I'm not a Perl fan, but if Guido van Rossum is on the list of nominees, Larry Wall really ought to be as well.
I am a Perl fan, and though I respect van Rossum's abilities and accomplishments, Larry Wall also wrote patch, rn, and metaconfig, so he has a broader impact on Unix culture.
Thus I predict that this will be followed by a quad-core chip called the "monte", an 8-core chip called the "montote" (the big monte), and finally a 16-core chip known as "The Full Monte".
You forgot to mention the low power edition for portables: The "three core monte".
Sure, you can distance yourself from the violence of the right, and I applaud you for that. The fact remains that there IS violence on the right, some of it is fairly organized, and some of it (especially violence against abortion clinics) has more support on the right than the Weather Underground or the SLA ever had on the left (more people wish death upon abortion providers than upon the Fascist Insect That Preys Upon the Life of the People).
Re:Again, the Left is inciting violence
on
Blackhat/Defcon Report
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
CrimeThinc (yes, I actually read the article) is just one of a long line stretching back to the Weatherman Underground and the SLA up to the Seattle WTO protestors smashing windows.
Setting bombs and robbing banks is hardly the same as smashing windows (not that I approve of either).
Discounting lone nuts like Timothy McVee
McVeigh.
(and remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was universally condemned among conservatives)
"condemned" like when Ann Coulter said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." ?
how is it that the half of America which owns guns is never the one calling for violence?
In my limited experience, the vast majority people who shoot other people tend to be in possession of guns at the time.
It seems you've never heard of (to only quote a few examples from the last 20 years, long after the Weather Underground and the SLA went out of business):
So we shouldn't bother just because we can't do it today? That's absurd. Nobody, even people who believe every word Robert Zubrin writes, thinks it can happen tomorrow.
Nor the day after tomorrow. Nor in the next five years. You may quibble with my time frame of 20 years, but there's simply not a whole lot to be learned from today's manned space flight.
That doesn't reduce the urgency of getting it done. Estimates of the risk may vary, but the risk is real. Even the otherwise reactionary insurance industry recognizes the ecological risks (1, 2) of the near future.
I'm not denying that risk, but however big the risk, difficult to address, and costly to solve, it's inconceivable to me that terraforming another planet would be safer, easier, or more cost effective than taking care of Earth.
What I'm interested in is preserving a future for myself, my family, and/or the people I care about. It is remotely possible that with maximum effort, we could in the next 20 years create a Mars colony ensuring the continued survival of maybe 50 people (presumably descendants/clones of Bill Gates, Ross Perot, George W. Bush, and the Queen of England) but that is a policy option that I consider of no value to me whatsoever.
Are your chances of surviving an asteroid falling to Earth better if you are (a) on Earth when it falls, or (b) on Mars when it falls on Earth?
Definitely (a), with today's technology. Even after the Dinosaur-wiping strike back when, life did a lot better on Earth than on Mars.
Waiting 20 years would just add 20 years to the period we'll be stuck on Earth.
Not at all! Even under the most pessimistic assumption, that none of the money saved gets redirected to unmanned space flight, general technological progress in 20 years will give manned flight a huge advantage when it restarts.
Go through the deep-space probes, and find ONE thing that they've learned that has had an effect on normal people on this planet.
Yes, the deep-space probes are essentially pure science (which is still more of a benefit than any unique contributions of the Shuttle).
However, unmanned space flight in general has provided quite a bit of value through satellites. Committing to, e.g., keeping Hubble running and exploring planets with robotic probes could provide quite a bit of value to robotics.
This statement is not very bright and not at all visionary. Besides the likely scientific and possible economic benefits (and opinions of the potential for these vary, admittedly), there's one overarching reason of critical importance: Survival of our species.
I've seen this argument being advanced over and over again in this discussion, and it's still nonsense. There is no way that with today's technology, any known planets other than Earth could be made even as inhabitable as a post-asteroid or post-nuclear Earth.
For better or for worse, we'll be stuck with Earth for the next couple of decades. The last time human space flight has accomplished anything significant was some 35 years ago. I think we should suspend human space flight for the next 20 years or so and invest the money saved into unmanned flight.
[In response to my claim that my Ruby solution was "massively faster than either Java or C++]:
Well, here's my quick translation of your ruby program into standard Java
My point was not that the ruby solution did not apply to other languages, or that ruby was an inherently fast language, but that the naive implementation of this problem was so inefficient that it could easily be improved upon.
The biggest problem in the Java vs. C++ benchmark is that it benchmarks mostly toy problems and library fuinction. The toy problems are extremely sensitive to algorithmic changes.
Here's my implementation of the Ackermann function in Ruby:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
def ack(m,n)
case m
when 0
return n+1
when 1
return n+2
when 2
return 2*n+3
else
return ack(m-1, n>0 ? ack(m,n-1) : 1)
end end
Not only is this massively faster (in an interpreted language) than either Java or C++, but it also handles much bigger input arguments, because ruby supports bignums (on my machine, it calculated ack(3,400) pretty much instantaneously.
