C++ is not nessesarity faster than C#. For example, if your software needs to support all Pentium class hardware, you compile for 586. With C#, you always compile to the same bytecode regardless of the target platform.
A JITer written for the Athlon or P4 can take advantage of those architectures when producing runtime code from the bytecode. And in.NET's case, the runtime code is cached so you're not always JITing applications. The machine code that results may not be as optimized as directly compiled C++ machine code for a specific processor, but in general it will be better optimized for the processor it is JITed on, which may make it faster on that machine, and certainly makes it more cross-platform.
Re:Key problem with .Net
on
J#
·
· Score: 0, Troll
No matter what tools come on the scene...
That's fine, don't give them up. But.NET does provide some integration and improvements on all the tools you've been using. For one, C# is an easy language to program in and with the right JIT/processor match it can be as fast or faster than C/C++ compiled for non.NET platforms. It buys you a few other things as well like reference counting/garbage collection. MS provides a.NET C/C++ compiler if you want that. Nearly any other language with the right type structure can be compiled to the.NET VM, including one day Perl.
Database support is built into.NET. XML and HTTP support are built into.NET. HTML support is not, but you don't need to be writing code to sling HTML... ASPX does it for you very nicely. Ever write a Windows app and then with a few changes to the code have a equivalent HTML-based app?
There's nothing that says you need.NET tools. You can keep doing what you're doing and be happy. But.NET is really set up to integrate alot of the things you do into a tighter package... 1-stop development if you will. If you want to have an easier time integrating the components you mention, you might consider.NET as an option.
What? EVERYONE knows you use ide-scsi to make your CD-RW appear as a SCSI device. It is very simple and very easy.
For example, my Congressman set up his office PC with a ATA RAID system 2 weeks ago. And his ATA RAID rocksors. He recompiled his kernel and included a scsi-ide-scsi bypass module that makes it so you don't have to use ide-scsi to make your IDE look like SCSI. And then he called Dell tech support up and was on the phone for 6 hours because his "sound thingy" didn't work... turned out he plugged the speaker output to the sound-out on his CD-RW drive. But you man, you've got problems. Sheesh!
Rackmount boxes aren't usually considered off the shelf components... sure they raise the power and reduce the size, but they also raise the cost significantly.
Unless you know where you can get rackmounts case and powersupply for less than $50 each... you can't technically make a Beowulf cluster with them.
I'm not sure I agree with you that it's wrong. Movies are fantasy, and this one's a comedy as well, why would the makers want to sour the comedy by throwing in reminders of what happened recently? I bet if people saw the WTC buildings a few times they might not have had as good a time as Katz and the people in Katz's theater seemed to. It's fantasy movie, and a fantasy New York... they can make it anything they want to.
But replacing them digitally was probably too obvious. I'm sure lots of people noticed the change and thought about the WTC anyway, so it probably wasn't that effective and it got people thinking the way you are... about the moral value of doing that in a movie. Wrong move, but not out of disrespect.
I haven't seen the movie, but I think they probably should have tried to change the scenes instead, if possible, to a locale where you couldn't see the WTC.
I don't know much about how GPS works, but I have a basic idea. The system determines the time it takes to bounce signals to a few different satellites and then triangulates where you are based on the determined distance from each satellite.
That works great when the distance between you and one of the satellites is the same or somewhat less than the distance between the satellites themselves. But out in space, even if they only go a small fraction of the way to the moon, the distance to ANY GPS satellite is going to be so much further that the difference in "ping" time from one satelitte to the next is going to be minimal.... which means your ability to triangulate where you are gets worse and worse. In fact, I don't think this would be reliable except for orbiting satellites. And I am sure orbiting satellites have been doing the same thing via ground stations (non-GPS signals) for years. So how useful is this? Unless we plan on setting up hundreds or thousands of GPS sattellites on the way to Mars (or to the moon for that matter)... but there's already this cool triangulation thing you can do with a few big natural satelittes... the sun, earth, and nearby planets. Last I checked that's totally free.
