I don't. I don't own any apple products either, because I don't like the closedness of the system. I also run a TOR node on my home server. I try to use open-source applications whenever I can and provide patches for any bugs I find.
I just don't like it when people believe the hype. By EITHER side.
these people, crawling over each other are trying to get a job in Foxconn! What does that tell you? That they are forced into it? Doesn't seem that way to me.
Suicide rate? Way less than chinese average.
Workplace accidents? Way less than average workplace accidents in factories in the USA!
Come on, people. Please try to see the forest for the trees and realize, that wealth and well-being is not absolute, it can only be compared and stop comparing it to yourself. Compare it to conditions on site. It's not really that hard.
And never, EVER forget that newspapers exist to sell you advertising. Provocative headlines sell a whole lot of advertising via more readers or clicks. (This also applies for slashdot btw.) so, please try to think about what they are actually selling.
The best thing you can do to help these people to better living conditions? Buy more apple products, so a part of your money will go to better the lives of people in china.
thanks for the explanation, it is good and clear, but this whole thing is just teeming with questions.
How have we actually measured that this particle swaps between matter/antimatter states or is that just a theory?
Also, as I understand that all particles are actually just probabilities for something existing somewhere at some time. Would this not infer that the probability of this particular particle being matter or antimatter is just extremely close to 50%, or, actually 49% antimatter, 51% matter?
Again, I have probably misunderstood something, but I don't pretend to be a physicist anyway, just curious..
Right, of course you are correct. After having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle I actually understand that the question was rather silly. sorry about that. Although, if everyone read the correct wikipedia entries before asking things, there would be very few questions indeed;)
I'm probably misunderstanding something here, but it seems that they have discovered that when the big bang happened, then because of this property, a bit more matter was created than anti-matter out of wherever they came in the first place, the rest of it annihilated with each other and everything else is made up from the "extra bits". This seems fairly reasonable.
Now, it is also known that new matter-antimatter element pairs are being created and annihilated all the time everywhere, this is where Hawking radiation comes from.
Does this new discovery mean, that it would be possible, that instead of an antimatter-matter pair a matter-matter pair is created sometimes instead and therefore the amount of matter in the universe is increasing (even if by a tiny amount)? Or are the conditions needed for this to happen too extreme to ever take place outside of big bangs and accelerators? Although as I understand some cosmic rays have far greater energies than accelerators.
Real physicists - please help me make sense of it all!
well, there's this little thingie called a SESSION ID, that you can stick, hmm, lemme think for a second here.. OH YEAH, you could stick it in the URL.
how many? admittedly, the number of installations on different servers is not that big - about 15 different servers so far and most of them (about 10 I think) have apache/php configs that we can't control. the number of sites it runs is around 200
what kind of app? everything:) starting from cms/project management/messageboard and ending with ERP and over-the-web visual database forms creation and systems integration. basically it's an application server, or something like it and a huge amount of modules for it that do all kinds of different things.
the strategy to make this work is relatively simple - assume that the php installation is about 2-3 years old and don't use newer features or else detect if they are available or not and if not, provide a replacement or a work-around. also, the magic quoting and database handling is abstracted away deep into a generic object storage system so that everything "just works".
it does take a bit of work and being careful, but once you get used to it, it really is awfully fast to develop with it.
You would like to see it? ok, fine. loot at sites like
www.ut.ee www.hitechestonia.com
I won't plug the application here, but right now it has
188092 lines 489080 words 5012353 bytes of *php code* and I don't mean with html mixed in, that's all in templates. about 320 classes total.
and it was written by 2 guys over 3.5 years. and it is being mantained and actively developed. with 2 guys. I'm one of them, so I would know.
