There is no computer science without programming. There is no mathematics without calculators.
You can have computer science without programming. You can have mathematics without calculations. Programming without computer science tends to be limited. Calculations without mathematics tends to be limited.
You can learn to do things by rote, but it works much better if you understand why it works.
The only way to get more bang for the buck for a fixed amount of bandwidth is to come up with more efficient coding schemes. True if you are limited to measuring signals at only *one* point. If you throw two rocks in a pond, you can readily observe two different sets of waves with exactly the same frequency and encoding.
Shannon's theory tells us there is maximum amount of information that can be transmitted over any one channel There is a theoretical limit to how much information can be transmitted over any one channel of fixed width and signal to noise ration. How close are we to 100% of that theoretical limit?
But a mathematician who knows the difference between open set and closed set would not mixing up the two. Discrete topology. All sets are open. Therefore all sets are closed.
For any given degree of precision desired, there *is* a rational number that is within that precision of pi. ( Worse, between any two different irrational numbers, there is an infinity of rational numbers;-)
Unless you are approaching Shannon's limit in terms of bit rate signal and noise, there should be considerable room for improvement. How to go forward is way beyond my limited knowledge (but seems like static-free AM reception was possible about 40 years ago). Going backwards is real easy. Morse Code on a spark gap.
Works pretty well too. First, it's always Microsoft's fault. Second, look around to find out why it's Microsoft. If I can't find out why it's Microsoft's fault, well I'm not that good at what I do. Principle of the scapegoat. It's not the user's fault. It's not the sysadmins's fault. It's Microsoft's fault.
I'd be curious as to how much of that "unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security" came from Berkeley and MIT instead of from AT&T. At some point the norm was to obtain the license from AT&T and the program itself from Berkeley. Without the same kind of processes that have made Linux, UNIX would never have shown up as any viable commercial operating system .
That's why it's funny! Sorry. (For whatever reason, it seems that +5 Funny outranks everything else around here. Something to do with poetic as opposed to prosaic, I guess;)
I think you're confusing the USERS with the APPLICATION. The application is responsible for it's default settings. Unless and until all packages and all advertisements have big warning labels that reconfiguration is required before use, the application gets the blame.
Conservation of angular momentum. Stand up. The world slows down. Sit down. The world speeds up. To make any apreciable difference, you need something massive. Like... the atmosphere.
Can you imagine a cookout that tries to make "open sauce," which tries to accomodate the tastes of the whole group? You've got that one backwards. A lot of different Open Sauces, and you know what's in each one of them. Microsoft is trying to make one closed sauce for everybody and God only knows what's in it.
Box du jour syndrome. Due to peculiarities in the particular hardware and bios and in the particular detection of that hardware, things work or not with no easily discernable rhyme or reason. At one point I had two versions of RedHat and two computers. One version would install on one computer and not the other. The other version would install on the other computer but not the first. One advantage of old versions is that you can get something usable running without much effort or knowledge.
With Sun, HP & IBM, I get a bunch of suits who show up to soothe management every time there's an outage, large or small. Yep, and that's over and above what it takes to actually fix the problem. Fast. And see that it never happens again. When you have the applications that matter, and the financial resources to ensure that they run and run well, it doesn't matter that you can 99% for 1% of the cost. When you require 4-9's or 5-9's of uptime That's uptime in that environment. I think the decimal place get moved in several dimensions simultaneously, so adding another 9 is not nearly as simple as it would first appear.
My impression is that neither IBM nor Sun would ever resist the opportunity to take pot shots at each other. However I think both are very aware that being #1 is much better if there is a very strong #2. Sun would be remiss to not take this opportunity to grab a few headlines. This could turn into a tar baby, but the end result is most likely SCO being tarred and feathered.
watch out! Methinks they do. Possibly to the point of overdoing it. Just because the maintainer can accept a patch from anybody doesn't mean that the maintainer will accept a patch from anybody. Somehow I doubt that there are any maintainers so gullible as to accept any patch that says "trust me". Actually open source is dangerous, to closed source, that is. Let's say I find a significant bug in MySQL. First, noone is going to just take my word for it, so I need to at least get to where I can duplicate the problem easily. Then I make some sort of patch that makes the problem go away. Now since my patch is probably not all that great and I don't want to have to keep repeating the experience (plus any altruistic motives), the real work begins. Repeat over a few years, and closed source is not competitive.
Amazing how close you can be to something important and just...not...quite...get it. Nothing is harder than seeing the obvious. At least until it...is... obvious. If you explore everything that doesn't quite make sense, you're quickly lost in an (infinite?) depth-first tree search. O.T. Mathematics is easy. Everything else is vastly more complicated.
Well if they had it in 2000 they lost it in XP. As I keep explaining to my users, Microsoft has extreme difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Ok, I'll bite. Yes, the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. That's because a straight line is *THE* path between the two points with the shortest distance. (You can have some fun with equivalence classes if there's more than of of 'em;) A straight line on a 3-d sphere goes through the sphere, not on the surface. A straight line on a 2-d surface of a sphere will not look straight when projected onto a flat map. A straight line on a Mercator projection is not the shortest distance on the represented 2d-surface, but does have the advantage that you can pick a heading, stay on it, and get there eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no computer science without programming.
There is no mathematics without calculators.
You can have computer science without programming.
You can have mathematics without calculations.
Programming without computer science tends to be limited.
Calculations without mathematics tends to be limited.