True, true... I had forgotten about that. But, also remember in Star Trek 5 there was a blending of both types... some of the guys on the warbird had pretty smooth heads, as did the woman. And the old man was as bumpy as normal. I've only seen that movie once though... so it's hard for me to remember. I think that's because I want to forget.:)
Who hasn't met them? Did you see the guy in the temporal communicator? A "real trecker" would also recognize Romulan architecture, voices, mannerisms, SILOUHETTES, etc.
The circular design of the saucer is for atmosphere reentry. I assume this ship's saucer can detach just in case they need to reenter. The warp nacelles are positioned as they are because of the strong subspace fields that are generated... large subspace field coils can't be close to the hull; smaller ones can (ala Voyager.) This is all from the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual.
The only thing more predicatable than that is that in the season cliffhanger we'll be finding out the guy in the temporal communication chamber was a Romulan. (Besides the fact that the architecture in the chamber was clearly Romulan, he had a Romulan siloutette, he talked like a Romulan, the Romulans and Klingons are generally known to not like each other, etc... etc... etc...)
If you're talking about the timeline displayed on the Star Trek website, yes, it's conveniently wrong, isn't it? "Official" Trek lore is that the Eugenics war did occur in the 90s, and that timeline is reflected in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which was produced by Pocket Books and is "official" (all information in it was pulled directly from all series.) The Star Trek website is for advertising, not for Trekers. (After all, the site's "Library" contains less knowledge about Trek than I could write on the back of a paper napkin!)
Don't you think Kirk got them from somewhere? I'm sure the words spoken at the christening of Starfleets first vessel are in alot of history books, and Kirk was a walking library according to his friends at the Academy. A very nice touch, actually.
You are right and wrong. Her name is T'Pol, but originally it was to be T'Pau. I remember noticing that in the casting call. Perhaps T'Pau was coincidence, and perhaps it was intentional, but at some point they changed it to T'Pol, and there we are.
But perhaps T'Pol and T'Pau "know" each other... surely Vulcan females suffer from the same affliction that Spock did in the original series... and perhaps there's slime involved.:)
I'm pretty sure they will get around to explaining this in the series. Worf's comment was clearly a "no comment" on the matter. I believe Roddenberry mentioned something about the Klingons seen on TOS being from a different part of Qo'nos... as they mentioned in this pilot the Klingons do have 80 dialects; it's conceivable that some of these dialects might be related to diverse "races" of Klingons. Some are wussy Klingons who wear chain mail, some are mean ones with big ridges and lots of sharp bladed weapons. And perhaps the "ridged" Klingons despise the "smooth" Klingons, which is why Worf didn't want to talk about it. Just wait for the episode when they say for certain, and then you'll know for sure. Until then even everything I said is speculation.:)
Re:Theory: Microsoft wants to kill consoles.
on
XBox Delayed
·
· Score: 1
Consumers aren't that narrow minded. Once they realize that two years ago they were shelling out $100 for a single console and now they are shelling out $200 a year + the cost of a PC, the market will revitalize all over again. People don't take it up the ass like that when they've had it so good, and Nintendo (and to a lesser degree Sony) know that very well.
Try making a 3-D website accessible for someone with visual or physical handicaps. It's hard enough for someone without handicaps to conceptualize and navigate 3-D spaces. I've seen many people who didn't grow up playing video games fail try to run through a complicated room in Quake... now you expect them to get content this way? For those who don't have every facility available to them these interfaces are just not useful. But, I also think we need to work on improving this... I'm not saying that 3-D navigation shouldn't become a standard eventually; but just not now. The human/computer interfaces and technologies are just not up to snuff.
What constitutes "violence" is different for every person. Some might see Lemmings as a violent game because of the "suicide bombers." You intentionally set little blue and green guys to explode... that seems like violence with intent. And in SimCity you can be intentionally destructive; sending Godzilla through your own town is not the most peaceful thing. I believe someone mentioned the hunting "sim" in Oregon Trail. Nearly all games have some level of violence, whether it's jumping on little mushroom dudes' heads or blasting an alien with a chain gun.
