try k at kx.com. it surpasses #1, #3, and #7; i am not sure on #2; it does #4 and #6; if you are used to array based languages, like apl or j, then #5 is there, too. the syntax may look like line noise, but it has absolutely nothing in common with perl: the syntax is harmonious and consistent.
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs
by citation: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=slashdot&submit=Se arch+Citations&cs=1
by document: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=slashdot&submit=Se arch+Documents&cs=1
(if there is a space between "Se" and "arch", Slashdot wants to keep putting it there; its not my fault).
Kdb is an
extremely fast RDBMS extended for time-series analysis.
Does Kdb support SQL92, ODBC and JDBC ?
Yes.
Is Kdb a read-only RDBMS ?
No. Kdb is
very fast for OLTP (online transaction processing). For example, it runs over 50,000 ATM-style transactions per second logged to disk with full recovery on a single cpu. This was against a database of
over 100,000,000 accounts, tellers and branches. Kdb can do batch updates at
several hundred thousand records per second per cpu.
Is Kdb a memory resident RDBMS ?
No. Kdb has
minimal memory requirements and is very fast from disk. For example, it ran the gigabyte TPC-D (an industry standard decision support benchmark)
queries and updates on a 200MHZ PC with 64 megabytes of memory, an ultrawide SCSI
controller and four disk drives many times faster than the best published results
at a fraction the cost.
What about time series ?
Kdb handles much more than just SQL92 tables. Online analytical
processing (OLAP) on multi-dimensional arrays is done with our
extended SQL language, KSQL. For example, on the 35 megabyte
OLAP APB-1
benchmark queries, Kdb ran 12,000 queries per minute with no precalculation.
6. Since Kdb is so fast, does it require more storage ?
No. Kdb is simple and will
often store just the raw data .
For example, in TPC-D, the published results required storage
between 3 and 10 times the raw data. The Kdb factor is a little over one.
Some OLAP tools require (for fast queries) massive precalculations. For example,
in APB-1 some expanded the 35 megabytes of input data to many gigabytes. Kdb
aggregates relations (extended with time series fields) so fast that precalculation
is often obviated. Certainly when the raw data is less than a few gigabytes.
Is there a parallel version ?
Yes. Although Kdb can handle much larger databases than other database
products without requiring parallel processing, there is a parallel
version for the largest applications.
Kdb scales.
--
http://kx.com
taylor:{+/y**\1.0,x%1+!-1+#y}
word counts of "syntax" vs. "sematics"
on
Apocalypse 2
·
· Score: 1
the word "syntax" occurs 33 times, while "semantics" occurs 4 times (in an 80k document of changes). now what is this language focused on?
i don't know why kdb and k don't get more press around here. kdb is easily the best db i have ever seen: it is incredibly fast, easy to setup, can run on your palm (the download is 150k that unpack in less that 300k), and has a killer extension language, k. actually, k was the language used to implement kdb (it is an apl derivative). it is incredibly well done. it is free (gratis) for personal research and a small fee for corporate use.
www.kx.com
"Before Kdb, we were waiting 60 to 90 seconds for responses to queries on our system," says an IT Manager for a large private hedge fund. "I decided to try to speed things up with Kdb, and was able to build a prototype trading system in Kdb in one week that ran 1,000 times faster than what we were running at the time. That convinced us to add a significant historical component to the real time system, and even with billions of rows of tick data our response rates are still out of this world."
"In this tick database system, Kx gets sub-second query response rates on 2 years of NYSE tick data for all publicly traded stocks - over 2.5 billion trades and quotes."
Next time, don't use "-pendantic" when using your brain.
NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD all have different variations of the daemon. You wouldn't put up the OpenBSD daemon that looks raytraced and call it the FreeBSD daemon, would you?
There was a cool project at Berkeley called Global Layer Unix that was the backbone of the NOW (Network of Workstations) project.
There were two design goals: operating system independance and program transparency. You could install and run the GLU daemons and programs on any system and programs would be able to run on any node in he cluster without knowing about it (of course, for special GLU features there was a library of routine to use).
