Erm.. you DO have cat 3 in your house - unless you live on some mountain somewhere without a phone line! That's the point of the article - they can do 10MBs ethernet over your phone line or barbed wire or some dental floss or whatever.
So how do you get your C++ compiler up and running, without a C++ compiler in the first place?
The answer is that you bootstrap it with another compiler. The first C++ compilers were written in C. The first C compiler was written in assembly.
Yes, you can write object oriented programs in assembly. You just treat every (non-builtin) variable as a pointer to an object. This is how it's done when C++ or Java is compiled to machine code (and yes, Java does get compiled to machine code, right before it's executed).
And you can write procedural code in Java. The language does not dictate the design.
A couple of old bolts? So does it matter if they're moving at orbital speed - say a couple of thousand miles per hour? Taking into account the relative motion of the shuttle, it would be down to a couple of hundred miles per hour, which can still to some pretty heavy damage to a space station. Have you ever thrown a penny off a high building? The damage it can cause is frightening.
1)Ok, will you write the entire Cocoa and Carbon API set? Thought not. Thats two completely seperate APIs that would have to be implemented.
2)Office for OSX runs only on PowerPC CPUs, which (due to Apple's exclusivity) means that the hardware to run it is three times the price of an Intel-based system. This means less end-users and less developers.
3)Even if it were possible to do so easier than to reimplement Win32, Apple wouldn't allow it it.
4)And no-one wants to write in Objective-C anyway.
A BSD Mach kernel was used to make NextStep. It sucked. It flopped. They put a whizz bang transparent animated gooey (and I do mean gooey - it's totally sickening) on it, and it sells.
And they don't have real a compatibility layer, they just run the entire fscking old OS in a single process. It's the dinosaur OS which is doing everything.
I agree 100%. I don't care if a variable is an integer, a string, some subclass of string called superstring, or purdled_grobbleblotchit. I can just say
variable ++;
And that's it.
Or I can do
if (variable1 < variable2)
doStuff(variable1);
and not care whether I just compared a string with a superstring. This is the point of OOP. This is why Hungarian Notation sucks ass. The equivalent would be
if (sVariable1 < ssVariable2)
doStuff(sVariable1);
But is the travelling twin really moving? There is no frame of reference, so the Earth may as well be moving away from the twin on the rocket at near the speed of light. So the Earth should experience time-dilation, from the point of view of the travelling twin. This is the paradox, to which the only resolution is time-contraction on the return journey.
You have to remember that seeing something happening is not the same as something actually happening. Just because it looks to an observer that you arrived before you left, doesn't mean that you did.
The only way to think about this is to imagine something which does travel faster than light. We could then use that to observe events and check for simultaneity.
If Einstein had used sound (for example - assuming it travelled in a vacuum) as a basis for observation, it could easily be seen that Mach 1 is the fundamental speed limit of the universe. But we know that not to be true.
Consider now, a twin moving away from Earth at a constant speed. The ping time (the length of time light takes to travel to Earth, and so for the twin to be seen) of the twin would increase at a steady rate - he would appear to be in slow-motion (this appears as time-dilation - which is essentially the doppler effect (aka red shift)). Travelling at the speed of light, he would appear to be frozen in time. Travelling faster than the speed of light, the light from a further point in the journey would reach Earth before the light from an earlier point. This is the basis of the 'twin paradox'. But the twin hasn't arrived before he left, it just looks that way from Earth.
And what most people don't realise, is that the opposite (time-contraction) would happen on the return journey - the time of the twin as viewed from Earth would get closer and closer back into synch with the Earth's view of time . During the journey, the twin hasn't experienced time-dilation, and he is still the same age as the twin who stayed on Earth.
Erm.. The "cosomological constant" was what Einstein descibed as "his worst ever mistake". It was basically a number he put in his equations to prevent the universe from expanding forever. But then the realised, what if it is?
Except that quantum physics is based entirely on probability - pure randomness, but in a deterministic way. The experiments are repeatable, but only to the point of saying that a specific outcome will happen N% of the time.
Einstein: God does not play dice.
Bohr: Stop telling God what to do!
An electrical storm that looked to ancient man like the chaotic temper tantrum of a petulant Thor is revealed to be obeying laws of physics that we can understand Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistiguishable from magic. And any technology distiguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Only problem with that is, that in order to actually reach infinite density (no matter what the acceleration), you have to go infinitely far back in time!
Which means that universe, while having a beginning as described by the big bang, always existed.
I think the only answer to your misguided comments is to quote from "Just For Fun", the autobiography of Linus Torvalds.
