George Bush is part of the small, ultra-conservative group that, against all sanity, believes the US is better off by itself. He's one of those people who travels to Europe and declares the people there ignorant heathens because the catsup he gets with his pommes frites isn't Heinz "ketchup".
Also remember, America has more stupid people that other countries have people. Don't think that this bullshit is consensual on the part of American citizens. Somehow the baby boomer idiots thought a coke-sniffing, can't-run-a-business, daddy's-boy son of possibly one of the worst presidents in recent memory (G. Bush senior) would somehow be a great "leader". Nevermind his laughable track record as governor of Texas (which by the way was a mistake; the voters there thought there was no way in hell he could win and so didn't bother to vote).
Come on. Moderate to strong agreement or strong disagreement with an article is practically the only criterion Slashdot "editors" use to decide what to post.
Perhaps you should read the laws of thermodynamics. Even though arbitrarily delineated systems can become more ordered, the universe as a whole always becomes more disordered as a result.
If you're going to be a pedant, you first have to know what the hell you're talking about.
This is not the same as Sony's proprietary technologies that they keep pushing. If you bothered to read the article description, you'd notice that this is based on an ISO standard:
...capable of 1.3GB of data storage using the new Purple Book standard. Sony adapted the ISO 9660 format...
This means you are very likely to see this in future products by other manufacturers.
Although it's not clear just how this will be affected by various DVD initiatives, the reason to go for it is because it's standard, it's cheap (both for the drive and the media), and it's available. Eventually, I'd say you could expect certain classes of CD usage today to migrate to this technology. Just because we have DVDs today doesn't mean that manufacturers are going to abandon the CD format altogether. Even though we have CDRs, floppies are still useful. Eventually, we may see regualr CDs go the way of 768 KB floppies.
This is for kiosks, not end users
on
3D w/o Goggles
·
· Score: 2
Looks like they are primarily marketing the technology to advertisers and kiosk operators, not end users. See the award on the front page they got from kiosks.org, and read some of their literature that indicates "higher hits" using this technology.
In this situation, I can definitely see the advantage. I'd walk up to and play with a kiosk that had such a display at least once.
I didn't see a clear description--is this limited to only foreground and background planes, or do they use a technique for tricking the eye to see intermediate depths? I can't imaging that a simple foreground/background display would be flashy enough to justify the cost for the majority of users.
It sounds as if this is just another project like Three Gorges, considered by many a move by the Chinese government to distract an uneasy populace from the daily problems they face. I'm all for getting something like this built somewhere, but shouldn't the Chinese focus on solving fundamental infrastructure issues instead of building this monster?
I'm sick of people assuming that their favorite pet technology is better, faster, smaller, etc. than the competition. Whether this occurs out of malice or ignorance, it's worse than any intentional FUD in the marketplace. Hard data is the only thing that matters in software engineering.
So, I'm happy to say that both you and the original poster are wrong. At least on the Win32 platform, where Java has an excellent VM, PHP is 1/3 to 1/2 times slower than the equivalent in Java. I know because I just finished a series of load tests earlier this week comparing the two.
On a 1x1 GHz Win2K machine, I set up Apache 1.3.19 running PHP 4.0.4pl1 and the Resin 1.3.b1 servlet container.
The simplest case, a hello world page in PHP ran at 300 h/s. The exact equivalent in Java, a hello world JSP, ran at 380 h/s. A more advanced case with a large amount of dynamic page output ran at 170 h/s in PHP. The equivalent JSP ran at 350 h/s. In addition, Java scaled far better for multiple concurrent users. It scaled better than linearly, while PHP scaled worse than linearly. Finally, if you get rid of slow-ass Apache, the Resin servlet container + web server ran at double the speed--over 760 h/s.
If PHP is faster on some *nix variant--and I have no idea whether it is or not--my bet is that it's because the Java VM sucks on that platform. Try running PHP vs. Java on Solaris and see who comes out on top.