The GLU project purposely didn't make any kernel modifications to help in portability. A few of the research papers gave ways to modify the kernel to help performance or feature set, but that wasn't the goal.
GLU also supports another Berkeley project called Split-C, which is a parallel extension of the C language. Use this and you do not need to use the GLU library, gcc will generate appropriate code (I think that is how it worked?).
Saying that the clustering is in a "basic Beowulf-type configuration" implies to me that you are doing parallel computation across them. If this work, then why would SMP not also work? It should be almost the exact same.
Does anybody know what the differences, in terms of functionality (not how it works), between journaling and the FreeBSD softupdates.
For those of you who do not know, softudates keeps the filesystem sane by doing metadata updates in memory, then pushing them to disk later. This allows you to coallesce these opperations. The filesystem in guaranteed to be correct, but not always up to date. The upside is that doing mostly metadata operations is very fast (rm -rf/usr/X11 is ~2 sec) and that in the case of a crash or power failure, fsck is not needed.
It says nothing. The poster rants about the US govt doing illegal things now, that in 20 years will be known fact. Yet does he ever try to support his point? Does he offer any evidence of these attrocities. I am willing to concede that the govt has some illegal, abusive policies, but they are nothing compared to the pointless gloom the posted is trying to make you all believe in.
This is just, yet another case of the moderators rewarding comments that they believe in, regardless of content.
disgruntled slashdot user who think that moderation is becoming a joke, -jason
Mr. Kuniavsky may be right, if we were designing software for my grandmother, but I know I do not. There are some project (Gnome, KDE) that are aimed partially at this market, but they are still made by hackers for hackers (when have you ever seen a KDE or Gnome implementor say, "I would really like this to be handled this way, so it can be powerful and adjustable, but I won't because the little old lady down the stree won't be able to use it as well.")
>This presents an interesting dichotomy: why is >the best software writing organization on earth >unable to produce innovative interfaces,....
It is not possible to analyse an interface without reference to the target population. What should be said is that the Free software community has not produced an innovative interface with respect to the average computer illiterate user. There are many example for innovative interfaces targeted at the programmer: emacs and TeX to name a few our most favorite, extensible programs.
In face of defining the end user as a programmer, the rest of the article doesn't make sense. The feedback loop he speaks about becomes nonsensical, since the developer is the user.
Remember, it is always easy to build a simple interface, with fewer feature on top of existing tool. 'find' can be called from a GUI tool simiar to MS find or the Mac's Sherlock. Sendmail can have a simple Exchange like interface put on top, although you loose much extensibility. However, if you design the original software with those limitations built in, then you loose the hacker market, which is a tremendous part of any Free project.
The press release is very vague and if you do a search on StarSight (on everybodies favorite patent claim database) you get too many entires. So if you look for "schedule system" with "starsight" as the asignee, you get only 13. I'll list them here as they appear similar:
This one appears interesting because it mentions recording more specifically than the rest:
I have been here a year now. My initial grant was for 15000 shares at a little over $1.50 a share (adjusted for a pre IPO reverse split).
How do I have to keep them?
The important issue here is longterm capital gains. Taxes. They suck. When you first get hired, you will be given a piece of paper from the board that says how many shares you have and how much the strike price is (strike price: the amount you may purchase shares for). This paper is called you option grant. There is an important date on here (surprisingly enough, called the grant date) which is the date that you officially begin vesting. But this date also have important tax implications. You only get long term capital gains tax rates (20%) if you hold your stock (not the option) for two years after the grant date and one year after the excercise date (the day that you purchased stock from your options). These periods overlap. If you sell your stock either less than two years from your grant date or less than one year from your excercise date, then you have what is called a disqualifying disposition. Basically, the money you get from your stock sale will be treated like normal income.
What is the increase in value?
