Damn! Damn damn damn! Damn diddly wow! Wow fucking wow! Wow fucking damn penguins flip diddly-doo! This is the coolest, geekiest, most useless console hack yet. I lay down my crown to all that is dweeb on this earth and prostrate myself in worship. Damn flippin' diddly-doo squat icki-icki-icki-ziiiiiip putang putang oliv-zim-ani-see a-booey!!!! Won't the real Hercynium be PISSED when he finds his karma in the gutter! (hehe, naughty boy, can't hold his liquor, BITCH!)
Re:Basic of algorithms
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What about a function that calculates sucessive digits of pi??? I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just wondering. Definitions are important things in any area of academia! As far as I know the function for calculating pi is not a finite process (unless you count each digit an a discreet process)
A little side note: as a kid I used to crash both web servers and browsers by implementing this as a CGI script!:p
YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution)
on
Mandrake 8.2 Available
·
· Score: 5, Informative
OK, I'm already known for being a guy who tells it ilke it is.
I've been a linux user since 1995, cutting my teeth on Slackware 2. Since then I have seen linux evolve, grow, change directions and broaden it's horizons.
Here's the lowdown on Mandrake: I thoroughly believe that Mandrake Linux is the single most balanced distrubution available. I have used it for enterprise-scale web servers, for applications development, and even for an experimental wireless data-retrieval system in peru (the very complete internationalization of the Mandrake distro made it the ideal candidate, as well as it's ability to scale down MUCH smaller that I could ever get a red-hat system)
It's also dandy as a day-to-day desktop workstation.
However, It has it's caveats, like any distro. It's still too large. I'd like to see what you get with a 65 meg install. If it's got internationalization and a functional x-server as well as some basic ncurses-type config tools, I may end up switching from my own LFS system (weighing in at about 90 megs right now.) Also, like redhat, the configuration tools are a little too complex. If they decide to switch to ONE config manager and ONE only, that doesen't mess with your own customizations, I'll finally start using them. As it is, I don't install any of them, and I edit all files by hand, a-la slackware. However, if you're a newbie, all the drak* tools are VERY well done and perform in a fairly straightforward manner, as long as you're not getting jiggy with the.rc's.
I must admit, I have a soft spot for Debian, especially as it's going to inherit the HURD, and apt is soooo schweet, but give rpm-drak a try. I hope you won't be disappointed.
Other than that, well, I'd encourage anybody who believes in supporting an excellent distro to go out and buy a copy, or Subscribe. It's going to be worth the money.
OK, now IANAP (IANA Physicist,) but I think it goes something like this:
Think of yourself as a piece of information. You are standing on a train. Think of the train as the light wave, travelling at the speed of light. You are now walking from the back of the train to the front. Relative to the earth, you are travelling faster than the train, thus faster than the speed of light. However, relative to the train, you are travelling at walking speed. The problem is, in order to minimize your time on the train, you start your journey by jumping onto the last car as the train leaves the terminal, and jumping out of the first car as the train approaches the destination platform. Given a sufficiently long train, you could send a large amount of data that would begin to arrive quickly, however you must first establish the carrier (the train) and then you must offload the information. Your net gain should be a faster arrival of the data, but most likely the data will be offloaded at the same speed as usual. Ar you as confused as I am yet?
You are 100% correct. My local post office has advertisements posted not just on a bulletin board, but in the office itself. And these aren't all small local companies. I've seen displays for John Hancock Insurance, Bank of Boston (when it used to be BOB), and even _gasp_ Sun Microsystems. (That one was a hiring blitz, they have a big facility nearby.) On top of that the Post office in Lowell sells phone cards from Sprint (or maybe they're AT&T), and even stationary, pens, pencils, binders, etc. The USPS doesen't generate revenue from stamps alone.
What annoys me about this story is that someone considers this news... Hey timothy, post something I don't know about. (If this were about any of the companies I just mentioned, do you think it would be considered important?)
I'm taking a leap here, but you haven't coded any chess algorithms, have you.
Any half-thinking programmer will realize when creating a chess-playing algorithm that the prediction branches are much more likely to decrease throughout the game, effectively (on a basic level) decreasing your moveset. One of the cornerstones of this type of game programming is algorithmic pruning of the game or 'moveset' tree. Every capable chess program strives not to create every possible move, but to eliminate all non-possible moves, as well as most non-likely moves. The path of the branch prediction and generation routines will usually use some sort of weighting algorithm to determine how deep to search, but the pruning algorithm is of utmost importance since it will aid in how deep the program will be able to search.
