Not really. Multi-core doesn't mean you need multi-threaded apps to benefit from it. Take a loot at the processes running on your Linux/Mac/Windows box some thime.. there are a lot of them.
Um, yes. Now take a look at how many of them have an 'R' next to them rather than an 'S', indicating that they are actually running rather than sleeping. Discard all the ones with an 'S', leaving only those with an 'R' -- this is how many cores you can effectively make use of right now. There are probably not a lot of them. If this isn't an active server you're looking at, there probably isn't more than one.
Score: 5 Interesting for a really, really lame theory?
There are many ways to end a mission. The one best for NASA is to close it, point to its budget, and wait for the cries of underfunding, using the closure of a perfectly good mission as evidence that the agency is truly underfunded based on its needs.
The worst is for the mission to fail in some spectacular fashion, making people wonder if they should be giving these bozos any more money.
So, you're telling me you think NASA would intentionally end a mission in the worst possible way for its future prospects of getting money when it had the option of doing in the way most likely to get it more money instead?
That's kinda stupid, don't you think? Shouldn't a conspiracy theory at least have the conspirators doing something that benefits them rather than cutting their own throats?
Seriously, if we can't get people to adopt IPv6, what's the chance that people are going to adopt something more disruptive?
Better, if it can offer significant advantages. IPv6 isn't being adopted very quickly because it doesn't. The disruption/benefit ratio is too high. A completely new protocol would cause even more disruption, but if the benefits are good enough, it may lower that ratio to something acceptable.
My Mac SE/30 (purchased in January 1989, although I had to wait several weeks to get it) worked perfectly for 14 years. By the end it was running NetBSD rather than MacOS, but it still worked fine.
What did it in? It eventually got to be too slow to do anything useful, even with the 50Mhz 040 accelerator upgrade. As far as I know, if I pull it out of the box and boot it up, it will still work perfectly, I just haven't played with it in a few years.
Damn straight. What was nice about the WWW was that I could now stick images, bold/italics, and most importantly hyperlinks to other documents inside my documents. These were important and very nice features that made it worth moving from Gopher-space into the WWW, and life was good.
Then some people got the silly notion of trying to do "page layout", and getting upset because they couldn't control exactly what the page looked like on the end user's browser. Of course they couldn't. How would they know what size fonts the end user finds comfortable reading? How would they know what kind of margins the end user prefers seeing? How much space he likes between his paragraphs?
Insofar as CSS moves all the "page layout" functionality out of the HTML document itself, this is a very good thing. Insofar as there are many people who's pages look completely borked if you rip out the CSS link, there's still a lot of progress to be made until the web finally looks as good and is as easy to use as it was in '95. We took giants leaps backwards for several years, and haven't quite fully recovered yet. But CSS, when used properly, does promise to return us to the days of simple, quick, easy to read HTML.
Still, I frequently show up at sites looking for information, look at the horrid layout, and wish they had a Gopher site with the same information, where I'd actually be able to read it.:p
Should I assume you use <table> to define the position of the elements?
If we're assuming this is a real old-timer we're talking about, probably not. HTML was not intended for complicated magazine layouts. To position his paragraphs one above the other, he puts the one he wants above before the one he wants below in the document, and separates them with <P>. He positions his images using the appropriate attributes. Maybe every once in a while, he gets wacky and uses the <CENTER>. He doesn't use <TABLE> (except when presenting tables of data) for the same reason he doesn't use CSS: there's absolutely no need for it, and almost any use of it you can think of detracts from the simple, easy to read layout he strives for. He doesn't worry about the position of the elements because that's what the browser is for, and he knows HTML was designed so that the browser can position things however the user likes, in whatever size the user likes, and that's perfectly fine. He's okay with the fact that his page isn't going to look exactly the same to the reader as it does on his screen. He knows that if the user decides to render pages with the font 800% larger than he designed it with (note I don't say "for"), it'll still look fine, and any web page that doesn't is poorly designed.
There must be some error in TFA. Looks like it was written by someone with little understanding. To cool a 1g item under 1K is trivial. You can buy coolers that can keep large volumes way down in the mK range. Commercial literature give numbers like 1mW cooling at 35mK.