This is my fourth startup company. Although one of my previous companies went public (on the EASDAQ, though so obviously that doesn't count) and another one was bought out, I never saw a dime from them. However with Ask Jeeves (Nasdaq: ASKJ), I finally hit it. ASKJ closed on friday at 103, and if the stock held that value for me to fully vest, I would have made 15000*(103-1.50) or $1.5225M. However, since my vesting schedule spead over 4 years, presently, I only actually have $380,625 of that.
Our stock has been very volatile lately (mostly with the lockup coming -- I'll explain that later). We have been all the way up to $190. On our first day of tradingwe shot up to $70, then over a few months sank to $30. Then to $190, now back to $100. Our chart ( http://www2.marketwatch.com/intchart/default.asp?s ource=htx%2Fhttp2_mw&symb=askj&sid=15052 1&menus=&mnuTimeFrame=open&mnuCompareTo=closed&mnu Indicators=closed&mnuChartStyle=closed&t ime=8&freq=1&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&comp=&ma=0&maval=9& uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=64&size=1&dra w.x=98&draw.y=17 ) looks like a rollercoaster.
Lockup Expiration is another thing. When a company goes public. All the pre-IPO shares cannot be traded (this mean employess, board members, investment banks, etc...). You have to wait, usually, 6 months to do anything with them. Our six month expiration was up in December. However employees still counldn't sell. There are also blackout periods where employees cannot sell. Blackout periods start before earnings are announced and continue until the SEC mandates 3 days after the earnins report is released (this is true of all nonpublic information -- you cannot trade on nonpublic information, and if you do know nonpublic information you must wait until 3 days after that information is made public).
The moral of the story is that you have to hold on to you stock until the SEC says that you can trade it.
Do I think that it is a good idea?
I like small companies. There are many on the IPO track. It is more coincidental than intentional that I work at places that give stock options. Many companies give a form of stock options (all of what I am saying here has to do with qualified stock options, most larger companies give nonqualified stock options, which are slightly different). I might, personally, find it better to get a larger salary with a job that I really liked than to get a heap of options and a job that I just don't despise.
What are the gotchas?
1. AMT. Remember those three latters. If your comapny is successful, you will hate those letters. In the US there are 2 Federal tax systems. The standard income tax that you are used to and then the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). AMT is much simplier to calculate. It is basically (close to but not exactly) your income tax, but no deductions. Then you take one huge deductions at the end of adding everything else up. That personal deduction is usually so big that you never have to pay AMT. You will have to calculate your AMT when you excercise your options (turn them into real stock). Your tax basis of your options in your strike price (tax basis: what is the base amount you use to calculate your tax costs). When you excercise the options, your tax basis will be raises to the current value of the stock (if I excercised today, my tax basis for my options would go from $1.50 to $103 and if I did this to 5000 shares, I would be liable to pay AMT on $507k). You have to pay AMT on this spread (spread: the difference of your strike price and the fair market value of the stock). The only good things that comse out of AMT is that when you sell your shares, you will calculate the taxes next time against your excercise price instead of your strike price. And the other good thing is that AMT is just a matter of time: ever year after paying AMT, is you do not pay AMT, you can get a deduction in the amount of the difference your AMT and your normal income tax. Basically, in the years you are not liable for AMT your taxes will be greatly reduced. So you really only loose the opportunity cost of the AMT amount (which can still be huge).
2. Don't watch the wiggles. Watching the stock price hurts. I have no doubt that ASKJ will rise in the future but seeing it tank like this is painful.
3. The value of the stock is in how valuable the company is. Make smart decisions on who you work for. No matter how much you may not like the idea of uppper management, make sure your upper management is good. No, not good, amazing. Make sure they understand how to keep a company happy and productive. They are many people out there that understand the technical apsects to company finance, but if the workers are not happy, the company will go nowhere.
From what the origin posted says, justice was about upholding laws, regardless of fairness. Your post ignores the distinction he explains and tries to equate justice and fairness, as the original post explains as a poor, "post-modern" definition that lost the original precision in meaning.
