Because C is also a very parallelizable language with hooks for both MPI and openMP and even PVM if you really want.
You don't get it. A high-quality Fortran compiler will unroll your inner loops for you, creating an executable that will spread your non-dependent iterations across multiple CPUs. This happens automatically. SGI's old Fortran compiler, Power Fortran, was exceptional at this. I haven't used the new F90 compiler myself, but I understand it's just fine at autoparallelization as well.
The only reason fortran is still around in science is legacy code (which is fine by me, I don't want to port it) but new code should be written in what the programmer is more comfortable with debugging.
Agreed! Fortunately, in engineering, the kids are still coming out of the schools with fluency in Fortran. That way, they can use not only the language they're most comfortable with, but also the language that's best suited for the job.
And FORTRAN is a niche language... If you learn C you can do it all.
I think we're getting to the point where C will be considered about as useful as assembler. That is to say, for some tasks it's essential. For most, though, it's more trouble than its worth.
A large amount of science is now done on commodity intel pentium chips with gcc (g77).
Depends on how you define "large," I suppose. There might be a lot of engineers and scientists out there running numerical analysis code on commodity hardware, but an awful lot of that kind of work still gets done on big vector-processing supercomputer systems like Crays. There are still a lot of J90's out there running Fortran code for companies like Ford and Boeing, and at seemingly every major university in the world. And NEC's SX series is, according to everything I've heard so far, selling very well.
Don't assume that vector computers are dead just because you've never seen one.
Both you and ZeroLogic are kind of missing the point. Having a copy of DB2 running on your desktop-- or, hell, your laptop-- would be a great thing if you were a DB2 or database application developer. Since OS X is rapidly becoming a platform of choice for Java development, putting the big DBMS's on OS X as well would practically get us to the point where a PowerBook or iBook can be a portable, self-contained J2EE development system.
Besides, Oracle and Sybase are already available for OS X. Landing DB2 would complete the trifecta.
I really doubt IBM is thinking about positioning DB2 running on OS X as an enterprise solution.
Actually the Japanese can say their R's quite okay, it's L they have a problem with...
It's more complex than that. The Japanese "r" sound, found in common words like "ryori," meaning cooking or cuisine, is sort of a cross between the American "r" and "l" sounds. Whereas Americans (typically) make the "r" sound with their lips, and the "l" sound with their tongue, the Japanese "r" sound is made with a little bit of lip and a little bit of tongue. (Er, you know what I mean.)
So Japanese speakers often have trouble with both initial "r" and initial "l" when speaking English. Terminal "r" and "l" sounds, of course, just disappear entirely. "Door" becomes "doh," and "pull" becomes "puh."
But the average American has a much harder time pronouncing a Japanese word like "ryori" than Japanese people seem to have saying a world like "library."
Because setting up such things can be more of a pain than writing the application itself. Autoconf is a good idea only because it works under some fairly extreme conditions. There's nothing else at all to recommend it.
They're applying for patents. Buying a handgun (copyright) for personal self-defense is reasonable. Buying a thermonuclear device (patent) for personal self-defense is not.
You obviously have no understanding of what patents are, or how they're different from copyrights. Put simply, you cannot both copyright and patent the same thing. Copyrights apply to certain things, and patents apply to other, different things. There's no overlap.
Before you speak out against something, you should learn about it. It helps cut down on the looking like an idiot.
People buy cameras, camcorders, and other electronic devices all the time based primarily on features & price, with hardly any consideration to ease of use. The UI is almost an afterthought.
I think you're over-generalizing. Here you are complaining about how your camera is hard to use. You said you even have to carry the manual around with you. It sounds to me like you bought your camera based on features and price, but that you should have given more consideration to ease of use.
Don't assume everybody else makes their decisions using the same criteria you use.
Actually it's more in the neighborhood of 15%, and it's non-voting stock.
It was nowhere near 15%, and the shares were sold many months ago.
And though Apple does admit to changing the kernel, this is no more different the many UNIX variants.
It's not accurate to say that Apple changed the kernel. They're using their own kernel, xnu, which is based partly on the Mach work out of CMU and partly on work done by NeXT and, later, Apple themselves.
So please before you post, get your facts straight.
If your 4500 is that hard to use, maybe you need to find another camera. I bought my girlfriend a CoolPix 775, and she hasn't had any trouble with it at all.
I don't think it's true to say that people don't put much value on ease of use when talking about things like cameras. I think maybe you just got stuck with a camera that's harder to use than it needs to be.
And you're suffering from an acute case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Depriving a person of real property is not how stealing is defined. The act of taking, in and of itself, is stealing. The side-effects, which may or may not include deprivation of real property, are irrelevant.
And if you think I'm being a dick, just wait and see how the police and the state attorneys treat you when you get caught illegally pirating copyrighted music. See how far your "victimless crime" defense-- for that's really what this argument boils down to-- gets you then.
