Pillsbury's official bake-off contest site is at www.bakeoff.com. http://www.bake-off.com does not bring up anything. I think the term bake-off has a few centuries of usage as a generic term for a contest where the best compete against each other head-to-head in making something good from scratch. I would be very surprised if many other flour companies had not organized bake-offs (think county fairs) many times in the past. This looks like an incredibly stupid pr blunder on Pillsbury's part.
Agreed, but with prefix notation you must somehow indicate the END of the numeric entry.
+ 2 2
You also have an enourmous problem if one of the operands is on the stack.
Reverse Polish is 2 (enter) 2 + which leaves 4 on the stack for any future activities.
RedHat 7.0 is pushing the state-of-the-art.
For Joe sixpack, it should work very well.
For anyone serious, this is a.0 RedHat release, probably a bit more stable than 6.0 or 5.0 were, but it does break fresh ground that has not yet been explored thoroughly.
RedHat gcc 2.96 is some sort of pre-3.0
RedHat kgcc is just a renamed gcc 2.91.66, same as in RedHat 6.2.
In an effort to get repeatable and diferentiable results, benchmarks always oversimplify. There is also the temptation to in designing for benchmarks to take shortcuts that "should" work. Very bad design criteria for servers.
>>we may want to calculate the risks and expected benefits a bit more.
The smart ones took the oportunity to fix things that needed fixing, including any Y2K problems that would adversly impact operations.
The dumb ones froze development and made changes to ensure that everything (especially obsolete reports that nobody uses) was y2k compliant.
Whether the computer fires up thinking it's 2000 or not is the least of the problems. That can be fixed by telling the computer BIOS that it is 1972 or such. The problem is with applications and utilities that do bad things when 99 + 1 becomes 00, when 00 must be greater that 99, when 99+1 creates a trapped error, etc.
The Y2K scare by the media was mostly a scam, mostly because it is much too complicated for their small minds. But if nothing were done to prepare for it, quite a few things would have been rather messy, with a small number of spectacular failures.
Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?
Reporter getting a pulitzer prize for babbling about the Hindenburg. No prizes for discovering that the fabric coating is what burned.
O.J. Simpson trial (with freeway chase).
Botched Florida vote counting (with Ryder truck).
At least the National Enquirer et. al. are "supposed" to be sensationalistic.
The media were looking for another feeding frenzy, and when nothing much happened they went looking for someone to blame for disappointing their audience. It's like the National Enquirer has the high moral ground for journalistic integrity like Larry Flint had the moral high ground regarding Washington's morals. There is no doubt that sensationalism sells, and sells well. Pity the quieter more reasoned voices. Pity us when we cannot hear them.
Yep, he's stretching the boundaries to make his point.
Somewhere I read that one of the most profound inventions occurred during the so-called dark ages. The horse collar. For the first time mankind could effectively use more than his own power.
>>Right now I spend 1.5+ hours on the road a day coming and going to work. Why can't someone innovate a way to cut out that time and make my life better -
They have. It's called public transportation. Only, everybody wants to drive their own car.
>>And given the troubles with landfills filling up, I don't think we've mastered sanitation yet!
Garbage is really raw materials, but it will take very cheap, very fast, very efficient computer processing to make the transition. I don't think we're even close yet.
Test it. When it fails, reject the entire system. You might even threaten consequential damages due to lost data from hard drives designed to not function as hard drives.
Assembly is essentially [label] op operand with everything symbolic. Machine code is essentially executable data laid out in hex, octal, or binary as the case may be. Assembly code can be very close to machine code, or particularly with macro assemblers, very removed from machine code.
Let's try something not so basic. This _does_ require that you buy a lot of whatever.
>>If you buy both Sega's and Sony's systems, both companies get what they want: your money. Sega has no reason to improve its products because you already bought one; and Sony has also no reason to improve because you also bought one of theirs as well.
You buy more of the one that seems better at the time and less of the one that seems poorer at the time.
>>If consumers don't discriminate between quality and non-quality goods (or cheap and non-cheap goods), then no competitive situation exists.
