What X11 does is blit the entire damn window over the network.
No, not unless you're using the crappy toolkit from hell or trying to do compositing without hardware support. Usually X11 works by sending higher-level instructions like "draw a line from A to B".
HTML+AJAX is doing now what X11 should've been doing 20 years ago.
Solving a different problem through the addition of horrible hacks and a security arms race? O RLY?
I don't know enough about Citrix or WTS to know how thin their client is, but I'm betting it's a lot thinner than X11.
It's quite possible to slim things down by making more assumptions, resulting in less portable applications. I'd not rush to declare that this makes one better than the other though; X11's stood the passage of time remarkably well compared with other things of the same vintage (let alone the products you mention, which came much later and could hence incorporate a lot of experience).
Those who don't understand exactly what X11 does are doomed to rubbish it and, by doing so, look foolish.
What does suck is if you're a bunch of guys in a share house, say a nice uperclass pad with well paid guys in there, all geeks, say 4 of you, then 250gb could start to be a problem.
Sounds like a reasonable justification for getting a non-basic service. But it's your money...
I have no idea where people are getting the idea parallel is dead. Most these busses mentioned are parallel.
If I remember right, the problem with wide parallel buses is that it's very hard to get the synch between the lines right unless you hold the bus at level for a long time (slowing it down). What Intel might be doing instead is putting serial buses in parallel so that there's no need to have very tight synch between them...
If you need to search through your 100GB of indexed documents, you want to be able to transparently break up that search query over multiple machines.
Actually, it's building the index of the documents that is especially computationally intensive. Particularly chunky is the algorithm to assign a significance score to each document. Once you've done that, actual searching can then be done by merging streams of information suitably, which it is pretty easy to do fast.
Seriously, after Mattel, VW and Sony, how many examples do managers need to figure out that low-cost labor can be very costly?
It's not necessarily low-cost labor as it is low-cost materials used in those batteries.
That doesn't change the fact that it is the cheap-ass managements (on both sides) that are to blame. If you go to the cheapest supplier, you'd best be prepared for the quality to be terrible. Whether that is because of dodgy materials or incompetent staff (or both) doesn't really matter.
If it's good enough to secure the loads of personal information that's sure to be contained in said records, than why don't our banks employ such a system?
Oh that's an easy one. Banks don't do that because they reckon it is cheaper to reimburse people for the actions of fraudsters after the fact. It a sad day when doing the obviously fair and right thing is rejected on cost grounds; obviously the value of being honest is underrated by banks. I just so wish I was surprised.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore relativistic effects.
The beauty of special relativity is that you don't have to ignore relativistic effects; apply those Lorentz Transforms and you get the same answer whatever frame you make your measurements in. This is a very important trick indeed.
> If you want a comparable situation, think of throwing a turkey at 100mph at a parked car. I guarantee you that car's not going to come out looking to good.
Is that a frozen or thawed turkey??
That reminds me of the story about when they were testing high speed electric trains for what happens when a bird-strike occurs. To do this, they got hold of a linear accelerator, put a turkey in it, and fired it at the front of the train, head on. The bird went straight through the windscreen, the driver's seat, and embedded itself deep within the transformer block behind! To say that the train engineers were dismayed misses the point by a country mile, but they cheered up rather a lot when the realized that they'd forgotten to defrost the turkey first, and that repeating with a fresh bird resulted in a safe splat with no danger to human life.
Stop buying games, then. Not just *buying* them, but playing them too. Or make your purchases much more carefully. I did this years ago and haven't bought a PC game in that time, unless it was a non-DRM thing off a budget label.
You're wasting your time. If instead of playing games you were to spend the time writing free software, the world would be a better place and you'd feel good about yourself more.
As long as power use is built into the fixed price I pay for the cabinet I rent at the colo, I'll never turn off my servers if I don't need to. Why would I?
That's why power (or at least power over a certain basic level) shouldn't be part of the fixed price. This is a good thing from a colo operator PoV because their costs are dominated mostly by power: getting the power into the datacenter, and shipping the heat produced by it back out. (Yes, that power almost all becomes heat.) If your colo provider moved to a non-fixed price power regime and you cut your consumption sensibly, you wouldn't be paying so much for that colo.