This is a very interesting idea, though I don't know how feasible it is. Another idea is using something like distributed.net to precompute behavioral patterns for game AI, possibly using genetic algorithms to settle on certain strategies. Although precomputed behaviors may be more or less rigid, the breadth and complexity of them might compensate so that they appear to be life-like.
A world in which goverment and corporations have all the cameras, and give privacy "guarantees" to the private citizens they monitor, or
A world in which everyone has a camera, including private citizens, to watch anyone or anything they wish, at any time, including someone watching them.
Of course, option (2) is the death of privacy as we know it, but option (1) is the death of privacy, period.
The core problem with privacy protection as people conceive it today is that it has to grapple with a fundamental inequality between the observer and the observed. It tries to correct for this inequality by extracting flimsy promises to maintain equality, usually backed with only the carrot of being labeled Good, and the stick of being labeled Bad. The problem is that the ones with the information are inherently amoral; they have no sense of right and wrong.
The primary thing that seems to have kept amoral entities from perform immoral acts in the past is that there has been at least some barrier, some extra work, involved in doing so. With ever accelerating technology, these barriers are now crumbling with exponential speed, making it easier and easier to not only intentionally, but unintentionally, perform immoral acts involving the breach of privacy. When it becomes as easy to correllate people with their detailed demographic information by doing a simple table join, what coropration or government will realistically be able to resist?
Instead, why not base the idea of privacy protection on equality between parties, a fundamental check and balance system which is self-correcting? Sure, this may make you feel like you're living in the Big Brother house, except that now, you get to do the same to Big Brother. Why should we settle for any less?
This has got to be a magnificent troll, but I can't resist replying so that the Slashdot unintelligentsia doesn't get confused.
Do we really need another obscure specification sitting on another server that will be down 10% of the time and cause parsers to choke, programs to hang, and tech-support desks to light up like Christmas trees.
First of all, XML documents don't need to conform to any DTD in order to be parsed or be useful. Documents that elect to specify DTDs indicate public URNs so that the DTD can be obtained from the network if it isn't present locally. That's why you distribute the DTD with the program. The public URN of a DTD is essentially for backup, in case a local version can't be found. There is no need to hit a remote server to parse or validate an XML document. No developer in his or her right mind would intend or require this.
It's not that it's a particularly great solution, it's just that it's the new hot standard. Furthermore, let's face it, XML is real easy. So easy that very mediocre minds can grasp it and feel like they're "on top" of the current technological trend.
I guess this is opposed to "superior" minds who spend their time groking knock-off Unix-isms a decade or two out of date. Are you really making this argument (in public, no less)? XML is a simplified version of SGML, which has been around for years, and is NOT easy to wrap your brain around if you're not a "document head". XML was designed to eliminate the infrequently used complications of SGML and make it suitable for everyday use, without losing the underlying advantages of SGML. Because of this, it is fairly straightforward, but this is exactly its beauty. XML is human readable and robust, both huge advantages, not the least in distributed computing, which is why we're seeing it all over the place now.
Despite the press, XML is NOT that easy to parse
If it's as "consistent" and "simple" as you indicate, then why is it so hard to parse? This is trolling at its best. The thing that makes XML so productive, and a significant advance to the state of the art, is the fact that you simply link in the pre-built, ready-to-run XML parser of your choice and it does all the parsing work for you. XML parsers exist for every language under the sun. The idea here is that instead of writing your own code for manipulating the low level structure of your data, you use someone else's standard code, and you worry only about the content of the data.
Furthermore, it often depends on grammar definitions that reside on remote servers. This introduces all the hassles of network-based programming into what should be simple standalone client applications.
Let me say this again: There is no need to hit a remote server to parse or validate an XML document. You are just plain wrong.
Please, for pete's sake, when you feel the temptation to create another XML grammar, think about what you are doing. Just say no. Your users will thank you.
Wrong. Your users will thank you for using XML, because they can actually see the data that's being stored & used by your application because it's human-readable. They will thank you because the format of the data is readily apparent, and can be used by other applications simply by parsing the XML document.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If AOL's major beef is that clients for other systems don't show their ads, but the creators of non-sanctioned clients don't create the ability to show the ads, why not simply write a version that does show the ads, and let AOL check it off? Give AOL what they want in return for what you want. Is that so hard? AOL would probably love it.