You can learn to do things by rote, but it works much better if you understand why it works.
The only way to get more bang for the buck for a fixed amount of bandwidth is to come up with more efficient coding schemes.
True if you are limited to measuring signals at only *one* point.
If you throw two rocks in a pond, you can readily observe two different sets of waves with exactly the same frequency and encoding.
Shannon's theory tells us there is maximum amount of information that can be transmitted over any one channel
There is a theoretical limit to how much information can be transmitted over any one channel of fixed width and signal to noise ration. How close are we to 100% of that theoretical limit?
But a mathematician who knows the difference between open set and closed set would not mixing up the two.
Discrete topology. All sets are open. Therefore all sets are closed.
For any given degree of precision desired, there *is* a rational number that is within that precision of pi. ( Worse, between any two different irrational numbers, there is an infinity of rational numbers ;-)
Unless you are approaching Shannon's limit in terms of bit rate signal and noise, there should be considerable room for improvement. How to go forward is way beyond my limited knowledge (but seems like static-free AM reception was possible about 40 years ago). Going backwards is real easy. Morse Code on a spark gap.
Works pretty well too.
First, it's always Microsoft's fault.
Second, look around to find out why it's Microsoft.
If I can't find out why it's Microsoft's fault, well I'm not that good at what I do.
Principle of the scapegoat. It's not the user's fault. It's not the sysadmins's fault. It's Microsoft's fault.
I'd be curious as to how much of that "unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security" came from Berkeley and MIT instead of from AT&T.
At some point the norm was to obtain the license from AT&T and the program itself from Berkeley. Without the same kind of processes that have made Linux, UNIX would never have shown up as any viable commercial operating system .
And "steel" the car. ;-)
Maybe it was fiberglass.
Then nail them for insider trading. After Enron, they'd make pretty decent fall-guys.
Was.
World domination. Samba is perceived as definitive and Microsoft as the cheap rip-off. Natural mistake.
Imagine life *before* fsck. Hand editing the file system to get everything back right again.
That's why it's funny! Sorry.
(For whatever reason, it seems that +5 Funny outranks everything else around here. Something to do with poetic as opposed to prosaic, I guess;)
I think you're confusing the USERS with the APPLICATION. The application is responsible for it's default settings. Unless and until all packages and all advertisements have big warning labels that reconfiguration is required before use, the application gets the blame.
Conservation of angular momentum. ... the atmosphere.
Stand up. The world slows down.
Sit down. The world speeds up.
To make any apreciable difference, you need something massive. Like
Can you imagine a cookout that tries to make "open sauce," which tries to accomodate the tastes of the whole group?
You've got that one backwards. A lot of different Open Sauces, and you know what's in each one of them. Microsoft is trying to make one closed sauce for everybody and God only knows what's in it.
Box du jour syndrome. Due to peculiarities in the particular hardware and bios and in the particular detection of that hardware, things work or not with no easily discernable rhyme or reason. At one point I had two versions of RedHat and two computers. One version would install on one computer and not the other. The other version would install on the other computer but not the first.
One advantage of old versions is that you can get something usable running without much effort or knowledge.
With Sun, HP & IBM, I get a bunch of suits who show up to soothe management every time there's an outage, large or small.
Yep, and that's over and above what it takes to actually fix the problem. Fast. And see that it never happens again.
When you have the applications that matter, and the financial resources to ensure that they run and run well, it doesn't matter that you can 99% for 1% of the cost.
When you require 4-9's or 5-9's of uptime
That's uptime in that environment. I think the decimal place get moved in several dimensions simultaneously, so adding another 9 is not nearly as simple as it would first appear.
My impression is that neither IBM nor Sun would ever resist the opportunity to take pot shots at each other. However I think both are very aware that being #1 is much better if there is a very strong #2. Sun would be remiss to not take this opportunity to grab a few headlines. This could turn into a tar baby, but the end result is most likely SCO being tarred and feathered.
watch out!
Methinks they do. Possibly to the point of overdoing it.
Just because the maintainer can accept a patch from anybody doesn't mean that the maintainer will accept a patch from anybody. Somehow I doubt that there are any maintainers so gullible as to accept any patch that says "trust me".
Actually open source is dangerous, to closed source, that is. Let's say I find a significant bug in MySQL. First, noone is going to just take my word for it, so I need to at least get to where I can duplicate the problem easily. Then I make some sort of patch that makes the problem go away. Now since my patch is probably not all that great and I don't want to have to keep repeating the experience (plus any altruistic motives), the real work begins. Repeat over a few years, and closed source is not competitive.
Amazing how close you can be to something important and just...not...quite...get it. ...is... obvious.
Nothing is harder than seeing the obvious. At least until it
If you explore everything that doesn't quite make sense, you're quickly lost in an (infinite?) depth-first tree search.
O.T. Mathematics is easy. Everything else is vastly more complicated.
Well if they had it in 2000 they lost it in XP. As I keep explaining to my users, Microsoft has extreme difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Ok, I'll bite. Yes, the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. That's because a straight line is *THE* path between the two points with the shortest distance. (You can have some fun with equivalence classes if there's more than of of 'em;) A straight line on a 3-d sphere goes through the sphere, not on the surface. A straight line on a 2-d surface of a sphere will not look straight when projected onto a flat map. A straight line on a Mercator projection is not the shortest distance on the represented 2d-surface, but does have the advantage that you can pick a heading, stay on it, and get there eventually.
Good points. I was being unfair to ghost towns.