In short: if you're getting that power as part of the fixed price, you're paying too much.
It seems that the NIH/NSF could invest in a National Software Institute that provides developers for academic projects. The trick would be not to become a typical consulting shop and instead develop long term relationships with the labs while building out shared frameworks/toolchains/(pick your favorite abstraction technique) that can be used across similar projects. It would also be important to hire developers who were interested in science and would take the time to understand the domain they're supporting. And, it would be essential to develop reliable QA and validation practices to ensure that the science they're supporting is reproducible (something that most people I've worked with agree is lacking in most scientific software).
It might be worth looking at the model used in OMII-UK and OMII-Europe, which are government-funded virtual institutes for taking software produced in research projects and improving the quality to the point where the software is usable by other projects or commercially. Of course, you'd want to have a broader scope than just middleware, but it would seem that the model they follow is reasonably successful without being unduly burdensome on taxpayers, researchers or commercial companies.
(No, most scientific software output isn't ever going to be suitable for turning into something that most people can use. It's usually far too special-purpose for that. And most scientists aren't in any way software engineers. There is a real difference of attitude.)
I think online gaming would be excellent for someone feeling lonely and depressed.
The ping times in space are absolutely terrible, due to the finite speed of light and the large distances involved. (For example, the light-delay to Mars varies - due to the differing orbits - between 3.1 and 22.5 minutes! Or so Google claims.)
An electron and a positron usually react to produce two photons (never just one). Sometimes other particles such as neutrinos are produced.
If my scanty topology is correct, a loop intersecting a plane will (normally) do so at two points.
But realistically, it's probably not a good idea to try to reason about superstrings by analogy with normal 3D entities. After all, it's pretty tricky to just go from 2D to 3D, and strings have rather a lot more dimensions than that...
That is *truly* retarded to use the (almost?) universal escape character for another reason.
The most retarded namespace separator EVER was in Perl4. What exactly possessed Larry Wall to use ' (i.e. single quote) for that purpose as well as for uninterpolated strings, I'll never know. Nor do I know whether he shared what he was smoking at the time. But this sticks in the mind; I've written code that depended on it.
The problem is that the user couldn't find a file. The solution is a better INTERFACE - this has absolutly nothing to do with the file system!
I agree with you. To make file systems work for average users, what you want is this: full text searching on the contents (plus name, tags and other metadata) and an index that updates as soon as the file is saved. Possibly with some smarts on parsing the query, though Google demonstrates that you don't need that much there. This then needs to be integrated into the standard open dialog, and apps need to use the standard dialog rather than rolling their own (I suppose we ought to have a few open dialogs, e.g. one for "text" files and another for images). The vision then is that users can search for it using what they remember about it: this will work better than anything else since it doesn't assume the operator has a tidy mind.
BTW, the "update the index immediately on saving" part is important; too often I've seen users close a document and then immediately think "ooh, I didn't mean to do that". This means that you can't put off the update until a cron job, and you hence need incremental update of the search database. (It's this that Spotlight on OSX gets wrong too.)
As you say, none of this has anything to do with actual filesystems; you could even do it with FAT12 (though that's a horrible horrible FS!) This is all about applications and how they present the FS to the user. (I'd not present the actual directory structure by default; it doesn't help the untidy minded and the tidy can click/shortcut to reveal the structure.)
Do you honestly expect ANY customer to pay you if you solve their problem in less than a minute?
For an individual solution? No. For being available, ready to dispense such solutions? Yes. (It's called User Support, and many people work doing just that.)
Slashdot Mirror
What X11 does is blit the entire damn window over the network.
No, not unless you're using the crappy toolkit from hell or trying to do compositing without hardware support. Usually X11 works by sending higher-level instructions like "draw a line from A to B".
HTML+AJAX is doing now what X11 should've been doing 20 years ago.
Solving a different problem through the addition of horrible hacks and a security arms race? O RLY?