And the crime you just committed is called "computer theft." There are many laws in many jurisdictions that codify this crime; one of the best well-known is from Georgia. The relevant part of their code is:
Section A
(a) Computer Theft. Any person who uses a computer or computer network with knowledge that such use is without authority and with the intention of:
(1) Taking or appropriating any property of another, whether or not with the intention of depriving the owner of possession;
Stealing is stealing. You can try to deconstruct it all you like, but you can't escape the plain facts.
As a bonus, the use of apostrophe in it's vs. its has to be harder to remember than the fewer vs. less usage.
This rule is incredibly simple. The only time you use an apostrophe is when you're writing the contraction of "it is." That's "it's." If you're not saying "it is," then you don't use the apostrophe.
The beautiful thing about spelling and grammar is that they only matter if your use of them is so poor that people have problems understanding what you're trying to get across.
But that's just the thing. When you write "theres" instead of "there's," you're saying something different than what you mean. This creates extra work for your readers; they have to translate in their heads from PainKilleR-CE to English and back again. The path to clarity of expression is through the mastery and consistent use of the rules of standard written English.
Steal \Steal\, v. t. [imp. Stole; p. p. Stolen; p. pr. & vb. n. Stealing.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries. stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW. stj["a]la, Dan. sti[ae]le, Goth. stilan.]
1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another
(From Webster's, 1913.)
Stealing means taking without right or leave. Downloading music without permission is taking without right or leave. Therefore downloading music without permission is stealing.
How the crime of downloading music without right or permission is defined depends on your jurisdiction. But whatever the legal application, downloading copyrighted music is stealing. And it's wrong legally, morally, and ethically.
:sigh: This is the twenty-first fucking century. You shouldn't need to compile anything. Compiling isn't a normal computer activity for most people.
When we get to the point where you can do everything that's physically possible with a Linux system without ever compiling anything, call me. Until then, I'm sticking with OS X.
There is nothing fundamentally or morally wrong with the sharing of information.
Just like another poster, you're confusing the digital representation of a recording with abstract information. Your argument is therefore meaningless. Sorry.
Dude, just drop it, okay? All the arguments and rationalization in the world won't change the fact that you're wrong. You want to change the rules? Do it consistently differently for, oh, a couple of hundred years or so. After that, it'll be time to reevaluate the rules.
Finally, I'll just repeat the point which demolishes your argument completely: the placement of quotation marks adjacent to terminal punctuation can only be confusing if the reader has an incomplete or flawed mastery of the English language. The fact that one or more of your readers may not be able to comprehend what you write due to their own ignorance does not justify your choice to throw out the rules of written English.
Fine. I steal music. I stole music yesterday. I may steal some more today. But is it unethical?
Stealing is prima facie unethical. This is patently obvious.
There is no fallacy here. What you're doing is wrong in both the legal and ethical senses. It's also wrong in the moral sense, assuming your moral framework in some way resembles those held by the vast majority of humanity.
If your moral framework is not in line with most of your peers, then you can rightfully be considered a sociopath. Are you a sociopath?
You seem to be confusing the concept of ideas with the digital representations of recordings of music. They're not the same. They're not comparable. Any argument based on the idea that MP3s are "ideas" is flawed from the start, and not worthy of attention or consideration.
There is nothing inherently morally wrong with reproducing information
There is something morally wrong-- fundamentally wrong-- with taking the property of another individual without that individual's permission. That's what we're talking about here. Whether that property is a collection of atoms or a pattern of ones and zeros is irrelevant.
You have obviously never had anything stolen from you before, have you?
Your opinion on this issue counts for fuck-all. The opinions of the legislators and the judges are the only ones that matter. They say it's stealing, and I agree with them.
It was clear from context what we were talking about. We were talking about the illegal download of music as compared to the illegal business practices of some record companies. There's really no way you could have misunderstood this unless you deliberately took my words out of context.
I absolutely call propaganda when I see it; my posting history reflects this, and you're free to browse it any time. But this is not propaganda. This is simple stuff. Downloading something that you don't have the rights to download is stealing.
Intel, AMD, and Microsoft basically believe that we are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy. Even when we prove it, it's only for that exchange.
Well, the veracity of that statement notwithstanding, it seems to me that certain segments of the market-- kids, I suppose-- have very definitely proven themselves to be untrustworthy. In the years since Napster made "MP3" a more popular search term than "sex" on the Internet, it seems pretty clear that, for a notable segment of the population at least, piracy is where it's at.
I'm not saying the proponents of DRM are universally right, but it's clear that they're not universally wrong, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Because C is also a very parallelizable language with hooks for both MPI and openMP and even PVM if you really want.
