If the purpose is to determine if somebody is fat, then looking at them is probably just as good an indicator. On the other hand, if the intent is to tie the measure to a disease, then these measures probably don't mean anything at all.
Don't expect a serious discussion in response to your post. Although most people on Slashdot are smart and keep up with the latest technology, many have rather medieval attitudes when it comes to medicine.
Blaming the patient for the condition is one of those attitudes. Illness is like a "sin" to them, so the solution has to have some penance involved. "No pain, No gain" is one mantra of this religious belief.
Even the medical community has been guilty of this. Ulcers used to be all about stress and lifestyle until one doctor discovered the bacteria that was actually the cause. A simple triple antibiotic "no pain" solution worked while the "painful" lifestyle changes didn't.
I guess it depends on your definition of "screwed". When PC clones took off in the late 80's IBM's days looked numbered, but reality was more complicated than we assumed.
There's a reason why the Java Virtual Machine starts with the word "Java". The JVM can run other languages, but that's not the same as being designed to support it. If you look at Sun's initiatives over the years, it's been all about Java, not about supporting multiple languages. It's only in the last few years after seeing that Java wasn't going to take over the world that Sun has adopted this plan B.
As for C/C++ running on the JVM, I wasn't even thinking about that. The limitations of the JVM affect all languages that want to run on it. There's no advantage in having C/C++ run on the JVM - it would just limit C/C++'s portability.
As far as legacy support and the ability to call C/C++ code is concerned, Java has it's own "unsafe" mode called the JNI. In fact you can even call assembly language using the JNI.
I think if cross-platform is the goal, the JVM is the best VM for languages to compile down to. On the other hand, the JVM wasn't designed with the idea of supporting other languages, so it has some weaknesses there.
The.Net CLR was designed from the start to support multiple languages, so it's stronger at it than the JVM. There's nothing that prevents it from being cross-platform except licensing issues.
All this could change: Java could abandon the principle of a backward compatible JVM and thus improve it's multiple-language support and MS could fully open up.Net so that it would compete better against Java on the cross-platform issue.
I programmed for the Atari 2600 and cad that I am, drew graphics on the screen without any client-server abstraction and worse yet, without an OS (or even a frame buffer).
Not terribly relevant to today's environment perhaps, but you should be careful where you point your "inherently"'s.
"Yeah, because that case wasn't really about a monopolist illegally leveraging their monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in a second market, right?"
Actually, you're right. It wasn't about that. It was about players in the second market trying to limit competition.
"An OS cannot claim to support standards when it does not support the X Window System standard which assures that all GUI apps can run on an OS without needing to port the app."
There's lots of standards that aren't supported by operating systems that claim to support standards; why should X be the deciding factor?
Slashdot Mirror
"Once you've become familiar with a C-syntax language, the others won't take long to pick up if you need them."
Tell it to the interviewer.
"Maybe I'm showing my age here, but I remember a time when we [as a society] considered adults to be responsible for their own nutritional choices."
I must be older. I remember a time when nobody would know what the phrase "nutritional choices" meant.
Yes, It's hard to gain weight when you're dead.
If the purpose is to determine if somebody is fat, then looking at them is probably just as good an indicator. On the other hand, if the intent is to tie the measure to a disease, then these measures probably don't mean anything at all.
A self-control problem can't be solved by the self by definition.
So don't feel bad if you have a self-control problem, it's not a fault and the lack of the problem isn't a virtue either.
30 minutes of exercise a day will have a minimal effect on weight unless the exercise is very intense.
Don't expect a serious discussion in response to your post. Although most people on Slashdot are smart and keep up with the latest technology, many have rather medieval attitudes when it comes to medicine.
Blaming the patient for the condition is one of those attitudes. Illness is like a "sin" to them, so the solution has to have some penance involved. "No pain, No gain" is one mantra of this religious belief.
Even the medical community has been guilty of this. Ulcers used to be all about stress and lifestyle until one doctor discovered the bacteria that was actually the cause. A simple triple antibiotic "no pain" solution worked while the "painful" lifestyle changes didn't.
"Losing fat comes down to a simple equation.
If calories in is less than calories burnt, you WILL lose weight. Its as simple as that."
Apparently not according to you. Since you claim zero calorie drinks cause you to gain weight.
Sorry, but she didn't say she preferred to have hot sex with the average Arthur.
I guess it depends on your definition of "screwed". When PC clones took off in the late 80's IBM's days looked numbered, but reality was more complicated than we assumed.
No, Skynet had some real-time requirements so it's programmed in assembly running on a custom 1 yottahertz 8051.
since most of us will probably be dead before Windows is.
No version of Linux will ever run on this machine - unless you don't mind running everything as root.
There's a reason why the Java Virtual Machine starts with the word "Java". The JVM can run other languages, but that's not the same as being designed to support it. If you look at Sun's initiatives over the years, it's been all about Java, not about supporting multiple languages. It's only in the last few years after seeing that Java wasn't going to take over the world that Sun has adopted this plan B.
As for C/C++ running on the JVM, I wasn't even thinking about that. The limitations of the JVM affect all languages that want to run on it. There's no advantage in having C/C++ run on the JVM - it would just limit C/C++'s portability.
As far as legacy support and the ability to call C/C++ code is concerned, Java has it's own "unsafe" mode called the JNI. In fact you can even call assembly language using the JNI.
Could you cite an independent legal opinion that states "mono faces patent problems beyond the average open source project".
I think if cross-platform is the goal, the JVM is the best VM for languages to compile down to. On the other hand, the JVM wasn't designed with the idea of supporting other languages, so it has some weaknesses there.
The .Net CLR was designed from the start to support multiple languages, so it's stronger at it than the JVM. There's nothing that prevents it from being cross-platform except licensing issues.
All this could change: Java could abandon the principle of a backward compatible JVM and thus improve it's multiple-language support and MS could fully open up .Net so that it would compete better against Java on the cross-platform issue.
Hey, we found some common ground after all!
I programmed for the Atari 2600 and cad that I am, drew graphics on the screen without any client-server abstraction and worse yet, without an OS (or even a frame buffer).
Not terribly relevant to today's environment perhaps, but you should be careful where you point your "inherently"'s.
"A layer of abstraction decoupling your system from the communication technology used with an overhead of 0 is poor design?"
Are we still talking about windowing systems? Because I don't see anything about it in your description.
Design isn't the same as features.
I don't see how MS Windows' windowing system could be described as a "client/server architecture". Could you elaborate?
"Except that unnecessary coupling like you call it comes at 0 cost."
Unless you consider poor design to be a cost.
"Yeah, because that case wasn't really about a monopolist illegally leveraging their monopoly in one market to gain a monopoly in a second market, right?"
Actually, you're right. It wasn't about that. It was about players in the second market trying to limit competition.
To be fair "Troll" and "Flamebait" are used by Slashdotters of all persuasions for posts they disagree with, not just Linux zealots.
"An OS cannot claim to support standards when it does not support the X Window System standard which assures that all GUI apps can run on an OS without needing to port the app."
There's lots of standards that aren't supported by operating systems that claim to support standards; why should X be the deciding factor?