This requires the ability to discriminate, which is not at all simple. Even after a long time of running Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD side-by-side the evidence is essentially anecdotal.
>>In an ideal world, people wouldn't have any consumer loyalty at all -- they'd always vote with their money and buy whatever product is the best product available.
If it's a winner-take-all situation, the competition disappears. In particular, if it takes a second or third look to determine which is actually better, the situation is rather more complex. Competition can exist when most consumers are brand loyal if there is a vocal minority in the middle with very little brand loyalty.
Nope. Pretty accurate, I'd say. Somebody, Voltaire?, once said that religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel. What was amazing about the Jonestown massacre is that the world was shocked by it.
>... I can..... _smell_ the money...
Methinks you are right. It has to do with the infrastructure that is necessary for business-to-business to be viable on tomorrow's hardware. Compare the credibility of SuSE Linux (or Red Hat Linux or...) on an IBM mainframe versus an IBM-only-Linux on same mainframe. The money is not _in_ Linux, but in what can be built on it. If IBM gets any kind of edge in bringing 20 and 30 year-old COBOL systems into the 21st century,...
Actually the anecdotal accounts of long up-times do help put things in a bit of perspective. (Idle boxes or lightly-loaded single-purpose boxes don't count. Even NT manages to stay up if you don't stress it.)
>>On topic with the original subject, however, I don't think anybody will be successful in forcing Microsoft to adhere to open standards. They can't do Kerberos right and they have a long history of nodding and saying they are going to do just what you ask them to, and then doing something else. Microsoft WANTS vendor lockin, and they NEED it for their business model to work. And they will continue to fight being brought into a competitive marketplace with every tool at their disposal, including out and out lies and disregard for government orders.
Yep. Microsoft was at the right place at the right time, but I don't think they _can_ compete on a level playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
Pillsbury's official bake-off contest site is at www.bakeoff.com. http://www.bake-off.com does not bring up anything. I think the term bake-off has a few centuries of usage as a generic term for a contest where the best compete against each other head-to-head in making something good from scratch. I would be very surprised if many other flour companies had not organized bake-offs (think county fairs) many times in the past. This looks like an incredibly stupid pr blunder on Pillsbury's part.
Agreed, but with prefix notation you must somehow indicate the END of the numeric entry.
+ 2 2
You also have an enourmous problem if one of the operands is on the stack.
Reverse Polish is 2 (enter) 2 + which leaves 4 on the stack for any future activities.
RedHat 7.0 is pushing the state-of-the-art. .0 RedHat release, probably a bit more stable than 6.0 or 5.0 were, but it does break fresh ground that has not yet been explored thoroughly.
For Joe sixpack, it should work very well.
For anyone serious, this is a
RedHat gcc 2.96 is some sort of pre-3.0
RedHat kgcc is just a renamed gcc 2.91.66, same as in RedHat 6.2.
Please don't.
In an effort to get repeatable and diferentiable results, benchmarks always oversimplify. There is also the temptation to in designing for benchmarks to take shortcuts that "should" work. Very bad design criteria for servers.
or as a .BMP
Man did not evolve from monkeys. Both man and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor, something like a three-toed tree sloth, IIRC.
Right on.
Technology is simple. Human relationships are complicated.
>>we may want to calculate the risks and expected benefits a bit more.
The smart ones took the oportunity to fix things that needed fixing, including any Y2K problems that would adversly impact operations.
The dumb ones froze development and made changes to ensure that everything (especially obsolete reports that nobody uses) was y2k compliant.
Whether the computer fires up thinking it's 2000 or not is the least of the problems. That can be fixed by telling the computer BIOS that it is 1972 or such. The problem is with applications and utilities that do bad things when 99 + 1 becomes 00, when 00 must be greater that 99, when 99+1 creates a trapped error, etc.
The Y2K scare by the media was mostly a scam, mostly because it is much too complicated for their small minds. But if nothing were done to prepare for it, quite a few things would have been rather messy, with a small number of spectacular failures.
Whatever happened to journalistic integrity?
Reporter getting a pulitzer prize for babbling about the Hindenburg. No prizes for discovering that the fabric coating is what burned.