Why do you have to equate them? Can you have a just, yet unfair, conviction. Also, in this sense a law cannot be called just, only the application can be called that.
It seems that not all moderation is the same. The moderation for insightful and interesting are on a per post basis. However, the moderation for offtopic and troll marks should apply to whole threads? Or at least have special versions some of the moderation marks that moderate the entire thread.
I am tired of seeing all the responses that make trolling worthwhile. If people just didn't take the time to respond then it would be as effective.
Isn't the window closed? Wasn't the paper originally published in sometime in 1998? If I understand the requirements for patents, the work is only allowed to be in the public domain for a year before your right to patent it goes away. They would only be able to patent a nonobvious extention to the original work. But, I am not a lawyer, so I amn probably wrong.
On a seperate note, this idea is not original, there was an research paper search engine that used to extract the references and bibliography sections of indexed papers and used them to rank the best papers. Give me a break. What dicks, stealing other peoples' ideas and trying to pass them off as their own.
The Scheme Window manager is the most programmable window manager in the X universe (at least of all the ones I have tried). Everything is dynamically configurable and programmable. I have been using it for almost a year now and have used it to build extensive window manipulation commands.
There are two unique features from SCWM that allow pointerless operation. First there is that SCWM is linked against Guile; it doesn't use some sissy scripting language. Second, SCWM can generate synthetic events. So besides being able to program how to manipulate windows, you can also manipulate programs.
(If you are an Emacs user, there is a scwm mode that will directly eval you scwm config file and send if off to the window manager)
Some examples of things that are possible with synthetic events: - Instead of using the C-S-NumLock X hack you can actually make a usable version of it. - If you know the offset of a button in a window you can cause a click on it. For example, if you use exmh, you can define a keymap that occurs if the pointer is sitting in an exmh window. This keymap could bind the letter 'r' to the click the reply button, so you can effectively drive a normally mouse driven program with the keyboard.
There has been some amazing work that has gone into SCWM and everybody should at least try it out. It is fucking awesome.
I think that the end to all window managers would be if SCWM were to merge with Enlightenment. All the eye candy from E, and all the useful functionality from scwm (think, you could have your background set to animate when mail arrives, or other stupid window manager tricks).
Slashdot Mirror
try k at kx.com. it surpasses #1, #3, and #7; i am not sure on #2; it does #4 and #6; if you are used to array based languages, like apl or j, then #5 is there, too. the syntax may look like line noise, but it has absolutely nothing in common with perl: the syntax is harmonious and consistent.
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cse arch+Citations&cs=1
e arch+Documents&cs=1
by citation: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=slashdot&submit=S
by document: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs?q=slashdot&submit=S
(if there is a space between "Se" and "arch", Slashdot wants to keep putting it there; its not my fault).
--
http://kx.com
taylor:{+/y**\1.0,x%1+!-1+#y}
the word "syntax" occurs 33 times, while "semantics" occurs 4 times (in an 80k document of changes). now what is this language focused on?
--
http://kx.com
taylor:{+/y**\1.0,x%1+!-1+#y}
and you can eat it too:
-j
--
http://kx.com
taylor:{+/y**\1.0,x%1+!-1+#y}
i don't know why kdb and k don't get more press around here. kdb is easily the best db i have ever seen: it is incredibly fast, easy to setup, can run on your palm (the download is 150k that unpack in less that 300k), and has a killer extension language, k. actually, k was the language used to implement kdb (it is an apl derivative). it is incredibly well done. it is free (gratis) for personal research and a small fee for corporate use.
www.kx.com
"Before Kdb, we were waiting 60 to 90 seconds for responses to queries on our system," says an IT Manager for a large private hedge fund. "I decided to try to speed things up with Kdb, and was able to build a prototype trading system in Kdb in one week that ran 1,000 times faster than what we were running at the time. That convinced us to add a significant historical component to the real time system, and even with billions of rows of tick data our response rates are still out of this world."