It looks like you read a little too quickly. They didn't use a cooler, they used lasers. This is the first time laser cooling has ever been successfully used to bring a macroscopic object under 1K.
I totally disagree. Amazon just did what the law allows them to do.
Nope. If the claims here are true, it's quite possible Amazon has broken the law. It's not Amazon's fault that patent law is up the creek, but it is Amazon's fault if it deliberately submitted false or misleading information in an attempt to cover up what they know is a bogus claim.
In the ocean, they'd be subject to constant wave motions. What the GP is suggesting is using these to harness the power of ocean waves. I believe there are already ways of doing this, although who knows, this may be more efficient.
Eep! 5000 hours?! That's little more than half a year if it was on 24/7, and probably less than a year of what's normal usage for me. And I'm sure it starts looking like crap before the 5000 hours is completely up. I'm not buying a monitor I need to replace every nine months or so.
And there's the problem. Giant organizations, be they corporate or governmental, are the easiest places in the world for incompetent people to hide. Big corporations like Intel can harbor incompetence that no small organization could match, or they'd be out of business.
I'm reminded of the old question asked by the president of IBM in the sixties, after the CDC 6600 came out, "How is it that this tiny company [Control Data] of 34 people--including the janitor--can be beating us when we have thousands of people?" To which Control Data's lead designer, Seymour Cray, replied, "You just answered your own question."
I am pretty certain this number relates to how many iPods Apple has sold to retailers; not how many those retailers have sold to the public.
Well, yes, duh. It's how many iPods Apple has sold. Apple has no idea what happens to their iPods after they sell them. And why would they care? They already have their money at that point.
And it's not "how many iPods Apple has sold to retailers", either, it's how many iPods Apple has sold, period. Most were probably to retailers and only some directly through the Apple Store, but the figure is how many were sold, not how many were sold through some specific channel.
Do note that the population has grown significantly since 1939.
Re:A bit of perspective
on
100 Million iPods
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I've been gifted a Shuffle, and I've gifted iPod nanos to two people. And I'd bought a regular iPod which I later sold.
So, technically, I purchased 4 iPods according to Apple. There you go, skewing of stats, right there.
Huh? No, according to Apple, based on what you've said, you've purchased 3 (someone else purchased one and gifted it to you, but there's no way they'd know that it ended up in your hands, so by their count, you've only purchased three, because in fact, you've only purchased three). And how does the fact that you purchased three iPods skew the stats about the number of iPods sold? You purchased three, they count that has having sold three. 3 != 3?
Probably the best thing to do is to stay with Etch for a couple of months while the new Testing settles down, then dist-upgrade back to Testing.
I disagree. If you're just going to switch back to testing in a couple of months, don't bother switching off of it. There's potential hazards with either route, but I think the headaches of dist-upgrading in between major releases are more likely and more significant than the potential problems with testing over the next few months.
OTOH, it sounds like you really wanted to go with stable all along, it's just the existing stable (now oldstable) was just too stale, in which case, the point is moot, since you're probably just going to go with stable for the next year or two.
How any code from a reverse engineered spec that blatantly just guesses at a lot of things is better than something written with the docs is far beyond me.
I'm going to venture a guess that you're either not a professional software engineer, or still fresh out of college and very low on real world experience, then. At the very least, you've seen the codebases at very few companies, or you've just been very, very lucky.
I've had to throw out code and start fresh because the original code I was given was code that had been written originally years ago by an outside contractor brought in to do it, then maintained for the next two years by the hardware engineers themselves, under the premise that they're engineers, they've got a C compiler and a SAMS book, what more qualifications did they need? I was brought in because they couldn't figure out how to add some new features they wanted. The reason wasn't because the new features were tricky, the reason was the code was so hacked up it was impossible to change anything without breaking everything else. Alas, this level of code is all too common at companies that see their primary product as hardware rather than software.
I've also seen horribly base code that needed to be replaced at companies that had paid software engineers maintaining it the whole time. Why do you think the fact that they were paid software engineers somehow magically makes their code any better? It was crap, and the only reason they were able to get away with it was because no one outside their department ever saw it. There's no easier way to hide bad coding than to work inside a corporation on proprietary software. It's the easiest place in the world for it to occur, and often the hardest place in the world to get incompetent engineers off a project.