"We had basic differences in how we viewed the world. Steve was Steve, exactly as the press portrays him. He was interested in his own goals, and especially the marketing side. I was interested in the technical side, and not very interested in either his goals or his arguments. His main argument was that if I wanted to get the desktop market I should join forces with Apple. My reaction was: Why should I care? Why would I be interested in the Apple story? I didn't think there was anything interesting in Apple. And my goal in life was not to take over the desktop market. (Sure, it's going to happen, but it's never been my goal.)
He didn't use very many arguments. He just basically took it for granted that I would be interested. He was clueless, unable to imagine that there could be entire segments of the human race who weren't the least bit concerned about increasing the Mac's market share. I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had--or how big a market Microsoft has."
So, in other words, don't be afraid of Linus being tempted by money or corrupting an open-source system (he really hates Mac OSX). And as for "corporate goons" dictating the "kernal" (sic), I highly doubt that Microsoft will be more successful that Steve "you all love me and my company really" Jobs.
Yes, I have used IE5 on OSX. It is horrid. Every so often it goes into a single thread and the entire app refuses to do anything - this happens usually when rendering a complex page like a nested slashdot. The old IE (for OS9) actually works better in Classic than the Carbon IE.
I use Mozilla. It's about the only OSX app that works properly.
And I only use a Mac because my boss is a Jobs-lover. If I had my way the server would be either Solaris or Mandrake on an i686 running Samba, and the workstations would be Windows 2000 Pro.
I personally don't care about another 8fps in Quake - I hit the frame rate cap a long time ago. What does matter to me is getting a render done in Brazil before the next ice age. With a 1.1GHz chip, it can take a couple of minutes for a pretty simple raytraced scene. One that starts getting complex, then you feel the need for a faster and faster processor.
Tom's Hardware was able to cook an AMD CPU and motherboard all at once just by removing the heatsink from the chip.
And if you had a clue, you would know that the manual for an AMD Athlon chips states that, without a heatsink, the chip will fry in eight seconds. The same would happen with an Intel CPU, or a G4. Running any chip outside it's environment (say, without a heatsink), will not be good for it. This isn't due to any inherent 'heat problem'. With a heatsink, an Athlon runs at about 50K below a P3.
Yes, that is my website. Do I get karma for being the subject of a/. story?
Some software covered by the license can be found here, and here. The latter uses DirectX, but works under Wine (that's vanilla Wine (yummy?) not WineX). The source for that is here.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm.. you DO have cat 3 in your house - unless you live on some mountain somewhere without a phone line! That's the point of the article - they can do 10MBs ethernet over your phone line or barbed wire or some dental floss or whatever.
So how do you get your C++ compiler up and running, without a C++ compiler in the first place?
The answer is that you bootstrap it with another compiler. The first C++ compilers were written in C. The first C compiler was written in assembly.
Yes, you can write object oriented programs in assembly. You just treat every (non-builtin) variable as a pointer to an object. This is how it's done when C++ or Java is compiled to machine code (and yes, Java does get compiled to machine code, right before it's executed).
And you can write procedural code in Java. The language does not dictate the design.
A couple of old bolts? So does it matter if they're moving at orbital speed - say a couple of thousand miles per hour? Taking into account the relative motion of the shuttle, it would be down to a couple of hundred miles per hour, which can still to some pretty heavy damage to a space station. Have you ever thrown a penny off a high building? The damage it can cause is frightening.
1)Ok, will you write the entire Cocoa and Carbon API set? Thought not. Thats two completely seperate APIs that would have to be implemented.
2)Office for OSX runs only on PowerPC CPUs, which (due to Apple's exclusivity) means that the hardware to run it is three times the price of an Intel-based system. This means less end-users and less developers.
3)Even if it were possible to do so easier than to reimplement Win32, Apple wouldn't allow it it.
4)And no-one wants to write in Objective-C anyway.
What if you were to log in as root?
It brings a whole new meaning to the term binary tree.
(Sorry. This is my last bad joke on the subject. At least until I think of another one...)
Or how about running a cvs server? I wonder what would be in their tree?
(Sorry)
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?
Or would that be a Beowulf forest?
Wow.
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>cd winnt\system32
C:\WINNT\system32>grep "The Regents of the University of California" *
Binary file VMNetDHCP.exe matches
Binary file finger.exe matches
Binary file ftp.exe matches
Binary file rcp.exe matches
Binary file rsh.exe matches
So it's not just ftp.exe that's straight from BSD.
Bullplop.
A BSD Mach kernel was used to make NextStep. It sucked. It flopped. They put a whizz bang transparent animated gooey (and I do mean gooey - it's totally sickening) on it, and it sells.
And they don't have real a compatibility layer, they just run the entire fscking old OS in a single process. It's the dinosaur OS which is doing everything.
Totally rewritten it is not.
I agree 100%. I don't care if a variable is an integer, a string, some subclass of string called superstring, or purdled_grobbleblotchit. I can just say
variable ++;
And that's it.