"In this tick database system, Kx gets sub-second query response rates on 2 years of NYSE tick data for all publicly traded stocks - over 2.5 billion trades and quotes."
-current
-release
-stable
hmmm..., when will the world learn?
>My greatest fear isn't that someone will modify
>the genome to create a superhuman and then not
>tell anyone
the gpl fixes this.
Next time, don't use "-pendantic" when using your brain.
NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD all have different variations of the daemon. You wouldn't put up the OpenBSD daemon that looks raytraced and call it the FreeBSD daemon, would you?
-jason
That's lossy, though.
There was a cool project at Berkeley called Global Layer Unix that was the backbone of the NOW (Network of Workstations) project.
There were two design goals: operating system independance and program transparency. You could install and run the GLU daemons and programs on any system and programs would be able to run on any node in he cluster without knowing about it (of course, for special GLU features there was a library of routine to use).
The GLU project purposely didn't make any kernel modifications to help in portability. A few of the research papers gave ways to modify the kernel to help performance or feature set, but that wasn't the goal.
GLU also supports another Berkeley project called Split-C, which is a parallel extension of the C language. Use this and you do not need to use the GLU library, gcc will generate appropriate code (I think that is how it worked?).
http://now.cs.berkeley.edu/Glunix/glunix.html
http://now.cs.berkeley.edu
Saying that the clustering is in a "basic Beowulf-type configuration" implies to me that you are doing parallel computation across them. If this work, then why would SMP not also work? It should be almost the exact same.
Does anybody know what the differences, in terms of functionality (not how it works), between journaling and the FreeBSD softupdates.
/usr/X11 is ~2 sec) and that in the case of a crash or power failure, fsck is not needed.
For those of you who do not know, softudates keeps the filesystem sane by doing metadata updates in memory, then pushing them to disk later. This allows you to coallesce these opperations. The filesystem in guaranteed to be correct, but not always up to date. The upside is that doing mostly metadata operations is very fast (rm -rf
(not trying to start a war, just curious)
Where can I find cell phone recommendations?
:)
Yes, yes, there are problems, and I am busy working on them
actually, I think that it is Player's Club.
The cost of buying RedHat GNU/linux:
$75
The cost of RHCE training for your IS employee:
$5000
The cost of being to sleep at night, knowing that your network is working:
priceless
It says nothing. The poster rants about the US govt doing illegal things now, that in 20 years will be known fact. Yet does he ever try to support his point? Does he offer any evidence of these attrocities. I am willing to concede that the govt has some illegal, abusive policies, but they are nothing compared to the pointless gloom the posted is trying to make you all believe in.
This is just, yet another case of the moderators rewarding comments that they believe in, regardless of content.
disgruntled slashdot user who think that moderation is becoming a joke,
-jason
Mr. Kuniavsky may be right, if we were designing software for my grandmother, but I know I do not. There are some project (Gnome, KDE) that are aimed partially at this market, but they are still made by hackers for hackers (when have you ever seen a KDE or Gnome implementor say, "I would really like this to be handled this way, so it can be powerful and adjustable, but I won't because the little old lady down the stree won't be able to use it as well.")
>This presents an interesting dichotomy: why is
>the best software writing organization on earth
>unable to produce innovative interfaces,....
It is not possible to analyse an interface without reference to the target population. What should be said is that the Free software community has not produced an innovative interface with respect to the average computer illiterate user. There are many example for innovative interfaces targeted at the programmer: emacs and TeX to name a few our most favorite, extensible programs.
In face of defining the end user as a programmer, the rest of the article doesn't make sense. The feedback loop he speaks about becomes nonsensical, since the developer is the user.
Remember, it is always easy to build a simple interface, with fewer feature on top of existing tool. 'find' can be called from a GUI tool simiar to MS find or the Mac's Sherlock. Sendmail can have a simple Exchange like interface put on top, although you loose much extensibility. However, if you design the original software with those limitations built in, then you loose the hacker market, which is a tremendous part of any Free project.