There is literally nothing that prevents stores and labels from selling lossless songs and albums instead of compressed ones, at the exact same price. If nothing else, compressed songs are the ones that should cost more since if one wants more songs per gigabyte, they'd have to go to the trouble of converting them manually. Serving already compressed files should be the service one could pay a couple cents more for (theoretically).
Assuming you live in a world where storage space is free and bandwidth is free, this comment makes perfect sense. Of course, if you don't, it's a rather stupid comment. In order to store all this music not compressed, they need to buy ten times as many hard drives and pay for ten times the bandwidth, and you're worried about the few pennies extra it costs to convert the data so it takes ten times less space? Hmmm.
Sometimes there are exceptions to the standard corporate CEO it's-all-about-the-profit that is so common.
You know, I've witnessed a heated argument between my old company's CEO/President and its Vice President, where the CEO was stubbornly sticking to his guns in the face of the VP's proof of how this was costing the company money. It was almost absurd, indeed the VP was laughing out loud at many points in the face of the CEO's apparent complete disregard for the idea that the point of the company is to make money. But like any good CEO, our CEO had a vision of where we wanted to be, and the right way to get there, and we were going to do it right, profits be damned. Of course, part of that conviction was that if you did the right thing, the profits would eventually follow, so perhaps its just another brand of "it's-all-about-the-profit" attitude, with a longer-term view, but regardless, the pragmatic effect is that the CEO was more interested in doing what's right than in what would generally be regarded as profitable.
And he wasn't the only one, just the example that sticks out in my mind most, after that day and that argument, giving me a really nice inside peek into the mind of a very successful CEO, hearing him articulate his reasoning not to outsiders or even employees in general, but to a couple of his most trusted insiders.
Given this, I have trouble swallowing the cynical stereotype that it seems most people have about the typical CEO. Maybe the ones I've known have been atypical. I imagine it's skewed by the fact in the cases I've known, the CEO was also one of the founders of the company -- necessarily a group with "the vision-thing". But guess what, Steve Jobs was a founder of most of his companies too, including Apple.
My own experience makes most of the cynical assessments of Jobs actions and motives sound improbable to me. It's not that these kinds of CEO's aren't interested in profit, it's just that they tend to think long-term, and have unshakable confidence that doing "the right thing" will be what's most profitable in the long run. They're high on idealism, often apparently low on the "connected to reality" meter, and except in the face of certain disaster, willing to sacrifice profits for what they think is right. And sometimes, not even certain disaster dissuades them, which is what causes boards of directors to oust them from the CEO position as often as they do, and as happened to Steve Jobs at least once.
So, go ahead, keep your cynicism. I've known these kinds of people before, in all their apparent looniness, and from knowing them, I know it's far more believable that Jobs did what did because be believes its right than as part of some ploy.
Of course I haven't RTFA, but isn't this basically Second Life? Sure, they don't call it "gold", they call it L$, but everything else is the same as the summary states.:p
Uh, Dana Scully isn't supposed to be a barely out of high school starlet. Yes, Julianne Moore is in her mid-40's (specifically, she's 46), but she's only seven years older than Anderson, and a much better actress.
Pfft. If you get caught doing something wrong, I'm sure you'll be required to do a lot more than put out an ad about it. For example, if you're caught driving while intoxicated, the judge is not likely to say you need to place a classified admitting you were driving drunk. Rather, he's likely to revoke you driving privileges for six months or so. Rather than token punishments, we should actually punish corporations for wrongdoing similarly. GSK ought to have it's privileges to sell consumer products revoked for six months or so. A real punishment that befits the crime.
You know, if you'd have registered a few hours/days earlier, you could have got id 2600.
The sad fact is, I actually read for quite a while before getting around to registering. And "2600" really isn't my style. I'd have much rather had "6502".
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Multi-core doesn't mean you need multi-threaded apps to benefit from it. Take a loot at the processes running on your Linux/Mac/Windows box some thime.. there are a lot of them.