Language has nothing to do with mantainability. Architecture does.
ok, maybe I just have a really bad sense of humor, but whatever.
the link is actually correct, once you've installed freenet on your machine. in fact, all requests to freenet point to 127.0.0.1, there's a daemon that creates a server listening on that port, that goes and downloads the content and feeds it back to your web-browser. it's pretty damn cool actually:)
well, I am quite sure, that this is the wrong answer, since it is way too simple, but could anybody explain, what exactly is wrong with it:
ok, as the thing said, first all soldiers are in a default do-nothing state, then the first gets the fire! message, with a counter 0, then increments the counter and passes it to the next soldier and goes to the "wait-reply" state. then the next soldier does the same thing and so on, until the end of the line. now, when the last soldier recieves the message - fire, counter is x, it goes to the state "fire after x time ticks", decrements x and passes it on, the next one (since it is in the wait-reply state, it knows to go into this state) recieves the counter, goes into "fire after x ticks", decrements x and passes it on, until we reach the first soldier, who immediately fires (since x is zero), as do all the others, since their counters run out at the same time..
and since the message passes the line twice, it should take N-2 ticks, assuming we start counting from the time the first soldier gets the message..
well, yes, again, I *could* do this with branches, but I often need to put the feature that was created for one client back in the main tree so that other clients can get at it as well and it is also necessary from time to time update all of some customer's code to a new version.
so in that case I would have to merge the changes for the customer to the main tree (but not necessarily all of them:) ) - once again, merge back only the files that need to be changed for the feature to work and that leads us right back to where we started. now aint recursion cool:)
and then create a new branch for the customer to make changes on.
so the problem is still there and I think the only solution to it is using patchsets and incrementally updating other servers when needed so I don't have to mess about with lots of trees and remember what feature is in what tree - I can be safe that in the development server there are always the latest features in the main source tree.
but yes, doing it with branches is possible, but still, it seems to be more work than it sould be. and some other versioning systems support the idea of patchsets (although most have different names for the same feature) and I really see no reason why cvs shouldn't support them, but other than that it's still pretty cool:)
and if anybody has a better idea how to manage the mess I have described - please let me know, it would be greatly appreciated, although I doubt that many other projects have quite the same rules apply to them...
well, yeah, sore, I can update all files but that's the thing. I don't want to update all files, just the ones that I need (expand my example so that there are more than 3 files in that folder) and it would be pretty annoying to create a new module every time I commit something - I would need to do this, because the files that I commit are not the same ones most of the time.
I know that sounds weird, but here's why. I work on a web content management software and we have several servers where it is installed and client websites use it there. now a client wants a feature that their version of the code does not have, so we add the feature to our development site and test it there and when it is finished we commit it and then we have to either manually figure out all the files that have changed and update those on the client server. why not just update all of it? well several reasons - one of them being that a client won't get a feature that some other client wanted and the other being that sometimes the code that gets checked in is less than perfect and the less code we update on the client's server the less chance that it will break something.
so - basically I want to be update _only_ the bits that must be updated for a feature to work.
and yes, I suppose I could do this with modules, but it would be a lot of manual work and that is what the SCS is supposed to help avoid.
and do modules have dependencies? can I make a certain version of a module depend on a certain version of another module?
ok, fair enough, but that still does not what I want it to do - basically I want it to create a new module every time I commit a bunch of files - which can be in several directories.
lets say I have 3 files:
a,b and c
now I change b and c and commit them. now I change a and c and commit them. now I go to another server that also had the original files and do an update on a and now it sould figure out that a was commited with c and try to update those and then notice that c is out of date and figure out that the last time c was commited it was commited together with b and therefore it must also update b and so on until there are no more dependencies.
add that to cvs and make it actually work correctly and it would be pretty good.
at least that's what I miss the most when using cvs - the ability to change several files and commit them at once and when I do an update on a file it sould figure out all the dependencies on all other files ant update those as well. how sould it figure this out? simple - all the files that were commited at one time sould be also updated together, because it is bloody likely that they depend on each other.
of course this process should be repeated on all files that are a part of the patchset so that after updating a single file to a new version all the other files are compatible with it.
and yes, I know this could be theoretically done with tagging but then I would have to tag all files when commiting every time and it still does not handle the case when one file of the patchset depends on some other patchset.
first off, I seem to remember that the sound hit a bit after the shockwave, but maybe I'm wrong and anyway, that's not the issue here.
the real issue would be - what shockwave? since there is no air in space there can be no shockwaves - only bits of debris hitting you and the amount that actually hits you gets really small really fast as you move away from the explosion, because it will be evenly distributed in all directions (well, ok, maybe not competely evenly, but still)
so even if we leave out the sound bit the explosion still cannot really happen as shown
PHP does support interactive debugging - zend has their IDE and there are several free ones as well - you just need to install a small component to the server and you can do remote step-by-step debugging or you can run the thing locally or however you want to.