Not that I think that's bad. Being destructive is an important part of creativity. If you're unwilling to part with your creations in a big bang, you need to learn to get over yourself. Part of being creative is striving to do something better.
So perhaps it's creativity that overpowers the violence contained in a game that you're asking for...
That's what insurance and law enforcement is for. The way to prevent being screwed out of something is to either think it might happen before hand and guard against it in the way people have been for years, or to remove the people who would screw you you intentionally from society. Would you make multiple copies of your car if you could? Making copies of everything you own only equates to having "more stuff." Ah the American way.
So are you saying he wouldn't have gone out and got the music (in mp3 format) if the Napster battle was still raging? He seemed fairly enthusiastic about it (Had to immediately hit Cheap CDs...) And if you were doing the boycott, and you found some must-have music, would you not have done the same? Would I? Well, if you don't own it, that's piracy, buddy.
Did I say knives anywhere in my post? No, I don't think I did. I was not arguing the making of knives anywhere, at any time.
I swear, people read into things too much and then just run with it. Think about what you say!
Re:DMCA makes a crime out of a contract breach
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 1
And selling certain weapons and devices in the United States is also a crime, mainly because those weapons and devices are intended to allow people to break a law (whether it's a civil one or a criminal one.) When you make a program that's clearly intended function is to break a civil law, and run it on your own computer where no-one knows, that's one thing. When you sell it to others in the open market for all to see, for that same purpose, that's another. It's not the civil breach the programmer performed that's the crime... it's the fact that the civil breach was intentionally multipled 1000s of times over.
Can you run a store that employs only robots to sell "hasj" in the United States? No, I don't think you can. By that logic, can you sell "hasj" from a webserver located in the US? No, you can't. That arguement stopped being valid the moment his company tried to push illegal software here.
Slashdot Mirror
C++ is not nessesarity faster than C#. For example, if your software needs to support all Pentium class hardware, you compile for 586. With C#, you always compile to the same bytecode regardless of the target platform.
.NET's case, the runtime code is cached so you're not always JITing applications. The machine code that results may not be as optimized as directly compiled C++ machine code for a specific processor, but in general it will be better optimized for the processor it is JITed on, which may make it faster on that machine, and certainly makes it more cross-platform.
A JITer written for the Athlon or P4 can take advantage of those architectures when producing runtime code from the bytecode. And in
No matter what tools come on the scene...
.NET does provide some integration and improvements on all the tools you've been using. For one, C# is an easy language to program in and with the right JIT/processor match it can be as fast or faster than C/C++ compiled for non .NET platforms. It buys you a few other things as well like reference counting/garbage collection. MS provides a .NET C/C++ compiler if you want that. Nearly any other language with the right type structure can be compiled to the .NET VM, including one day Perl.
.NET. XML and HTTP support are built into .NET. HTML support is not, but you don't need to be writing code to sling HTML... ASPX does it for you very nicely. Ever write a Windows app and then with a few changes to the code have a equivalent HTML-based app?
.NET tools. You can keep doing what you're doing and be happy. But .NET is really set up to integrate alot of the things you do into a tighter package... 1-stop development if you will. If you want to have an easier time integrating the components you mention, you might consider .NET as an option.
That's fine, don't give them up. But
Database support is built into
There's nothing that says you need
What? EVERYONE knows you use ide-scsi to make your CD-RW appear as a SCSI device. It is very simple and very easy.
For example, my Congressman set up his office PC with a ATA RAID system 2 weeks ago. And his ATA RAID rocksors. He recompiled his kernel and included a scsi-ide-scsi bypass module that makes it so you don't have to use ide-scsi to make your IDE look like SCSI. And then he called Dell tech support up and was on the phone for 6 hours because his "sound thingy" didn't work... turned out he plugged the speaker output to the sound-out on his CD-RW drive. But you man, you've got problems. Sheesh!