Now, granted, an algorithm, given infinite time and computer resources may very well try to predict every possible move, but it's not just unlikely, it's also likely to get it's ass kicked by other, more effecient algorithms.
I have been programming in C for quite a while, but I've very recently begun reading up on LISP. I'll probably begin by coding my next database app in it (small job for my dad's business.)
What my point is is that it seems that a language like LISP is designed to handle data in the way that is optimally processed by modern computing architectures. Binary trees, lists and stacks are handled easily by LISP, as well as nearly every other recursive and relational structure in widespread use today. While C allows immense flexibility, I believe that it's strength is in it's ease of use; It's easier to program functionally or iteratively rather than recursively. However, optimization of C code probably requires much more knowledge of the specific architecture one is working on. LISP by it's very structure is optimized for any turing-complete system.
Take in mind, IANALP = (IANA = (I Am Not A) Lisp Programmer):^p So maybe I'm wrong about LISP. I'll definitely know better in a few weeks though!
Yeah, but i think I did this about five or six years ago (I was still living with the 'rents then.) I'll just have to go to the local parts store and try it out on the Apple ][c I still have kicking around.:^)
Think that's cool? I stuffed a complete Pentium MMX-based PC into an Apple ][e and even adapted the integrated keyboard to work! The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to get the composite greenscale monitor to work with the PC's VGA-out. God, I wish took pictures of that system!
It's interesting... It makes some more sense now though. At least it does as long as a photon has no mass... but even then I could imagine that if it's somehow transmutable from one form to another that it all works as well. Thanks for all the responses. I'll have to do some follow-up research and see what I can find on the web.
What I'm really curious about is: Where does the photon go when it transfers it's energy to an electron? Isn't a photon energy? Or is it matter? Or does it turn from matter into energy and back again?
I know it's a strange question, but I'm not trolling, I'm just genuinely curious.
Frankly, I think that predictions on business trends and technology are the toughest to make since in the past ten years or so things have changed so darn quickly. If anything, the old rules of business still apply, but with some new loopholes and tricks being found by avid entrepeneurs. To predict the direction of technology right now though is sheer guesswork.
From what cringely says in the article, it seems that he is completely ignoring the most important issues of physical infrastructure, market appeal, consumer demand, and even the continually growing influence of open-source and other public developments in technology. Despite the apparent 'lock-in' of proprietary technologies, I'm betting that most of mr. cringley's predictions will be stimied by the significant development of truly interoperable software, much of which will be contributed by the open-source community.
Re:Not via email you dont you wascally wabbit
on
Linux Virus Alert
·
· Score: 1
I feel that, while not entirely incorrect, your post needs clarification.
Virus: A segment of executable code that inserts itself into other executable files which, when run, usually executes the virus' modifications causing the virus to continue to spread on the host machine.
Worm: (This is not definitive, since the lines have been blurred in recent years) A comlete script or executable designed to utilize the components of the host computer's operating system for it's replication. A worm does not typically modify executables on the host. Also, a computer worm is typically more complex and/or independent than a virus.
Trojan Horse: An apparently 'normal' file that has been modified or replaced to contain a 'payload' such as a virus, worm or other malicious code that may be executed by the user on the host system.
Like I said, I'm a little out of the know since I haven't looked at any GNOME code in a few months. But your point is certainly something to think about. If developers are releasing their 'final products' right now using the old libraries when the whole GNOME architecture is in flux, we could be looking at some seriously trying times for users. The changes in GNOME 2 will likely break some this 'new' software (even tho it's not *supposed* to...)
That, coupled wtih the fact that public open source development tends to move much more slowly than private development could very likely kill GNOME's chances as a desktop environment contender....
Personally, I'll stick to wm2 or FVWM with some of my personal customizations. And I'll run KOffice on that. (but I'll at least try out gnumeric... for keeping lists;-)
Ya, I know it' dumb to reply to myself, but after noticing the "replies under my threshold" it seems I wasn't specific enough... I was referring to the recent code freeze of GNOME2 developer beta, and remarking on the subsequent releases of several of the larger application projects, one of which is now Gnumeric.
OTOH, it seems that the pace of GNOME development has been quickening as of late. Now, I haven't reviewed the API/Object Model for several months, but at last glance I was beginning to notice some real cohesion in the various components. For a long time I have preferred working on KDE's code, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's time to take another glance at good ol' GNOME...
If what you say is true, I think that comes back to what I said about software becoming a commodity.
If we assume that microsoft is giving them copies of Windows 98 then I think it's safe to assume that they've already recuperated the R&D costs of that version. These new copies would literally be dirt cheap. The cost of 200,000 copies would be entirely marginal.