Um, yes. Now take a look at how many of them have an 'R' next to them rather than an 'S', indicating that they are actually running rather than sleeping. Discard all the ones with an 'S', leaving only those with an 'R' -- this is how many cores you can effectively make use of right now. There are probably not a lot of them. If this isn't an active server you're looking at, there probably isn't more than one.
Score: 5 Interesting for a really, really lame theory?
There are many ways to end a mission. The one best for NASA is to close it, point to its budget, and wait for the cries of underfunding, using the closure of a perfectly good mission as evidence that the agency is truly underfunded based on its needs.
The worst is for the mission to fail in some spectacular fashion, making people wonder if they should be giving these bozos any more money.
So, you're telling me you think NASA would intentionally end a mission in the worst possible way for its future prospects of getting money when it had the option of doing in the way most likely to get it more money instead?
That's kinda stupid, don't you think? Shouldn't a conspiracy theory at least have the conspirators doing something that benefits them rather than cutting their own throats?
Seriously, if we can't get people to adopt IPv6, what's the chance that people are going to adopt something more disruptive?
Better, if it can offer significant advantages. IPv6 isn't being adopted very quickly because it doesn't. The disruption/benefit ratio is too high. A completely new protocol would cause even more disruption, but if the benefits are good enough, it may lower that ratio to something acceptable.
My Mac SE/30 (purchased in January 1989, although I had to wait several weeks to get it) worked perfectly for 14 years. By the end it was running NetBSD rather than MacOS, but it still worked fine.
What did it in? It eventually got to be too slow to do anything useful, even with the 50Mhz 040 accelerator upgrade. As far as I know, if I pull it out of the box and boot it up, it will still work perfectly, I just haven't played with it in a few years.
Damn kids get off my lawn?
Damn straight. What was nice about the WWW was that I could now stick images, bold/italics, and most importantly hyperlinks to other documents inside my documents. These were important and very nice features that made it worth moving from Gopher-space into the WWW, and life was good.
Then some people got the silly notion of trying to do "page layout", and getting upset because they couldn't control exactly what the page looked like on the end user's browser. Of course they couldn't. How would they know what size fonts the end user finds comfortable reading? How would they know what kind of margins the end user prefers seeing? How much space he likes between his paragraphs?
Insofar as CSS moves all the "page layout" functionality out of the HTML document itself, this is a very good thing. Insofar as there are many people who's pages look completely borked if you rip out the CSS link, there's still a lot of progress to be made until the web finally looks as good and is as easy to use as it was in '95. We took giants leaps backwards for several years, and haven't quite fully recovered yet. But CSS, when used properly, does promise to return us to the days of simple, quick, easy to read HTML.
Still, I frequently show up at sites looking for information, look at the horrid layout, and wish they had a Gopher site with the same information, where I'd actually be able to read it. :p
Should I assume you use <table> to define the position of the elements?
If we're assuming this is a real old-timer we're talking about, probably not. HTML was not intended for complicated magazine layouts. To position his paragraphs one above the other, he puts the one he wants above before the one he wants below in the document, and separates them with <P>. He positions his images using the appropriate attributes. Maybe every once in a while, he gets wacky and uses the <CENTER>. He doesn't use <TABLE> (except when presenting tables of data) for the same reason he doesn't use CSS: there's absolutely no need for it, and almost any use of it you can think of detracts from the simple, easy to read layout he strives for. He doesn't worry about the position of the elements because that's what the browser is for, and he knows HTML was designed so that the browser can position things however the user likes, in whatever size the user likes, and that's perfectly fine. He's okay with the fact that his page isn't going to look exactly the same to the reader as it does on his screen. He knows that if the user decides to render pages with the font 800% larger than he designed it with (note I don't say "for"), it'll still look fine, and any web page that doesn't is poorly designed.
There must be some error in TFA. Looks like it was written by someone with little understanding. To cool a 1g item under 1K is trivial. You can buy coolers that can keep large volumes way down in the mK range. Commercial literature give numbers like 1mW cooling at 35mK.
