date.