However, Microsoft does not sell software CD's and manuals... they sell the EULA. And by controlling that they have the ability to assume whatever value the market will bear. As long as pointy-haired bosses are willing to shell out for it, Microsoft will continue to set the price of Office near $400 and up.
(Not to mention the ridiculous server suites... I'd rather pay SGI 10,000 for a rock-solid server that will last 5 years than microsoft 1,800 for a lightweight that needs to be babysat 24-7 then replaced every two years.) *cBoAuCgKhOcFoFuIgChE*
I think we both agree that is sucks, but I'll bet it'll happen... just because that's the way the world works.
Software is treated like a commodity, like cars or gold or anything of which there is a definable finite limit to the supply. (I'm trying to be simplistic and I'm not an economist so tell my if my logic is wrong) However, the actual cost of software itself, a specific version of a specific piece of software, would be defined as the total cost of development, research, and also marketing (to be fair to business.) For software, another factor in the cost is also the distribution method, usually CD's manuals and packaging.
The physical shipped product is mass produced. Therefore, every unit already costs the amount paid for manuals, boxes and CD's. But unlike cars or pigs or pencils, once software is put into distribution, production (for that SPECIFIC version) is essentially over (excluding debugging and maintenance). Because the shippable distribution is usually so large, The production cost is split over potientially millions of units. Per shipped unit, the production cost is likely to be fairly small.
The question is, what is the ACTUAL COST of making the software product? The question this leads to is, How is the VALUE of the software determined?
Since a true commodity has a physical limit as to the amount of the product in existience, software companies created EUA licenses and such, creating an artificial limit. Thus, the number of licenses available helps control the market value of the software product.
I think you know where I'm going with this...
From what I gather, Microsoft is donating hardware AND software VALUED at a billion dollars to the schools... but the actual COST of the software is MUCH lower than it's value. Microsoft should be donating hardware valued at cost and, if we ignore the "mind-share lock-in theory" for a minute, software the same way (or how about FOR FREE???)
Frankly, I think RedHat had the right idea, though I think the donation should go a step further... Microsoft donates a full Billion dollars worth of hardware... and gives the schools their choice of operating systems at NO VALUE whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn! Damn damn damn! Damn diddly wow! Wow fucking wow! Wow fucking damn penguins flip diddly-doo! This is the coolest, geekiest, most useless console hack yet. I lay down my crown to all that is dweeb on this earth and prostrate myself in worship. Damn flippin' diddly-doo squat icki-icki-icki-ziiiiiip putang putang oliv-zim-ani-see a-booey!!!! Won't the real Hercynium be PISSED when he finds his karma in the gutter! (hehe, naughty boy, can't hold his liquor, BITCH!)
What about a function that calculates sucessive digits of pi??? I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just wondering. Definitions are important things in any area of academia! As far as I know the function for calculating pi is not a finite process (unless you count each digit an a discreet process)
:p
A little side note: as a kid I used to crash both web servers and browsers by implementing this as a CGI script!
OK, I'm already known for being a guy who tells it ilke it is.
.rc's.
I've been a linux user since 1995, cutting my teeth on Slackware 2. Since then I have seen linux evolve, grow, change directions and broaden it's horizons.
Here's the lowdown on Mandrake: I thoroughly believe that Mandrake Linux is the single most balanced distrubution available. I have used it for enterprise-scale web servers, for applications development, and even for an experimental wireless data-retrieval system in peru (the very complete internationalization of the Mandrake distro made it the ideal candidate, as well as it's ability to scale down MUCH smaller that I could ever get a red-hat system)
It's also dandy as a day-to-day desktop workstation.
However, It has it's caveats, like any distro. It's still too large. I'd like to see what you get with a 65 meg install. If it's got internationalization and a functional x-server as well as some basic ncurses-type config tools, I may end up switching from my own LFS system (weighing in at about 90 megs right now.) Also, like redhat, the configuration tools are a little too complex. If they decide to switch to ONE config manager and ONE only, that doesen't mess with your own customizations, I'll finally start using them. As it is, I don't install any of them, and I edit all files by hand, a-la slackware. However, if you're a newbie, all the drak* tools are VERY well done and perform in a fairly straightforward manner, as long as you're not getting jiggy with the
I must admit, I have a soft spot for Debian, especially as it's going to inherit the HURD, and apt is soooo schweet, but give rpm-drak a try. I hope you won't be disappointed.
Other than that, well, I'd encourage anybody who believes in supporting an excellent distro to go out and buy a copy, or Subscribe. It's going to be worth the money.
He should have just called on the BOFH!!! No more project, no more manager, and infinitely more fun! :^)
All your emails are belong to us!