O.J. Simpson trial (with freeway chase).
Botched Florida vote counting (with Ryder truck).
At least the National Enquirer et. al. are "supposed" to be sensationalistic.
The media were looking for another feeding frenzy, and when nothing much happened they went looking for someone to blame for disappointing their audience. It's like the National Enquirer has the high moral ground for journalistic integrity like Larry Flint had the moral high ground regarding Washington's morals. There is no doubt that sensationalism sells, and sells well. Pity the quieter more reasoned voices. Pity us when we cannot hear them.
Yep, he's stretching the boundaries to make his point.
Somewhere I read that one of the most profound inventions occurred during the so-called dark ages. The horse collar. For the first time mankind could effectively use more than his own power.
The average photograph taken during the (US) civil war had much better detail and long-term survivability than the average photograph taken today.
>>Right now I spend 1.5+ hours on the road a day coming and going to work. Why can't someone innovate a way to cut out that time and make my life better -
They have. It's called public transportation. Only, everybody wants to drive their own car.
>>And given the troubles with landfills filling up, I don't think we've mastered sanitation yet!
Garbage is really raw materials, but it will take very cheap, very fast, very efficient computer processing to make the transition. I don't think we're even close yet.
Test it. When it fails, reject the entire system. You might even threaten consequential damages due to lost data from hard drives designed to not function as hard drives.
Open Source is starting to look better and better.
Assembly is essentially [label] op operand with everything symbolic. Machine code is essentially executable data laid out in hex, octal, or binary as the case may be. Assembly code can be very close to machine code, or particularly with macro assemblers, very removed from machine code.
Let's try something not so basic. This _does_ require that you buy a lot of whatever.
>>If you buy both Sega's and Sony's systems, both companies get what they want: your money. Sega has no reason to improve its products because you already bought one; and Sony has also no reason to improve because you also bought one of theirs as well.
You buy more of the one that seems better at the time and less of the one that seems poorer at the time.
>>If consumers don't discriminate between quality and non-quality goods (or cheap and non-cheap goods), then no competitive situation exists.
This requires the ability to discriminate, which is not at all simple. Even after a long time of running Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD side-by-side the evidence is essentially anecdotal.
>>In an ideal world, people wouldn't have any consumer loyalty at all -- they'd always vote with their money and buy whatever product is the best product available.
If it's a winner-take-all situation, the competition disappears. In particular, if it takes a second or third look to determine which is actually better, the situation is rather more complex. Competition can exist when most consumers are brand loyal if there is a vocal minority in the middle with very little brand loyalty.
Nope. Pretty accurate, I'd say. Somebody, Voltaire?, once said that religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel. What was amazing about the Jonestown massacre is that the world was shocked by it.
>... I can ..... _smell_ the money ...
...) on an IBM mainframe versus an IBM-only-Linux on same mainframe. The money is not _in_ Linux, but in what can be built on it. If IBM gets any kind of edge in bringing 20 and 30 year-old COBOL systems into the 21st century, ...
Methinks you are right. It has to do with the infrastructure that is necessary for business-to-business to be viable on tomorrow's hardware. Compare the credibility of SuSE Linux (or Red Hat Linux or
Actually the anecdotal accounts of long up-times do help put things in a bit of perspective. (Idle boxes or lightly-loaded single-purpose boxes don't count. Even NT manages to stay up if you don't stress it.)
2.4 is vaporware.
There are no 2.5 unstable kernals yet.
Different kind of vaporware.
>>On topic with the original subject, however, I don't think anybody will be successful in forcing Microsoft to adhere to open standards. They can't do Kerberos right and they have a long history of nodding and saying they are going to do just what you ask them to, and then doing something else. Microsoft WANTS vendor lockin, and they NEED it for their business model to work. And they will continue to fight being brought into a competitive marketplace with every tool at their disposal, including out and out lies and disregard for government orders.
Yep. Microsoft was at the right place at the right time, but I don't think they _can_ compete on a level playing field.
Agreed, except that the file formats for ALL office applications should be open. Essentially, he who owns the format own the data.
Label Microsoft Office as NON-STANDARD SOFTWARE.