Or I can do
if (variable1 < variable2)
doStuff(variable1);
and not care whether I just compared a string with a superstring. This is the point of OOP. This is why Hungarian Notation sucks ass. The equivalent would be
if (sVariable1 < ssVariable2)
doStuff(sVariable1);
Which doesn't look right at all!
Double locking is not broken. Your understanding of it is broken. Because of that, I'm not surprised that your multithreaded apps are crashing.
Read this. Read it carefully. Only then may you comment on DCL.
But is the travelling twin really moving? There is no frame of reference, so the Earth may as well be moving away from the twin on the rocket at near the speed of light. So the Earth should experience time-dilation, from the point of view of the travelling twin. This is the paradox, to which the only resolution is time-contraction on the return journey.
Even if noone outside the box knows if the cat is dead or not, surely the cat bloody well knows!
You have to remember that seeing something happening is not the same as something actually happening. Just because it looks to an observer that you arrived before you left, doesn't mean that you did.
The only way to think about this is to imagine something which does travel faster than light. We could then use that to observe events and check for simultaneity.
If Einstein had used sound (for example - assuming it travelled in a vacuum) as a basis for observation, it could easily be seen that Mach 1 is the fundamental speed limit of the universe. But we know that not to be true.
Consider now, a twin moving away from Earth at a constant speed. The ping time (the length of time light takes to travel to Earth, and so for the twin to be seen) of the twin would increase at a steady rate - he would appear to be in slow-motion (this appears as time-dilation - which is essentially the doppler effect (aka red shift)). Travelling at the speed of light, he would appear to be frozen in time. Travelling faster than the speed of light, the light from a further point in the journey would reach Earth before the light from an earlier point. This is the basis of the 'twin paradox'. But the twin hasn't arrived before he left, it just looks that way from Earth.
And what most people don't realise, is that the opposite (time-contraction) would happen on the return journey - the time of the twin as viewed from Earth would get closer and closer back into synch with the Earth's view of time . During the journey, the twin hasn't experienced time-dilation, and he is still the same age as the twin who stayed on Earth.
Erm.. The "cosomological constant" was what Einstein descibed as "his worst ever mistake". It was basically a number he put in his equations to prevent the universe from expanding forever. But then the realised, what if it is?
And here it is.
Except that quantum physics is based entirely on probability - pure randomness, but in a deterministic way. The experiments are repeatable, but only to the point of saying that a specific outcome will happen N% of the time.
Einstein: God does not play dice.
Bohr: Stop telling God what to do!
An electrical storm that looked to ancient man like the chaotic temper tantrum of a petulant Thor is revealed to be obeying laws of physics that we can understand
Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistiguishable from magic. And any technology distiguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Only problem with that is, that in order to actually reach infinite density (no matter what the acceleration), you have to go infinitely far back in time!
Which means that universe, while having a beginning as described by the big bang, always existed.
And that's just plain weird.
So, in other words, don't be afraid of Linus being tempted by money or corrupting an open-source system (he really hates Mac OSX). And as for "corporate goons" dictating the "kernal" (sic), I highly doubt that Microsoft will be more successful that Steve "you all love me and my company really" Jobs.
Yes, I have used IE5 on OSX. It is horrid. Every so often it goes into a single thread and the entire app refuses to do anything - this happens usually when rendering a complex page like a nested slashdot. The old IE (for OS9) actually works better in Classic than the Carbon IE.
I use Mozilla. It's about the only OSX app that works properly.
And I only use a Mac because my boss is a Jobs-lover. If I had my way the server would be either Solaris or Mandrake on an i686 running Samba, and the workstations would be Windows 2000 Pro.
I personally don't care about another 8fps in Quake - I hit the frame rate cap a long time ago. What does matter to me is getting a render done in Brazil before the next ice age. With a 1.1GHz chip, it can take a couple of minutes for a pretty simple raytraced scene. One that starts getting complex, then you feel the need for a faster and faster processor.
Tom's Hardware was able to cook an AMD CPU and motherboard all at once just by removing the heatsink from the chip.
And if you had a clue, you would know that the manual for an AMD Athlon chips states that, without a heatsink, the chip will fry in eight seconds. The same would happen with an Intel CPU, or a G4. Running any chip outside it's environment (say, without a heatsink), will not be good for it. This isn't due to any inherent 'heat problem'. With a heatsink, an Athlon runs at about 50K below a P3.
I knew that. Thats why it's called that!
The Poetic License
/. story?
Or here for a plain text (slighly older) version.
Yes, that is my website. Do I get karma for being the subject of a
Some software covered by the license can be found here, and here. The latter uses DirectX, but works under Wine (that's vanilla Wine (yummy?) not WineX). The source for that is here.