You don't get it. A high-quality Fortran compiler will unroll your inner loops for you, creating an executable that will spread your non-dependent iterations across multiple CPUs. This happens automatically. SGI's old Fortran compiler, Power Fortran, was exceptional at this. I haven't used the new F90 compiler myself, but I understand it's just fine at autoparallelization as well.
The only reason fortran is still around in science is legacy code (which is fine by me, I don't want to port it) but new code should be written in what the programmer is more comfortable with debugging.
Agreed! Fortunately, in engineering, the kids are still coming out of the schools with fluency in Fortran. That way, they can use not only the language they're most comfortable with, but also the language that's best suited for the job.
And FORTRAN is a niche language... If you learn C you can do it all.
I think we're getting to the point where C will be considered about as useful as assembler. That is to say, for some tasks it's essential. For most, though, it's more trouble than its worth.
Does IBM want Oracle to be the only Enterprise Database Server product for OS X Server?
Given that Sybase has been available for OS X for several weeks now, I'd say the answer is no. Or maybe yes. Ummm. What was the question?
A large amount of science is now done on commodity intel pentium chips with gcc (g77).
Depends on how you define "large," I suppose. There might be a lot of engineers and scientists out there running numerical analysis code on commodity hardware, but an awful lot of that kind of work still gets done on big vector-processing supercomputer systems like Crays. There are still a lot of J90's out there running Fortran code for companies like Ford and Boeing, and at seemingly every major university in the world. And NEC's SX series is, according to everything I've heard so far, selling very well.
Don't assume that vector computers are dead just because you've never seen one.
Both you and ZeroLogic are kind of missing the point. Having a copy of DB2 running on your desktop-- or, hell, your laptop-- would be a great thing if you were a DB2 or database application developer. Since OS X is rapidly becoming a platform of choice for Java development, putting the big DBMS's on OS X as well would practically get us to the point where a PowerBook or iBook can be a portable, self-contained J2EE development system.
Besides, Oracle and Sybase are already available for OS X. Landing DB2 would complete the trifecta.
I really doubt IBM is thinking about positioning DB2 running on OS X as an enterprise solution.
Actually the Japanese can say their R's quite okay, it's L they have a problem with...
It's more complex than that. The Japanese "r" sound, found in common words like "ryori," meaning cooking or cuisine, is sort of a cross between the American "r" and "l" sounds. Whereas Americans (typically) make the "r" sound with their lips, and the "l" sound with their tongue, the Japanese "r" sound is made with a little bit of lip and a little bit of tongue. (Er, you know what I mean.)
So Japanese speakers often have trouble with both initial "r" and initial "l" when speaking English. Terminal "r" and "l" sounds, of course, just disappear entirely. "Door" becomes "doh," and "pull" becomes "puh."
But the average American has a much harder time pronouncing a Japanese word like "ryori" than Japanese people seem to have saying a world like "library."
Why not just use autoconf and automake?
Because setting up such things can be more of a pain than writing the application itself. Autoconf is a good idea only because it works under some fairly extreme conditions. There's nothing else at all to recommend it.
They're applying for patents. Buying a handgun (copyright) for personal self-defense is reasonable. Buying a thermonuclear device (patent) for personal self-defense is not.
You obviously have no understanding of what patents are, or how they're different from copyrights. Put simply, you cannot both copyright and patent the same thing. Copyrights apply to certain things, and patents apply to other, different things. There's no overlap.
Before you speak out against something, you should learn about it. It helps cut down on the looking like an idiot.
People buy cameras, camcorders, and other electronic devices all the time based primarily on features & price, with hardly any consideration to ease of use. The UI is almost an afterthought.
I think you're over-generalizing. Here you are complaining about how your camera is hard to use. You said you even have to carry the manual around with you. It sounds to me like you bought your camera based on features and price, but that you should have given more consideration to ease of use.
Don't assume everybody else makes their decisions using the same criteria you use.
Actually it's more in the neighborhood of 15%, and it's non-voting stock.
It was nowhere near 15%, and the shares were sold many months ago.
And though Apple does admit to changing the kernel, this is no more different the many UNIX variants.
It's not accurate to say that Apple changed the kernel. They're using their own kernel, xnu, which is based partly on the Mach work out of CMU and partly on work done by NeXT and, later, Apple themselves.
So please before you post, get your facts straight.
Physician, heal thyself.
If your 4500 is that hard to use, maybe you need to find another camera. I bought my girlfriend a CoolPix 775, and she hasn't had any trouble with it at all.
I don't think it's true to say that people don't put much value on ease of use when talking about things like cameras. I think maybe you just got stuck with a camera that's harder to use than it needs to be.
And you're suffering from an acute case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Depriving a person of real property is not how stealing is defined. The act of taking, in and of itself, is stealing. The side-effects, which may or may not include deprivation of real property, are irrelevant.