Your hard work has just gone to make someone else money! :)
Rackmount boxes aren't usually considered off the shelf components... sure they raise the power and reduce the size, but they also raise the cost significantly.
Unless you know where you can get rackmounts case and powersupply for less than $50 each... you can't technically make a Beowulf cluster with them.
I'm not sure I agree with you that it's wrong. Movies are fantasy, and this one's a comedy as well, why would the makers want to sour the comedy by throwing in reminders of what happened recently? I bet if people saw the WTC buildings a few times they might not have had as good a time as Katz and the people in Katz's theater seemed to. It's fantasy movie, and a fantasy New York... they can make it anything they want to.
But replacing them digitally was probably too obvious. I'm sure lots of people noticed the change and thought about the WTC anyway, so it probably wasn't that effective and it got people thinking the way you are... about the moral value of doing that in a movie. Wrong move, but not out of disrespect.
I haven't seen the movie, but I think they probably should have tried to change the scenes instead, if possible, to a locale where you couldn't see the WTC.
I don't know much about how GPS works, but I have a basic idea. The system determines the time it takes to bounce signals to a few different satellites and then triangulates where you are based on the determined distance from each satellite.
That works great when the distance between you and one of the satellites is the same or somewhat less than the distance between the satellites themselves. But out in space, even if they only go a small fraction of the way to the moon, the distance to ANY GPS satellite is going to be so much further that the difference in "ping" time from one satelitte to the next is going to be minimal.... which means your ability to triangulate where you are gets worse and worse. In fact, I don't think this would be reliable except for orbiting satellites. And I am sure orbiting satellites have been doing the same thing via ground stations (non-GPS signals) for years. So how useful is this? Unless we plan on setting up hundreds or thousands of GPS sattellites on the way to Mars (or to the moon for that matter)... but there's already this cool triangulation thing you can do with a few big natural satelittes... the sun, earth, and nearby planets. Last I checked that's totally free.
True, true... I had forgotten about that. But, also remember in Star Trek 5 there was a blending of both types... some of the guys on the warbird had pretty smooth heads, as did the woman. And the old man was as bumpy as normal. I've only seen that movie once though... so it's hard for me to remember. I think that's because I want to forget. :)
Who hasn't met them? Did you see the guy in the temporal communicator? A "real trecker" would also recognize Romulan architecture, voices, mannerisms, SILOUHETTES, etc.
The circular design of the saucer is for atmosphere reentry. I assume this ship's saucer can detach just in case they need to reenter. The warp nacelles are positioned as they are because of the strong subspace fields that are generated... large subspace field coils can't be close to the hull; smaller ones can (ala Voyager.) This is all from the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual.
The only thing more predicatable than that is that in the season cliffhanger we'll be finding out the guy in the temporal communication chamber was a Romulan. (Besides the fact that the architecture in the chamber was clearly Romulan, he had a Romulan siloutette, he talked like a Romulan, the Romulans and Klingons are generally known to not like each other, etc... etc... etc...)
If you're talking about the timeline displayed on the Star Trek website, yes, it's conveniently wrong, isn't it? "Official" Trek lore is that the Eugenics war did occur in the 90s, and that timeline is reflected in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which was produced by Pocket Books and is "official" (all information in it was pulled directly from all series.) The Star Trek website is for advertising, not for Trekers. (After all, the site's "Library" contains less knowledge about Trek than I could write on the back of a paper napkin!)
Don't you think Kirk got them from somewhere? I'm sure the words spoken at the christening of Starfleets first vessel are in alot of history books, and Kirk was a walking library according to his friends at the Academy. A very nice touch, actually.
You are right and wrong. Her name is T'Pol, but originally it was to be T'Pau. I remember noticing that in the casting call. Perhaps T'Pau was coincidence, and perhaps it was intentional, but at some point they changed it to T'Pol, and there we are.