But I'd want to control the music from a laptop in the living room, using music shared from my server in a closet, and then close the laptop. Seems like I can't do that
You can control the server from your laptop using Apple Remote Access. Admittedly a somewhat roundabout route, but it should work.
One of the many things that Brown ignores is that the question whether Linus had a copy of the Lions book is entirely irrelevant. The book is a historical gem, but the hardware it targets and the programming language used (an utterly archaic and fairly anarchic dialect of C) are so far removed from PC hardware and ANSI C that it's pretty much impossible to learn anything from it about OS design.
Tanenbaum's Minix book is obviously much better suited to learning about operating systems, but the book was always legal and learning concepts from it was never illegal (there are plenty of atrocities in copyright law, but making students licensees of textbook publishers luckily isn't among them -- yet).
Rule of thumb for a small tech company is that 5 people cost about $2,000,000 per year. We can de-rate that sum a bit (say down to $1.5 mil/anum) because we will be operating with larger organization with lower overhead costs. So we get about $300,000 per/year per/person or about 300,000,000/year total.
That's $300 *million*.
Multiply by 10 years and we get about 3 trillion dollars.
Nope, that would be 3 *billion* dollars. Minor difference.
I disagree with the sarcasm expressed in the article. Such an insurance makes perfect sense for getting risk averse companies to use open source software.
Up to now, the alternatives were:
Pay $$$$$$ for commercial software and have a vendor you can sue if things go wrong.
Get open source software and be on your own when things go wrong.
by buying this insurance, the risk averse company hedges their risk, while still presumably getting a better deal on their software. It's open source capitalism at its finest.
Yes, but keep in mind that this page was written by the people who initiated the current incarnation of Perl 6 in mid-2000. At the time, they thought they would have a release within 18 to 24 months, an estimate which now seems to be off by a factor of at least 2x, probably more.
This is, IMHO, the big issue with "big bang" rewrites: even if you ultimately end up with a superior product (which, IMHO, Mozilla is compared to Netscape), you often kill the momentum of your product for several years, and once the new product is out, it may not be nearly as relevant as it was projected to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a Perl fan, but if Guido van Rossum is on the list of nominees, Larry Wall really ought to be as well.
I am a Perl fan, and though I respect van Rossum's abilities and accomplishments, Larry Wall also wrote patch, rn, and metaconfig, so he has a broader impact on Unix culture.
It most certainly is. What's the Russian word for "piñata" ?
Whatever copyright Free-market.net chooses to use, I'm sure they'll be happy to give permission for redistribution.
Hey, it's a Libertarian site, so I'm sure they'll feel morally obliged to make a profit on this.
If it were an Objectivist site, they'd insist on payment in gold.
Pure genius! What will they think of next? Rescue vultures for people lost in deserts?
Thus I predict that this will be followed by a quad-core chip called the "monte", an 8-core chip called the "montote" (the big monte), and finally a 16-core chip known as "The Full Monte".
You forgot to mention the low power edition for portables: The "three core monte".
Sun should find this project rather easy going - their motherboards ARE already pretty obsolete anyway.
Sure, you can distance yourself from the violence of the right, and I applaud you for that. The fact remains that there IS violence on the right, some of it is fairly organized, and some of it (especially violence against abortion clinics) has more support on the right than the Weather Underground or the SLA ever had on the left (more people wish death upon abortion providers than upon the Fascist Insect That Preys Upon the Life of the People).
Setting bombs and robbing banks is hardly the same as smashing windows (not that I approve of either).
Discounting lone nuts like Timothy McVee
McVeigh.
(and remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was universally condemned among conservatives)
"condemned" like when Ann Coulter said "My only regret with
Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." ?
how is it that the half of America which owns guns is never the one calling for violence?
In my limited experience, the vast majority people who shoot other people tend to be in possession of guns at the time.
It seems you've never heard of (to only quote a few examples from the last 20 years, long after the Weather Underground and the SLA went out of business):
It's cheaper repair a satelite than to put a new one in orbit.
Not if the repair is done with a Shuttle mission.
So we shouldn't bother just because we can't do it today? That's absurd. Nobody, even people who believe every word Robert Zubrin writes, thinks it can happen tomorrow.
Nor the day after tomorrow. Nor in the next five years. You may quibble with my time frame of 20 years, but there's simply not a whole lot to be learned from today's manned space flight.
That doesn't reduce the urgency of getting it done. Estimates of the risk may vary, but the risk is real. Even the otherwise reactionary insurance industry recognizes the ecological risks (1, 2) of the near future.
I'm not denying that risk, but however big the risk, difficult to address, and costly to solve, it's inconceivable to me that terraforming another planet would be safer, easier, or more cost effective than taking care of Earth.