And if you think I'm being a dick, just wait and see how the police and the state attorneys treat you when you get caught illegally pirating copyrighted music. See how far your "victimless crime" defense-- for that's really what this argument boils down to-- gets you then.
As a bonus, the use of apostrophe in it's vs. its has to be harder to remember than the fewer vs. less usage.
This rule is incredibly simple. The only time you use an apostrophe is when you're writing the contraction of "it is." That's "it's." If you're not saying "it is," then you don't use the apostrophe.
The beautiful thing about spelling and grammar is that they only matter if your use of them is so poor that people have problems understanding what you're trying to get across.
But that's just the thing. When you write "theres" instead of "there's," you're saying something different than what you mean. This creates extra work for your readers; they have to translate in their heads from PainKilleR-CE to English and back again. The path to clarity of expression is through the mastery and consistent use of the rules of standard written English.
Steal \Steal\, v. t. [imp. Stole; p. p. Stolen; p. pr. & vb. n. Stealing.] [OE. stelen, AS. stelan; akin to OFries. stela, D. stelen, OHG. stelan, G. stehlen, Icel. stela, SW. stj["a]la, Dan. sti[ae]le, Goth. stilan.]
1. To take and carry away, feloniously; to take without right or leave, and with intent to keep wrongfully; as, to steal the personal goods of another
(From Webster's, 1913.)
Stealing means taking without right or leave. Downloading music without permission is taking without right or leave. Therefore downloading music without permission is stealing.
How the crime of downloading music without right or permission is defined depends on your jurisdiction. But whatever the legal application, downloading copyrighted music is stealing. And it's wrong legally, morally, and ethically.
And you should stop doing it.
:sigh: This is the twenty-first fucking century. You shouldn't need to compile anything. Compiling isn't a normal computer activity for most people.
When we get to the point where you can do everything that's physically possible with a Linux system without ever compiling anything, call me. Until then, I'm sticking with OS X.
There is nothing fundamentally or morally wrong with the sharing of information.
Just like another poster, you're confusing the digital representation of a recording with abstract information. Your argument is therefore meaningless. Sorry.
Dude, just drop it, okay? All the arguments and rationalization in the world won't change the fact that you're wrong. You want to change the rules? Do it consistently differently for, oh, a couple of hundred years or so. After that, it'll be time to reevaluate the rules.
Finally, I'll just repeat the point which demolishes your argument completely: the placement of quotation marks adjacent to terminal punctuation can only be confusing if the reader has an incomplete or flawed mastery of the English language. The fact that one or more of your readers may not be able to comprehend what you write due to their own ignorance does not justify your choice to throw out the rules of written English.
That's all there is to it, pyite.
Fine. I steal music. I stole music yesterday. I may steal some more today. But is it unethical?
Stealing is prima facie unethical. This is patently obvious.
There is no fallacy here. What you're doing is wrong in both the legal and ethical senses. It's also wrong in the moral sense, assuming your moral framework in some way resembles those held by the vast majority of humanity.
If your moral framework is not in line with most of your peers, then you can rightfully be considered a sociopath. Are you a sociopath?
You seem to be confusing the concept of ideas with the digital representations of recordings of music. They're not the same. They're not comparable. Any argument based on the idea that MP3s are "ideas" is flawed from the start, and not worthy of attention or consideration.
It's just not worth it. If it weren't for Napster et. al. I just would have gone without the music.
That's exactly what you should have done. Taking without permission is illegal and wrong.
There is nothing inherently morally wrong with reproducing information
There is something morally wrong-- fundamentally wrong-- with taking the property of another individual without that individual's permission. That's what we're talking about here. Whether that property is a collection of atoms or a pattern of ones and zeros is irrelevant.
You have obviously never had anything stolen from you before, have you?
Your opinion on this issue counts for fuck-all. The opinions of the legislators and the judges are the only ones that matter. They say it's stealing, and I agree with them.
It was clear from context what we were talking about. We were talking about the illegal download of music as compared to the illegal business practices of some record companies. There's really no way you could have misunderstood this unless you deliberately took my words out of context.
I absolutely call propaganda when I see it; my posting history reflects this, and you're free to browse it any time. But this is not propaganda. This is simple stuff. Downloading something that you don't have the rights to download is stealing.
Which is, I suppose, why you're not in business.
Intel, AMD, and Microsoft basically believe that we are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy. Even when we prove it, it's only for that exchange.
Well, the veracity of that statement notwithstanding, it seems to me that certain segments of the market-- kids, I suppose-- have very definitely proven themselves to be untrustworthy. In the years since Napster made "MP3" a more popular search term than "sex" on the Internet, it seems pretty clear that, for a notable segment of the population at least, piracy is where it's at.
I'm not saying the proponents of DRM are universally right, but it's clear that they're not universally wrong, either.