:)
But perhaps T'Pol and T'Pau "know" each other... surely Vulcan females suffer from the same affliction that Spock did in the original series... and perhaps there's slime involved.
I'm pretty sure they will get around to explaining this in the series. Worf's comment was clearly a "no comment" on the matter. I believe Roddenberry mentioned something about the Klingons seen on TOS being from a different part of Qo'nos... as they mentioned in this pilot the Klingons do have 80 dialects; it's conceivable that some of these dialects might be related to diverse "races" of Klingons. Some are wussy Klingons who wear chain mail, some are mean ones with big ridges and lots of sharp bladed weapons. And perhaps the "ridged" Klingons despise the "smooth" Klingons, which is why Worf didn't want to talk about it. Just wait for the episode when they say for certain, and then you'll know for sure. Until then even everything I said is speculation. :)
Consumers aren't that narrow minded. Once they realize that two years ago they were shelling out $100 for a single console and now they are shelling out $200 a year + the cost of a PC, the market will revitalize all over again. People don't take it up the ass like that when they've had it so good, and Nintendo (and to a lesser degree Sony) know that very well.
Try making a 3-D website accessible for someone with visual or physical handicaps. It's hard enough for someone without handicaps to conceptualize and navigate 3-D spaces. I've seen many people who didn't grow up playing video games fail try to run through a complicated room in Quake... now you expect them to get content this way? For those who don't have every facility available to them these interfaces are just not useful. But, I also think we need to work on improving this... I'm not saying that 3-D navigation shouldn't become a standard eventually; but just not now. The human/computer interfaces and technologies are just not up to snuff.
What constitutes "violence" is different for every person. Some might see Lemmings as a violent game because of the "suicide bombers." You intentionally set little blue and green guys to explode... that seems like violence with intent. And in SimCity you can be intentionally destructive; sending Godzilla through your own town is not the most peaceful thing. I believe someone mentioned the hunting "sim" in Oregon Trail. Nearly all games have some level of violence, whether it's jumping on little mushroom dudes' heads or blasting an alien with a chain gun.
Not that I think that's bad. Being destructive is an important part of creativity. If you're unwilling to part with your creations in a big bang, you need to learn to get over yourself. Part of being creative is striving to do something better.
So perhaps it's creativity that overpowers the violence contained in a game that you're asking for...
That's what insurance and law enforcement is for. The way to prevent being screwed out of something is to either think it might happen before hand and guard against it in the way people have been for years, or to remove the people who would screw you you intentionally from society. Would you make multiple copies of your car if you could? Making copies of everything you own only equates to having "more stuff." Ah the American way.
So are you saying he wouldn't have gone out and got the music (in mp3 format) if the Napster battle was still raging? He seemed fairly enthusiastic about it (Had to immediately hit Cheap CDs...) And if you were doing the boycott, and you found some must-have music, would you not have done the same? Would I? Well, if you don't own it, that's piracy, buddy.
Denial is a very hard thing to hide.
Thank you, you (and CmdrTaco) have validated what I've been trying to argue on this forum for months.
Don't you appreciate satire? It's not a judgement, it's a perspective.
Did I say knives anywhere in my post? No, I don't think I did. I was not arguing the making of knives anywhere, at any time.
I swear, people read into things too much and then just run with it. Think about what you say!
And selling certain weapons and devices in the United States is also a crime, mainly because those weapons and devices are intended to allow people to break a law (whether it's a civil one or a criminal one.) When you make a program that's clearly intended function is to break a civil law, and run it on your own computer where no-one knows, that's one thing. When you sell it to others in the open market for all to see, for that same purpose, that's another. It's not the civil breach the programmer performed that's the crime... it's the fact that the civil breach was intentionally multipled 1000s of times over.
Can you run a store that employs only robots to sell "hasj" in the United States? No, I don't think you can. By that logic, can you sell "hasj" from a webserver located in the US? No, you can't. That arguement stopped being valid the moment his company tried to push illegal software here.