Oh, I forgot, you're just trying to invoke your god-given right to IM without restriction by big, bad, evil corporations. Riiiight.
It's incomprehensible to me that you and your friends really share these ideas, but you're all using AIM because your friends are using AIM.
7-8 years ago, he had some interesting thing to say. Now, he's gotten as grumpy and irrelevant as Andy Rooney. Who can stand to listen to either of them? They've become old farts that yell at children to get out of their yards.
Give Apple credit. This is a stalwart of proprietary software & hardware doing what's Good for its customers.
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom. Diluting use of the term will only help reel the zealots & fanatics in, another Good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Also remember, America has more stupid people that other countries have people. Don't think that this bullshit is consensual on the part of American citizens. Somehow the baby boomer idiots thought a coke-sniffing, can't-run-a-business, daddy's-boy son of possibly one of the worst presidents in recent memory (G. Bush senior) would somehow be a great "leader". Nevermind his laughable track record as governor of Texas (which by the way was a mistake; the voters there thought there was no way in hell he could win and so didn't bother to vote).
Come on. Moderate to strong agreement or strong disagreement with an article is practically the only criterion Slashdot "editors" use to decide what to post.
If you're going to be a pedant, you first have to know what the hell you're talking about.
Although it's not clear just how this will be affected by various DVD initiatives, the reason to go for it is because it's standard, it's cheap (both for the drive and the media), and it's available. Eventually, I'd say you could expect certain classes of CD usage today to migrate to this technology. Just because we have DVDs today doesn't mean that manufacturers are going to abandon the CD format altogether. Even though we have CDRs, floppies are still useful. Eventually, we may see regualr CDs go the way of 768 KB floppies.
In this situation, I can definitely see the advantage. I'd walk up to and play with a kiosk that had such a display at least once.
I didn't see a clear description--is this limited to only foreground and background planes, or do they use a technique for tricking the eye to see intermediate depths? I can't imaging that a simple foreground/background display would be flashy enough to justify the cost for the majority of users.
Some of us would rather have a patch that has been thoroughly tested, doesn't screw up the system, and doesn't cause regressions.
Entropy in a given system can increase or decrease, but the entropy of the universe always increases.
If you're going to make it out of Lego, you should at least use only translucent pieces.
It sounds as if this is just another project like Three Gorges, considered by many a move by the Chinese government to distract an uneasy populace from the daily problems they face. I'm all for getting something like this built somewhere, but shouldn't the Chinese focus on solving fundamental infrastructure issues instead of building this monster?
I'm sick of people assuming that their favorite pet technology is better, faster, smaller, etc. than the competition. Whether this occurs out of malice or ignorance, it's worse than any intentional FUD in the marketplace. Hard data is the only thing that matters in software engineering.
So, I'm happy to say that both you and the original poster are wrong. At least on the Win32 platform, where Java has an excellent VM, PHP is 1/3 to 1/2 times slower than the equivalent in Java. I know because I just finished a series of load tests earlier this week comparing the two.
On a 1x1 GHz Win2K machine, I set up Apache 1.3.19 running PHP 4.0.4pl1 and the Resin 1.3.b1 servlet container.
The simplest case, a hello world page in PHP ran at 300 h/s. The exact equivalent in Java, a hello world JSP, ran at 380 h/s. A more advanced case with a large amount of dynamic page output ran at 170 h/s in PHP. The equivalent JSP ran at 350 h/s. In addition, Java scaled far better for multiple concurrent users. It scaled better than linearly, while PHP scaled worse than linearly. Finally, if you get rid of slow-ass Apache, the Resin servlet container + web server ran at double the speed--over 760 h/s.
If PHP is faster on some *nix variant--and I have no idea whether it is or not--my bet is that it's because the Java VM sucks on that platform. Try running PHP vs. Java on Solaris and see who comes out on top.