> Less dynamic than Perl or PHP? What are the
> Perl or PHP equivalents of the Java idiom
> Class newClass = Class.forName
> ( "some.java.class.name" );
> Interface if = (Interface)newClass.newInstance();
well, dunno about perl, but PHP lets you do this:
class someclass
{
function doit()
{
echo "a->doit";
}
}
$classname = "someclass";
$classvar = new $classname;
$classvar->doit();
you can even do this:
$functionname = "doit";
$classvar->$functionname();
admittedly, PHP does not have interfaces and the OO support is flaky
and if your code starts to get bigger (>50k lines) you sould really move on to java,
but until then, it is pretty good.
Well, because for some strange reason it makes you feel a lot better if it's in the software you have been slaving over for the last year. People are strange. Wht can you do. A piece of paper stuck on your office wall just doesn't feel half as good as your name at the edn of the credits in the program...
And what harm can it do? Software bloat? Oh, come on. Who cares if your program takes up 50 more kilobytes? And what I really can't understand, how can involving credits make your program crash more? I mean hven't the guys who say that ever heard of "modular" programming?
Yes, it indeed is so. 99% of people do not look at the credits. But does it not make the little guy, whose name scrolled by in the end if the credits happy? I bet it does. And who does it bother? Nobody. So why remove it if it makes somebody much happier and doesn't bother anybody?
Slashdot Mirror
hi!
Nope, Estonian. (See also the address of the non-functioning homepage attached to the post ;) )
hi!
I don't. I don't own any apple products either, because I don't like the closedness of the system. I also run a TOR node on my home server. I try to use open-source applications whenever I can and provide patches for any bugs I find.
I just don't like it when people believe the hype. By EITHER side.
Look at this picture in the article: http://english.sina.com/technology/p/2012/0128/435327.html (yes, it's a chinese paper, but whatever)
these people, crawling over each other are trying to get a job in Foxconn! What does that tell you? That they are forced into it? Doesn't seem that way to me.
Suicide rate? Way less than chinese average.
Workplace accidents? Way less than average workplace accidents in factories in the USA!
Come on, people. Please try to see the forest for the trees and realize, that wealth and well-being is not absolute, it can only be compared and stop comparing it to yourself. Compare it to conditions on site. It's not really that hard.
And never, EVER forget that newspapers exist to sell you advertising. Provocative headlines sell a whole lot of advertising via more readers or clicks. (This also applies for slashdot btw.) so, please try to think about what they are actually selling.
The best thing you can do to help these people to better living conditions? Buy more apple products, so a part of your money will go to better the lives of people in china.
thanks for the explanation, it is good and clear, but this whole thing is just teeming with questions.
How have we actually measured that this particle swaps between matter/antimatter states or is that just a theory?
Also, as I understand that all particles are actually just probabilities for something existing somewhere at some time. Would this not infer that the probability of this particular particle being matter or antimatter is just extremely close to 50%, or, actually 49% antimatter, 51% matter?
Again, I have probably misunderstood something, but I don't pretend to be a physicist anyway, just curious..
yes, the great Stephen has said it, therefore it MUST be true!
Right, of course you are correct. After having read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle I actually understand that the question was rather silly. sorry about that. Although, if everyone read the correct wikipedia entries before asking things, there would be very few questions indeed ;)
thanks.
I'm probably misunderstanding something here, but it seems that they have discovered that when the big bang happened, then because of this property, a bit more matter was created than anti-matter out of wherever they came in the first place, the rest of it annihilated with each other and everything else is made up from the "extra bits". This seems fairly reasonable.
Now, it is also known that new matter-antimatter element pairs are being created and annihilated all the time everywhere, this is where Hawking radiation comes from.