(I just had to... I was inspired by the Main St. Wakefield Jiffy Lube!)
OK, now IANAP (IANA Physicist,) but I think it goes something like this:
:^)
Think of yourself as a piece of information. You are standing on a train. Think of the train as the light wave, travelling at the speed of light. You are now walking from the back of the train to the front. Relative to the earth, you are travelling faster than the train, thus faster than the speed of light. However, relative to the train, you are travelling at walking speed. The problem is, in order to minimize your time on the train, you start your journey by jumping onto the last car as the train leaves the terminal, and jumping out of the first car as the train approaches the destination platform. Given a sufficiently long train, you could send a large amount of data that would begin to arrive quickly, however you must first establish the carrier (the train) and then you must offload the information. Your net gain should be a faster arrival of the data, but most likely the data will be offloaded at the same speed as usual. Ar you as confused as I am yet?
OK, I think I'll go read the article now.
You are 100% correct. My local post office has advertisements posted not just on a bulletin board, but in the office itself. And these aren't all small local companies. I've seen displays for John Hancock Insurance, Bank of Boston (when it used to be BOB), and even _gasp_ Sun Microsystems. (That one was a hiring blitz, they have a big facility nearby.) On top of that the Post office in Lowell sells phone cards from Sprint (or maybe they're AT&T), and even stationary, pens, pencils, binders, etc. The USPS doesen't generate revenue from stamps alone.
What annoys me about this story is that someone considers this news... Hey timothy, post something I don't know about. (If this were about any of the companies I just mentioned, do you think it would be considered important?)
Hmmm, I think I dated Edith a while back... J/K!
Oh, and to think I blew my last mod points a few minutes ago! Funny!!!! If only you weren't an AC!
I'm taking a leap here, but you haven't coded any chess algorithms, have you.
Any half-thinking programmer will realize when creating a chess-playing algorithm that the prediction branches are much more likely to decrease throughout the game, effectively (on a basic level) decreasing your moveset. One of the cornerstones of this type of game programming is algorithmic pruning of the game or 'moveset' tree. Every capable chess program strives not to create every possible move, but to eliminate all non-possible moves, as well as most non-likely moves. The path of the branch prediction and generation routines will usually use some sort of weighting algorithm to determine how deep to search, but the pruning algorithm is of utmost importance since it will aid in how deep the program will be able to search.
Now, granted, an algorithm, given infinite time and computer resources may very well try to predict every possible move, but it's not just unlikely, it's also likely to get it's ass kicked by other, more effecient algorithms.
Just my $.02
I have been programming in C for quite a while, but I've very recently begun reading up on LISP. I'll probably begin by coding my next database app in it (small job for my dad's business.)
:^p So maybe I'm wrong about LISP. I'll definitely know better in a few weeks though!
What my point is is that it seems that a language like LISP is designed to handle data in the way that is optimally processed by modern computing architectures. Binary trees, lists and stacks are handled easily by LISP, as well as nearly every other recursive and relational structure in widespread use today. While C allows immense flexibility, I believe that it's strength is in it's ease of use; It's easier to program functionally or iteratively rather than recursively. However, optimization of C code probably requires much more knowledge of the specific architecture one is working on. LISP by it's very structure is optimized for any turing-complete system.
Take in mind, IANALP = (IANA = (I Am Not A) Lisp Programmer)
Yeah, but i think I did this about five or six years ago (I was still living with the 'rents then.) I'll just have to go to the local parts store and try it out on the Apple ][c I still have kicking around. :^)
*bragging mode on*
Think that's cool? I stuffed a complete Pentium MMX-based PC into an Apple ][e and even adapted the integrated keyboard to work! The only thing I couldn't figure out was how to get the composite greenscale monitor to work with the PC's VGA-out. God, I wish took pictures of that system!
It's interesting... It makes some more sense now though. At least it does as long as a photon has no mass... but even then I could imagine that if it's somehow transmutable from one form to another that it all works as well. Thanks for all the responses. I'll have to do some follow-up research and see what I can find on the web.
What I'm really curious about is: Where does the photon go when it transfers it's energy to an electron? Isn't a photon energy? Or is it matter? Or does it turn from matter into energy and back again?
I know it's a strange question, but I'm not trolling, I'm just genuinely curious.
...are just educated extrapolated from the past.
Frankly, I think that predictions on business trends and technology are the toughest to make since in the past ten years or so things have changed so darn quickly. If anything, the old rules of business still apply, but with some new loopholes and tricks being found by avid entrepeneurs. To predict the direction of technology right now though is sheer guesswork.