The press release is very vague and if you do a search on StarSight (on everybodies favorite patent claim database) you get too many entires. So if you look for "schedule system" with "starsight" as the asignee, you get only 13. I'll list them here as they appear similar:
4 __
8 __ 6 __ 4 __
8 __ 4 __
8 __
8 __ 4 __
0 __ 1 __ 8 __ 7 __
This one appears interesting because it mentions recording more specifically than the rest:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0594995
These three are for user interfaces:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0547926
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0547926
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0580920
These two are for background schedule systems:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0580860
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0553275
These are for systems with access controls:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0596974
These are for a schedule information transmission:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0579019
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0561927
These are just generic:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0572706
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0535312
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0595968
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US0580178
I have been here a year now. My initial grant was for 15000 shares at a little over $1.50 a share (adjusted for a pre IPO reverse split).
s ource=htx%2Fhttp2_mw&symb=askj&sid=15052 1&menus=&mnuTimeFrame=open&mnuCompareTo=closed&mnu Indicators=closed&mnuChartStyle=closed&t ime=8&freq=1&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&comp=&ma=0&maval=9& uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=64&size=1&dra w.x=98&draw.y=17 ) looks like a rollercoaster.
How do I have to keep them?
The important issue here is longterm capital gains. Taxes. They suck. When you first get hired, you will be given a piece of paper from the board that says how many shares you have and how much the strike price is (strike price: the amount you may purchase shares for). This paper is called you option grant. There is an important date on here (surprisingly enough, called the grant date) which is the date that you officially begin vesting. But this date also have important tax implications. You only get long term capital gains tax rates (20%) if you hold your stock (not the option) for two years after the grant date and one year after the excercise date (the day that you purchased stock from your options). These periods overlap. If you sell your stock either less than two years from your grant date or less than one year from your excercise date, then you have what is called a disqualifying disposition. Basically, the money you get from your stock sale will be treated like normal income.
What is the increase in value?
This is my fourth startup company. Although one of my previous companies went public (on the EASDAQ, though so obviously that doesn't count) and another one was bought out, I never saw a dime from them. However with Ask Jeeves (Nasdaq: ASKJ), I finally hit it. ASKJ closed on friday at 103, and if the stock held that value for me to fully vest, I would have made 15000*(103-1.50) or $1.5225M. However, since my vesting schedule spead over 4 years, presently, I only actually have $380,625 of that.
Our stock has been very volatile lately (mostly with the lockup coming -- I'll explain that later). We have been all the way up to $190. On our first day of tradingwe shot up to $70, then over a few months sank to $30. Then to $190, now back to $100. Our chart ( http://www2.marketwatch.com/intchart/default.asp?
Lockup Expiration is another thing. When a company goes public. All the pre-IPO shares cannot be traded (this mean employess, board members, investment banks, etc...). You have to wait, usually, 6 months to do anything with them. Our six month expiration was up in December. However employees still counldn't sell. There are also blackout periods where employees cannot sell. Blackout periods start before earnings are announced and continue until the SEC mandates 3 days after the earnins report is released (this is true of all nonpublic information -- you cannot trade on nonpublic information, and if you do know nonpublic information you must wait until 3 days after that information is made public).
The moral of the story is that you have to hold on to you stock until the SEC says that you can trade it.
Do I think that it is a good idea?
I like small companies. There are many on the IPO track. It is more coincidental than intentional that I work at places that give stock options. Many companies give a form of stock options (all of what I am saying here has to do with qualified stock options, most larger companies give nonqualified stock options, which are slightly different). I might, personally, find it better to get a larger salary with a job that I really liked than to get a heap of options and a job that I just don't despise.
What are the gotchas?