What I'm interested in is preserving a future for myself, my family, and/or the people I care about. It is remotely possible that with maximum effort, we could in the next 20 years create a Mars colony ensuring the continued survival of maybe 50 people (presumably descendants/clones of Bill Gates, Ross Perot, George W. Bush, and the Queen of England) but that is a policy option that I consider of no value to me whatsoever.
Are your chances of surviving an asteroid falling to Earth better if you are (a) on Earth when it falls, or (b) on Mars when it falls on Earth?
Definitely (a), with today's technology. Even after the Dinosaur-wiping strike back when, life did a lot better on Earth than on Mars.
Waiting 20 years would just add 20 years to the period we'll be stuck on Earth.
Not at all! Even under the most pessimistic assumption, that none of the money saved gets redirected to unmanned space flight, general technological progress in 20 years will give manned flight a huge advantage when it restarts.
Go through the deep-space probes, and find ONE thing that they've learned that has had an effect on normal people on this planet.
Yes, the deep-space probes are essentially pure science (which is still more of a benefit than any unique contributions of the Shuttle).
However, unmanned space flight in general has provided quite a bit of value through satellites. Committing to, e.g., keeping Hubble running and exploring planets with robotic probes could provide quite a bit of value to robotics.
This statement is not very bright and not at all visionary. Besides the likely scientific and possible economic benefits (and opinions of the potential for these vary, admittedly), there's one overarching reason of critical importance: Survival of our species.
I've seen this argument being advanced over and over again in this discussion, and it's still nonsense. There is no way that with today's technology, any known planets other than Earth could be made even as inhabitable as a post-asteroid or post-nuclear Earth.
For better or for worse, we'll be stuck with Earth for the next couple of decades. The last time human space flight has accomplished anything significant was some 35 years ago. I think we should suspend human space flight for the next 20 years or so and invest the money saved into unmanned flight.
[In response to my claim that my Ruby solution was "massively faster than either Java or C++]:
Well, here's my quick translation of your ruby program into standard Java
My point was not that the ruby solution did not apply to other languages, or that ruby was an inherently fast language, but that the naive implementation of this problem was so inefficient that it could easily be improved upon.
Here's my implementation of the Ackermann function in Ruby:Not only is this massively faster (in an interpreted language) than either Java or C++, but it also handles much bigger input arguments, because ruby supports bignums (on my machine, it calculated ack(3,400) pretty much instantaneously.
But I'd want to control the music from a laptop in the living room, using music shared from my server in a closet, and then close the laptop. Seems like I can't do that
You can control the server from your laptop using Apple Remote Access. Admittedly a somewhat roundabout route, but it should work.
[Ken Brown] is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world.
As anybody who has seen _Pretty Woman_ knows, a high limit credit card will get a whore into lots of places.
One of the many things that Brown ignores is that the question whether Linus had a copy of the Lions book is entirely irrelevant. The book is a historical gem, but the hardware it targets and the programming language used (an utterly archaic and fairly anarchic dialect of C) are so far removed from PC hardware and ANSI C that it's pretty much impossible to learn anything from it about OS design.
Tanenbaum's Minix book is obviously much better suited to learning about operating systems, but the book was always legal and learning concepts from it was never illegal (there are plenty of atrocities in copyright law, but making students licensees of textbook publishers luckily isn't among them -- yet).
Emacs vs. vi?
Red Hat vs. Debian?
Linux vs. *BSD?
Now, which is going to execute faster
Neither, since both q and setQ are private to the class and thus can't be accessed.
... for an Ogg Vorbis compatible version of the trojan?
Rule of thumb for a small tech company is that 5 people cost about $2,000,000
per year. We can de-rate that sum a bit (say down to $1.5 mil/anum) because
we will be operating with larger organization with lower overhead costs. So
we get about $300,000 per/year per/person or about 300,000,000/year total.
That's $300 *million*.
Multiply by 10 years and we get about 3 trillion dollars.
Nope, that would be 3 *billion* dollars. Minor difference.
Up to now, the alternatives were:
by buying this insurance, the risk averse company hedges their risk, while still presumably getting a better deal on their software. It's open source capitalism at its finest.
he gets to call himself "Sir Crashalot" now?
From the Perl 6 development webpage:
Yes, but keep in mind that this page was written by the people who initiated the current incarnation of Perl 6 in mid-2000. At the time, they thought they would have a release within 18 to 24 months, an estimate which now seems to be off by a factor of at least 2x, probably more.
This is, IMHO, the big issue with "big bang" rewrites: even if you ultimately end up with a superior product (which, IMHO, Mozilla is compared to Netscape), you often kill the momentum of your product for several years, and once the new product is out, it may not be nearly as relevant as it was projected to be.
Whitey will go back to the moon.