It looks like you read a little too quickly. They didn't use a cooler, they used lasers. This is the first time laser cooling has ever been successfully used to bring a macroscopic object under 1K.
I totally disagree. Amazon just did what the law allows them to do.
Nope. If the claims here are true, it's quite possible Amazon has broken the law. It's not Amazon's fault that patent law is up the creek, but it is Amazon's fault if it deliberately submitted false or misleading information in an attempt to cover up what they know is a bogus claim.
In the ocean, they'd be subject to constant wave motions. What the GP is suggesting is using these to harness the power of ocean waves. I believe there are already ways of doing this, although who knows, this may be more efficient.
Eep! 5000 hours?! That's little more than half a year if it was on 24/7, and probably less than a year of what's normal usage for me. And I'm sure it starts looking like crap before the 5000 hours is completely up. I'm not buying a monitor I need to replace every nine months or so.
giant, multibillion dollar organization
And there's the problem. Giant organizations, be they corporate or governmental, are the easiest places in the world for incompetent people to hide. Big corporations like Intel can harbor incompetence that no small organization could match, or they'd be out of business.
I'm reminded of the old question asked by the president of IBM in the sixties, after the CDC 6600 came out, "How is it that this tiny company [Control Data] of 34 people--including the janitor--can be beating us when we have thousands of people?" To which Control Data's lead designer, Seymour Cray, replied, "You just answered your own question."
I am pretty certain this number relates to how many iPods Apple has sold to retailers; not how many those retailers have sold to the public.
Well, yes, duh. It's how many iPods Apple has sold. Apple has no idea what happens to their iPods after they sell them. And why would they care? They already have their money at that point.
And it's not "how many iPods Apple has sold to retailers", either, it's how many iPods Apple has sold, period. Most were probably to retailers and only some directly through the Apple Store, but the figure is how many were sold, not how many were sold through some specific channel.
Do note that the population has grown significantly since 1939.
I've been gifted a Shuffle, and I've gifted iPod nanos to two people. And I'd bought a regular iPod which I later sold.
So, technically, I purchased 4 iPods according to Apple. There you go, skewing of stats, right there.
Huh? No, according to Apple, based on what you've said, you've purchased 3 (someone else purchased one and gifted it to you, but there's no way they'd know that it ended up in your hands, so by their count, you've only purchased three, because in fact, you've only purchased three). And how does the fact that you purchased three iPods skew the stats about the number of iPods sold? You purchased three, they count that has having sold three. 3 != 3?
Probably the best thing to do is to stay with Etch for a couple of months while the new Testing settles down, then dist-upgrade back to Testing.
I disagree. If you're just going to switch back to testing in a couple of months, don't bother switching off of it. There's potential hazards with either route, but I think the headaches of dist-upgrading in between major releases are more likely and more significant than the potential problems with testing over the next few months.
OTOH, it sounds like you really wanted to go with stable all along, it's just the existing stable (now oldstable) was just too stale, in which case, the point is moot, since you're probably just going to go with stable for the next year or two.
Uh, isn't hacking a Mac TV a bigger legality issue than using my MacBook or my Intel iMac install cds?
How so?
How any code from a reverse engineered spec that blatantly just guesses at a lot of things is better than something written with the docs is far beyond me.
I'm going to venture a guess that you're either not a professional software engineer, or still fresh out of college and very low on real world experience, then. At the very least, you've seen the codebases at very few companies, or you've just been very, very lucky.
I've had to throw out code and start fresh because the original code I was given was code that had been written originally years ago by an outside contractor brought in to do it, then maintained for the next two years by the hardware engineers themselves, under the premise that they're engineers, they've got a C compiler and a SAMS book, what more qualifications did they need? I was brought in because they couldn't figure out how to add some new features they wanted. The reason wasn't because the new features were tricky, the reason was the code was so hacked up it was impossible to change anything without breaking everything else. Alas, this level of code is all too common at companies that see their primary product as hardware rather than software.
I've also seen horribly base code that needed to be replaced at companies that had paid software engineers maintaining it the whole time. Why do you think the fact that they were paid software engineers somehow magically makes their code any better? It was crap, and the only reason they were able to get away with it was because no one outside their department ever saw it. There's no easier way to hide bad coding than to work inside a corporation on proprietary software. It's the easiest place in the world for it to occur, and often the hardest place in the world to get incompetent engineers off a project.