This is a very interesting idea, though I don't know how feasible it is. Another idea is using something like distributed.net to precompute behavioral patterns for game AI, possibly using genetic algorithms to settle on certain strategies. Although precomputed behaviors may be more or less rigid, the breadth and complexity of them might compensate so that they appear to be life-like.
No we don't.
You aren't, I read it recently and thought it was an excellent depiction.
-
A world in which goverment and corporations have all the cameras, and give privacy "guarantees" to the private citizens they monitor, or
-
A world in which everyone has a camera, including private citizens, to watch anyone or anything they wish, at any time, including someone watching them.
Of course, option (2) is the death of privacy as we know it, but option (1) is the death of privacy, period.The core problem with privacy protection as people conceive it today is that it has to grapple with a fundamental inequality between the observer and the observed. It tries to correct for this inequality by extracting flimsy promises to maintain equality, usually backed with only the carrot of being labeled Good, and the stick of being labeled Bad. The problem is that the ones with the information are inherently amoral; they have no sense of right and wrong.
The primary thing that seems to have kept amoral entities from perform immoral acts in the past is that there has been at least some barrier, some extra work, involved in doing so. With ever accelerating technology, these barriers are now crumbling with exponential speed, making it easier and easier to not only intentionally, but unintentionally, perform immoral acts involving the breach of privacy. When it becomes as easy to correllate people with their detailed demographic information by doing a simple table join, what coropration or government will realistically be able to resist?
Instead, why not base the idea of privacy protection on equality between parties, a fundamental check and balance system which is self-correcting? Sure, this may make you feel like you're living in the Big Brother house, except that now, you get to do the same to Big Brother. Why should we settle for any less?
First of all, XML documents don't need to conform to any DTD in order to be parsed or be useful. Documents that elect to specify DTDs indicate public URNs so that the DTD can be obtained from the network if it isn't present locally. That's why you distribute the DTD with the program. The public URN of a DTD is essentially for backup, in case a local version can't be found. There is no need to hit a remote server to parse or validate an XML document. No developer in his or her right mind would intend or require this.
I guess this is opposed to "superior" minds who spend their time groking knock-off Unix-isms a decade or two out of date. Are you really making this argument (in public, no less)? XML is a simplified version of SGML, which has been around for years, and is NOT easy to wrap your brain around if you're not a "document head". XML was designed to eliminate the infrequently used complications of SGML and make it suitable for everyday use, without losing the underlying advantages of SGML. Because of this, it is fairly straightforward, but this is exactly its beauty. XML is human readable and robust, both huge advantages, not the least in distributed computing, which is why we're seeing it all over the place now.If it's as "consistent" and "simple" as you indicate, then why is it so hard to parse? This is trolling at its best. The thing that makes XML so productive, and a significant advance to the state of the art, is the fact that you simply link in the pre-built, ready-to-run XML parser of your choice and it does all the parsing work for you. XML parsers exist for every language under the sun. The idea here is that instead of writing your own code for manipulating the low level structure of your data, you use someone else's standard code, and you worry only about the content of the data.
Let me say this again: There is no need to hit a remote server to parse or validate an XML document. You are just plain wrong.
Wrong. Your users will thank you for using XML, because they can actually see the data that's being stored & used by your application because it's human-readable. They will thank you because the format of the data is readily apparent, and can be used by other applications simply by parsing the XML document.What are you smokin', Joe?
Oh, I forgot, you're just trying to invoke your god-given right to IM without restriction by big, bad, evil corporations. Riiiight. It's incomprehensible to me that you and your friends really share these ideas, but you're all using AIM because your friends are using AIM.
Duh, you answered your own question. You must not have been here long.
7-8 years ago, he had some interesting thing to say. Now, he's gotten as grumpy and irrelevant as Andy Rooney. Who can stand to listen to either of them? They've become old farts that yell at children to get out of their yards.
...knows that Thad Starner of MIT was the first.
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom. Diluting use of the term will only help reel the zealots & fanatics in, another Good thing.
Moderators do your worst.
http://www.microsoft.com&item=q209355@http://32863 01978/Q2%3093%35%35%2e%61%73%70