1. AMT. Remember those three latters. If your comapny is successful, you will hate those letters. In the US there are 2 Federal tax systems. The standard income tax that you are used to and then the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). AMT is much simplier to calculate. It is basically (close to but not exactly) your income tax, but no deductions. Then you take one huge deductions at the end of adding everything else up. That personal deduction is usually so big that you never have to pay AMT. You will have to calculate your AMT when you excercise your options (turn them into real stock). Your tax basis of your options in your strike price (tax basis: what is the base amount you use to calculate your tax costs). When you excercise the options, your tax basis will be raises to the current value of the stock (if I excercised today, my tax basis for my options would go from $1.50 to $103 and if I did this to 5000 shares, I would be liable to pay AMT on $507k). You have to pay AMT on this spread (spread: the difference of your strike price and the fair market value of the stock). The only good things that comse out of AMT is that when you sell your shares, you will calculate the taxes next time against your excercise price instead of your strike price. And the other good thing is that AMT is just a matter of time: ever year after paying AMT, is you do not pay AMT, you can get a deduction in the amount of the difference your AMT and your normal income tax. Basically, in the years you are not liable for AMT your taxes will be greatly reduced. So you really only loose the opportunity cost of the AMT amount (which can still be huge).
2. Don't watch the wiggles. Watching the stock price hurts. I have no doubt that ASKJ will rise in the future but seeing it tank like this is painful.
3. The value of the stock is in how valuable the company is. Make smart decisions on who you work for. No matter how much you may not like the idea of uppper management, make sure your upper management is good. No, not good, amazing. Make sure they understand how to keep a company happy and productive. They are many people out there that understand the technical apsects to company finance, but if the workers are not happy, the company will go nowhere.
From what the origin posted says, justice was about upholding laws, regardless of fairness. Your post ignores the distinction he explains and tries to equate justice and fairness, as the original post explains as a poor, "post-modern" definition that lost the original precision in meaning.
Why do you have to equate them? Can you have a just, yet unfair, conviction. Also, in this sense a law cannot be called just, only the application can be called that.
It seems that not all moderation is the same. The moderation for insightful and interesting are on a per post basis. However, the moderation for offtopic and troll marks should apply to whole threads? Or at least have special versions some of the moderation marks that moderate the entire thread.
I am tired of seeing all the responses that make trolling worthwhile. If people just didn't take the time to respond then it would be as effective.
Isn't the window closed? Wasn't the paper originally published in sometime in 1998? If I understand the requirements for patents, the work is only allowed to be in the public domain for a year before your right to patent it goes away. They would only be able to patent a nonobvious extention to the original work. But, I am not a lawyer, so I amn probably wrong.
On a seperate note, this idea is not original, there was an research paper search engine that used to extract the references and bibliography sections of indexed papers and used them to rank the best papers. Give me a break. What dicks, stealing other peoples' ideas and trying to pass them off as their own.
The Scheme Window manager is the most programmable window manager in the X universe (at least of all the ones I have tried). Everything is dynamically configurable and programmable. I have been using it for almost a year now and have used it to build extensive window manipulation commands.
There are two unique features from SCWM that allow pointerless operation. First there is that SCWM is linked against Guile; it doesn't use some sissy scripting language. Second, SCWM can generate synthetic events. So besides being able to program how to manipulate windows, you can also manipulate programs.
(If you are an Emacs user, there is a scwm mode that will directly eval you scwm config file and send if off to the window manager)
Some examples of things that are possible with synthetic events:
- Instead of using the C-S-NumLock X hack you can actually make a usable version of it.
- If you know the offset of a button in a window you can cause a click on it. For example, if you use exmh, you can define a keymap that occurs if the pointer is sitting in an exmh window. This keymap could bind the letter 'r' to the click the reply button, so you can effectively drive a normally mouse driven program with the keyboard.
There has been some amazing work that has gone into SCWM and everybody should at least try it out. It is fucking awesome.
I think that the end to all window managers would be if SCWM were to merge with Enlightenment. All the eye candy from E, and all the useful functionality from scwm (think, you could have your background set to animate when mail arrives, or other stupid window manager tricks).
In FreeBSD, you can have a process back a filesystem. It is called Portal FS. It is really cool.
FreeBSD has alot of cool filesystems, check them all out. Union FS rocks.