Does this new discovery mean, that it would be possible, that instead of an antimatter-matter pair a matter-matter pair is created sometimes instead and therefore the amount of matter in the universe is increasing (even if by a tiny amount)? Or are the conditions needed for this to happen too extreme to ever take place outside of big bangs and accelerators? Although as I understand some cosmic rays have far greater energies than accelerators.
Real physicists - please help me make sense of it all!
so this is the way the world ends /.
so this is the way the world ends
so this is the way the world ends
not with a bang, but wth a story in
a stand-alone tv tuner is called a cheap-ass VCR ;)
well, there's this little thingie called a SESSION ID, that you can stick, hmm, lemme think for a second here.. OH YEAH, you could stick it in the URL.
Bloody hell, I'm a genious, aren't I.
how many?
admittedly, the number of installations on different servers is not that big - about 15 different servers so far and most of them (about 10 I think) have apache/php configs that we can't control. the number of sites it runs is around 200
what kind of app?
everything
the strategy to make this work is relatively simple - assume that the php installation is about 2-3 years old and don't use newer features or else detect if they are available or not and if not, provide a replacement or a work-around. also, the magic quoting and database handling is abstracted away deep into a generic object storage system so that everything "just works".
it does take a bit of work and being careful, but once you get used to it, it really is awfully fast to develop with it.
"...but it's not a language for writing stuff you can install on any webhost and expect a complex app to keep working across versions."
well I have been doing just that with a quite large app (200 000+ lines of php code) and it has been working out just fine.
odd, that.
You would like to see it? ok, fine. loot at sites like
www.ut.ee
www.hitechestonia.com
I won't plug the application here, but right now it has
188092 lines 489080 words 5012353 bytes of *php code* and I don't mean with html mixed in, that's all in templates. about 320 classes total.
and it was written by 2 guys over 3.5 years. and it is being mantained and actively developed. with 2 guys. I'm one of them, so I would know.
Language has nothing to do with mantainability. Architecture does.
ok, maybe I just have a really bad sense of humor, but whatever.
:)
the link is actually correct, once you've installed freenet on your machine. in fact, all requests to freenet point to 127.0.0.1, there's a daemon that creates a server listening on that port, that goes and downloads the content and feeds it back to your web-browser. it's pretty damn cool actually
well, I am quite sure, that this is the wrong answer, since it is way too simple, but could anybody explain, what exactly is wrong with it:
ok, as the thing said, first all soldiers are in a default do-nothing state, then the first gets the fire! message, with a counter 0, then increments the counter and passes it to the next soldier and goes to the "wait-reply" state. then the next soldier does the same thing and so on, until the end of the line. now, when the last soldier recieves the message - fire, counter is x, it goes to the state "fire after x time ticks", decrements x and passes it on, the next one (since it is in the wait-reply state, it knows to go into this state) recieves the counter, goes into "fire after x ticks", decrements x and passes it on, until we reach the first soldier, who immediately fires (since x is zero), as do all the others, since their counters run out at the same time..
and since the message passes the line twice, it should take N-2 ticks, assuming we start counting from the time the first soldier gets the message..
well, yes, again, I *could* do this with branches, but I often need to put the feature that was created for one client back in the main tree so that other clients can get at it as well and it is also necessary from time to time update all of some customer's code to a new version.
:) ) - once again, merge back only the files that need to be changed for the feature to work and that leads us right back to where we started. now aint recursion cool :)
:)
so in that case I would have to merge the changes for the customer to the main tree (but not necessarily all of them
and then create a new branch for the customer to make changes on.
so the problem is still there and I think the only solution to it is using patchsets and incrementally updating other servers when needed so I don't have to mess about with lots of trees and remember what feature is in what tree - I can be safe that in the development server there are always the latest features in the main source tree.
but yes, doing it with branches is possible, but still, it seems to be more work than it sould be. and some other versioning systems support the idea of patchsets (although most have different names for the same feature) and I really see no reason why cvs shouldn't support them, but other than that it's still pretty cool
and if anybody has a better idea how to manage the mess I have described - please let me know, it would be greatly appreciated, although I doubt that many other projects have quite the same rules apply to them...
well, yeah, sore, I can update all files but that's the thing. I don't want to update all files, just the ones that I need (expand my example so that there are more than 3 files in that folder) and it would be pretty annoying to create a new module every time I commit something - I would need to do this, because the files that I commit are not the same ones most of the time.