I don't know enough about Citrix or WTS to know how thin their client is, but I'm betting it's a lot thinner than X11.
It's quite possible to slim things down by making more assumptions, resulting in less portable applications. I'd not rush to declare that this makes one better than the other though; X11's stood the passage of time remarkably well compared with other things of the same vintage (let alone the products you mention, which came much later and could hence incorporate a lot of experience).
Those who don't understand exactly what X11 does are doomed to rubbish it and, by doing so, look foolish.
What does suck is if you're a bunch of guys in a share house, say a nice uperclass pad with well paid guys in there, all geeks, say 4 of you, then 250gb could start to be a problem.
Sounds like a reasonable justification for getting a non-basic service. But it's your money...
I have no idea where people are getting the idea parallel is dead. Most these busses mentioned are parallel.
If I remember right, the problem with wide parallel buses is that it's very hard to get the synch between the lines right unless you hold the bus at level for a long time (slowing it down). What Intel might be doing instead is putting serial buses in parallel so that there's no need to have very tight synch between them...
What is a GT/s? (Honest question, looking for an honest answer.)
Giga-Transfers per second (or at least that's what google found).
If you need to search through your 100GB of indexed documents, you want to be able to transparently break up that search query over multiple machines.
Actually, it's building the index of the documents that is especially computationally intensive. Particularly chunky is the algorithm to assign a significance score to each document. Once you've done that, actual searching can then be done by merging streams of information suitably, which it is pretty easy to do fast.
Seriously, after Mattel, VW and Sony, how many examples do managers need to figure out that low-cost labor can be very costly?
It's not necessarily low-cost labor as it is low-cost materials used in those batteries.
That doesn't change the fact that it is the cheap-ass managements (on both sides) that are to blame. If you go to the cheapest supplier, you'd best be prepared for the quality to be terrible. Whether that is because of dodgy materials or incompetent staff (or both) doesn't really matter.
If it's good enough to secure the loads of personal information that's sure to be contained in said records, than why don't our banks employ such a system?
Oh that's an easy one. Banks don't do that because they reckon it is cheaper to reimburse people for the actions of fraudsters after the fact. It a sad day when doing the obviously fair and right thing is rejected on cost grounds; obviously the value of being honest is underrated by banks. I just so wish I was surprised.
It's Darth Jobs all over again.
"I find your lack of Objective-C... disturbing."
For the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore relativistic effects.
The beauty of special relativity is that you don't have to ignore relativistic effects; apply those Lorentz Transforms and you get the same answer whatever frame you make your measurements in. This is a very important trick indeed.
> If you want a comparable situation, think of throwing a turkey at 100mph at a parked car. I guarantee you that car's not going to come out looking to good.
Is that a frozen or thawed turkey??
That reminds me of the story about when they were testing high speed electric trains for what happens when a bird-strike occurs. To do this, they got hold of a linear accelerator, put a turkey in it, and fired it at the front of the train, head on. The bird went straight through the windscreen, the driver's seat, and embedded itself deep within the transformer block behind! To say that the train engineers were dismayed misses the point by a country mile, but they cheered up rather a lot when the realized that they'd forgotten to defrost the turkey first, and that repeating with a fresh bird resulted in a safe splat with no danger to human life.
I'll let someone else karma-whore with the link.
Is idiocy a prerequisite for getting mod points?
No, but it helps! After all, I've been modded up quite a few times over the years...
Stop buying games, then. Not just *buying* them, but playing them too. Or make your purchases much more carefully. I did this years ago and haven't bought a PC game in that time, unless it was a non-DRM thing off a budget label.
You're wasting your time. If instead of playing games you were to spend the time writing free software, the world would be a better place and you'd feel good about yourself more.
As long as power use is built into the fixed price I pay for the cabinet I rent at the colo, I'll never turn off my servers if I don't need to. Why would I?
That's why power (or at least power over a certain basic level) shouldn't be part of the fixed price. This is a good thing from a colo operator PoV because their costs are dominated mostly by power: getting the power into the datacenter, and shipping the heat produced by it back out. (Yes, that power almost all becomes heat.) If your colo provider moved to a non-fixed price power regime and you cut your consumption sensibly, you wouldn't be paying so much for that colo.