From what cringely says in the article, it seems that he is completely ignoring the most important issues of physical infrastructure, market appeal, consumer demand, and even the continually growing influence of open-source and other public developments in technology. Despite the apparent 'lock-in' of proprietary technologies, I'm betting that most of mr. cringley's predictions will be stimied by the significant development of truly interoperable software, much of which will be contributed by the open-source community.
Like I said, I'm a little out of the know since I haven't looked at any GNOME code in a few months. But your point is certainly something to think about. If developers are releasing their 'final products' right now using the old libraries when the whole GNOME architecture is in flux, we could be looking at some seriously trying times for users. The changes in GNOME 2 will likely break some this 'new' software (even tho it's not *supposed* to...)
;-)
That, coupled wtih the fact that public open source development tends to move much more slowly than private development could very likely kill GNOME's chances as a desktop environment contender....
Personally, I'll stick to wm2 or FVWM with some of my personal customizations. And I'll run KOffice on that. (but I'll at least try out gnumeric... for keeping lists
someone PLEASE mod the parent up as funny, and the parent of that as troll.
(I already posted here so I can't...)
Ya, I know it' dumb to reply to myself, but after noticing the "replies under my threshold" it seems I wasn't specific enough... I was referring to the recent code freeze of GNOME2 developer beta, and remarking on the subsequent releases of several of the larger application projects, one of which is now Gnumeric.
I think we're beginning to gnotice a pattern...
OTOH, it seems that the pace of GNOME development has been quickening as of late. Now, I haven't reviewed the API/Object Model for several months, but at last glance I was beginning to notice some real cohesion in the various components. For a long time I have preferred working on KDE's code, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's time to take another glance at good ol' GNOME...
Now I can really test the pixel output of my brand-new geForceRS232vt220turbo!!!
Imagine a beowulf clus... ah nevermind.
someone volunteered their bandwidth to host the machine... they could even get colorado.edu's sysop to update the DNS entry.
Other than that, I can't see much else to do with it. It's only worth nostalgiac value. I'll be watching eBay for when someone puts it on sale. *grin*
If what you say is true, I think that comes back to what I said about software becoming a commodity.
If we assume that microsoft is giving them copies of Windows 98 then I think it's safe to assume that they've already recuperated the R&D costs of that version. These new copies would literally be dirt cheap. The cost of 200,000 copies would be entirely marginal.
However, Microsoft does not sell software CD's and manuals... they sell the EULA. And by controlling that they have the ability to assume whatever value the market will bear. As long as pointy-haired bosses are willing to shell out for it, Microsoft will continue to set the price of Office near $400 and up.
(Not to mention the ridiculous server suites... I'd rather pay SGI 10,000 for a rock-solid server that will last 5 years than microsoft 1,800 for a lightweight that needs to be babysat 24-7 then replaced every two years.) *cBoAuCgKhOcFoFuIgChE*
I think we both agree that is sucks, but I'll bet it'll happen... just because that's the way the world works.
I'm going to have another beer now X^p
That's a very interesting point.
Software is treated like a commodity, like cars or gold or anything of which there is a definable finite limit to the supply. (I'm trying to be simplistic and I'm not an economist so tell my if my logic is wrong) However, the actual cost of software itself, a specific version of a specific piece of software, would be defined as the total cost of development, research, and also marketing (to be fair to business.) For software, another factor in the cost is also the distribution method, usually CD's manuals and packaging.
The physical shipped product is mass produced. Therefore, every unit already costs the amount paid for manuals, boxes and CD's. But unlike cars or pigs or pencils, once software is put into distribution, production (for that SPECIFIC version) is essentially over (excluding debugging and maintenance). Because the shippable distribution is usually so large, The production cost is split over potientially millions of units. Per shipped unit, the production cost is likely to be fairly small.
The question is, what is the ACTUAL COST of making the software product? The question this leads to is, How is the VALUE of the software determined?
Since a true commodity has a physical limit as to the amount of the product in existience, software companies created EUA licenses and such, creating an artificial limit. Thus, the number of licenses available helps control the market value of the software product.
I think you know where I'm going with this...
From what I gather, Microsoft is donating hardware AND software VALUED at a billion dollars to the schools... but the actual COST of the software is MUCH lower than it's value. Microsoft should be donating hardware valued at cost and, if we ignore the "mind-share lock-in theory" for a minute, software the same way (or how about FOR FREE???)
Frankly, I think RedHat had the right idea, though I think the donation should go a step further... Microsoft donates a full Billion dollars worth of hardware... and gives the schools their choice of operating systems at NO VALUE whatsoever.
If you believe
They put a mine on the moon
[mine on the moon]
</MUSIC>