I know that sounds weird, but here's why. I work on a web content management software and we have several servers where it is installed and client websites use it there. now a client wants a feature that their version of the code does not have, so we add the feature to our development site and test it there and when it is finished we commit it and then we have to either manually figure out all the files that have changed and update those on the client server. why not just update all of it? well several reasons - one of them being that a client won't get a feature that some other client wanted and the other being that sometimes the code that gets checked in is less than perfect and the less code we update on the client's server the less chance that it will break something.
so - basically I want to be update _only_ the bits that must be updated for a feature to work.
and yes, I suppose I could do this with modules, but it would be a lot of manual work and that is what the SCS is supposed to help avoid.
and do modules have dependencies? can I make a certain version of a module depend on a certain version of another module?
I can't seem to find it on their website www.continuus.com - perhaps you could post some kind of link?
ok, fair enough, but that still does not what I want it to do - basically I want it to create a new module every time I commit a bunch of files - which can be in several directories.
lets say I have 3 files:
a,b and c
now I change b and c and commit them. now I change a and c and commit them. now I go to another server that also had the original files and do an update on a and now it sould figure out that a was commited with c and try to update those and then notice that c is out of date and figure out that the last time c was commited it was commited together with b and therefore it must also update b and so on until there are no more dependencies.
add that to cvs and make it actually work correctly and it would be pretty good.
at least that's what I miss the most when using cvs - the ability to change several files and commit them at once and when I do an update on a file it sould figure out all the dependencies on all other files ant update those as well. how sould it figure this out? simple - all the files that were commited at one time sould be also updated together, because it is bloody likely that they depend on each other.
of course this process should be repeated on all files that are a part of the patchset so that after updating a single file to a new version all the other files are compatible with it.
and yes, I know this could be theoretically done with tagging but then I would have to tag all files when commiting every time and it still does not handle the case when one file of the patchset depends on some other patchset.
first off, I seem to remember that the sound hit a bit after the shockwave, but maybe I'm wrong and anyway, that's not the issue here.
the real issue would be - what shockwave? since there is no air in space there can be no shockwaves - only bits of debris hitting you and the amount that actually hits you gets really small really fast as you move away from the explosion, because it will be evenly distributed in all directions (well, ok, maybe not competely evenly, but still)
so even if we leave out the sound bit the explosion still cannot really happen as shown
PHP does support interactive debugging - zend has their IDE and there are several free ones as well - you just need to install a small component to the server and you can do remote step-by-step debugging or you can run the thing locally or however you want to.
> Less dynamic than Perl or PHP? What are the
> Perl or PHP equivalents of the Java idiom
> Class newClass = Class.forName
> ( "some.java.class.name" );
> Interface if = (Interface)newClass.newInstance();
well, dunno about perl, but PHP lets you do this:
class someclass
{
function doit()
{
echo "a->doit";
}
}
$classname = "someclass";
$classvar = new $classname;
$classvar->doit();
you can even do this:
$functionname = "doit";
$classvar->$functionname();
admittedly, PHP does not have interfaces and the OO support is flaky
and if your code starts to get bigger (>50k lines) you sould really move on to java,
but until then, it is pretty good.
Well, because for some strange reason it makes you feel a lot better if it's in the software you have been slaving over for the last year. People are strange. Wht can you do. A piece of paper stuck on your office wall just doesn't feel half as good as your name at the edn of the credits in the program...
And what harm can it do? Software bloat? Oh, come on. Who cares if your program takes up 50 more kilobytes? And what I really can't understand, how can involving credits make your program crash more? I mean hven't the guys who say that ever heard of "modular" programming?
Yes, it indeed is so. 99% of people do not look at the credits. But does it not make the little guy, whose name scrolled by in the end if the credits happy? I bet it does. And who does it bother? Nobody. So why remove it if it makes somebody much happier and doesn't bother anybody?