There is literally nothing that prevents stores and labels from selling lossless songs and albums instead of compressed ones, at the exact same price. If nothing else, compressed songs are the ones that should cost more since if one wants more songs per gigabyte, they'd have to go to the trouble of converting them manually. Serving already compressed files should be the service one could pay a couple cents more for (theoretically).
Assuming you live in a world where storage space is free and bandwidth is free, this comment makes perfect sense. Of course, if you don't, it's a rather stupid comment. In order to store all this music not compressed, they need to buy ten times as many hard drives and pay for ten times the bandwidth, and you're worried about the few pennies extra it costs to convert the data so it takes ten times less space? Hmmm.
Sorry guys, true geeks already own our own mailservers.
Sometimes there are exceptions to the standard corporate CEO it's-all-about-the-profit that is so common.
You know, I've witnessed a heated argument between my old company's CEO/President and its Vice President, where the CEO was stubbornly sticking to his guns in the face of the VP's proof of how this was costing the company money. It was almost absurd, indeed the VP was laughing out loud at many points in the face of the CEO's apparent complete disregard for the idea that the point of the company is to make money. But like any good CEO, our CEO had a vision of where we wanted to be, and the right way to get there, and we were going to do it right, profits be damned. Of course, part of that conviction was that if you did the right thing, the profits would eventually follow, so perhaps its just another brand of "it's-all-about-the-profit" attitude, with a longer-term view, but regardless, the pragmatic effect is that the CEO was more interested in doing what's right than in what would generally be regarded as profitable.
And he wasn't the only one, just the example that sticks out in my mind most, after that day and that argument, giving me a really nice inside peek into the mind of a very successful CEO, hearing him articulate his reasoning not to outsiders or even employees in general, but to a couple of his most trusted insiders.
Given this, I have trouble swallowing the cynical stereotype that it seems most people have about the typical CEO. Maybe the ones I've known have been atypical. I imagine it's skewed by the fact in the cases I've known, the CEO was also one of the founders of the company -- necessarily a group with "the vision-thing". But guess what, Steve Jobs was a founder of most of his companies too, including Apple.
My own experience makes most of the cynical assessments of Jobs actions and motives sound improbable to me. It's not that these kinds of CEO's aren't interested in profit, it's just that they tend to think long-term, and have unshakable confidence that doing "the right thing" will be what's most profitable in the long run. They're high on idealism, often apparently low on the "connected to reality" meter, and except in the face of certain disaster, willing to sacrifice profits for what they think is right. And sometimes, not even certain disaster dissuades them, which is what causes boards of directors to oust them from the CEO position as often as they do, and as happened to Steve Jobs at least once.
So, go ahead, keep your cynicism. I've known these kinds of people before, in all their apparent looniness, and from knowing them, I know it's far more believable that Jobs did what did because be believes its right than as part of some ploy.
Of course I haven't RTFA, but isn't this basically Second Life? Sure, they don't call it "gold", they call it L$, but everything else is the same as the summary states. :p
Uh, Dana Scully isn't supposed to be a barely out of high school starlet. Yes, Julianne Moore is in her mid-40's (specifically, she's 46), but she's only seven years older than Anderson, and a much better actress.
Musta been some rats.
(Guards with AI smart enough to rationalize away the need to do any work are advanced indeed.)
Pfft. If you get caught doing something wrong, I'm sure you'll be required to do a lot more than put out an ad about it. For example, if you're caught driving while intoxicated, the judge is not likely to say you need to place a classified admitting you were driving drunk. Rather, he's likely to revoke you driving privileges for six months or so. Rather than token punishments, we should actually punish corporations for wrongdoing similarly. GSK ought to have it's privileges to sell consumer products revoked for six months or so. A real punishment that befits the crime.
You know, if you'd have registered a few hours /days earlier, you could have got id 2600.
The sad fact is, I actually read for quite a while before getting around to registering. And "2600" really isn't my style. I'd have much rather had "6502".