In short: if you're getting that power as part of the fixed price, you're paying too much.
Is that what they call the XML solution?
With XML, you can just mod the syntax -1 Redundant. It doesn't work like that with financial crises...
It seems that the NIH/NSF could invest in a National Software Institute that provides developers for academic projects. The trick would be not to become a typical consulting shop and instead develop long term relationships with the labs while building out shared frameworks/toolchains/(pick your favorite abstraction technique) that can be used across similar projects. It would also be important to hire developers who were interested in science and would take the time to understand the domain they're supporting. And, it would be essential to develop reliable QA and validation practices to ensure that the science they're supporting is reproducible (something that most people I've worked with agree is lacking in most scientific software).
It might be worth looking at the model used in OMII-UK and OMII-Europe, which are government-funded virtual institutes for taking software produced in research projects and improving the quality to the point where the software is usable by other projects or commercially. Of course, you'd want to have a broader scope than just middleware, but it would seem that the model they follow is reasonably successful without being unduly burdensome on taxpayers, researchers or commercial companies.
(No, most scientific software output isn't ever going to be suitable for turning into something that most people can use. It's usually far too special-purpose for that. And most scientists aren't in any way software engineers. There is a real difference of attitude.)
Which gibbering simpleton tagged this UK-based story yourtaxDOLLARSatwork?
Correct tag is "yourtaxPOONDSatwork".
I think online gaming would be excellent for someone feeling lonely and depressed.
The ping times in space are absolutely terrible, due to the finite speed of light and the large distances involved. (For example, the light-delay to Mars varies - due to the differing orbits - between 3.1 and 22.5 minutes! Or so Google claims.)
They'd be better off having a LAN party.
Perhaps I should say that Palin would like this concept and simply leave it at that.
Sounds like a good idea if she's underneath when it launches.
An electron and a positron usually react to produce two photons (never just one). Sometimes other particles such as neutrinos are produced.
If my scanty topology is correct, a loop intersecting a plane will (normally) do so at two points.
But realistically, it's probably not a good idea to try to reason about superstrings by analogy with normal 3D entities. After all, it's pretty tricky to just go from 2D to 3D, and strings have rather a lot more dimensions than that...
Mod parent up please, Funny. (I don't want to remember DECnet...)
That is *truly* retarded to use the (almost?) universal escape character for another reason.
The most retarded namespace separator EVER was in Perl4. What exactly possessed Larry Wall to use ' (i.e. single quote) for that purpose as well as for uninterpolated strings, I'll never know. Nor do I know whether he shared what he was smoking at the time. But this sticks in the mind; I've written code that depended on it.
Perl5 uses :: instead. Far saner.
The problem is that the user couldn't find a file. The solution is a better INTERFACE - this has absolutly nothing to do with the file system!
I agree with you. To make file systems work for average users, what you want is this: full text searching on the contents (plus name, tags and other metadata) and an index that updates as soon as the file is saved. Possibly with some smarts on parsing the query, though Google demonstrates that you don't need that much there. This then needs to be integrated into the standard open dialog, and apps need to use the standard dialog rather than rolling their own (I suppose we ought to have a few open dialogs, e.g. one for "text" files and another for images). The vision then is that users can search for it using what they remember about it: this will work better than anything else since it doesn't assume the operator has a tidy mind.
BTW, the "update the index immediately on saving" part is important; too often I've seen users close a document and then immediately think "ooh, I didn't mean to do that". This means that you can't put off the update until a cron job, and you hence need incremental update of the search database. (It's this that Spotlight on OSX gets wrong too.)
As you say, none of this has anything to do with actual filesystems; you could even do it with FAT12 (though that's a horrible horrible FS!) This is all about applications and how they present the FS to the user. (I'd not present the actual directory structure by default; it doesn't help the untidy minded and the tidy can click/shortcut to reveal the structure.)
Do you honestly expect ANY customer to pay you if you solve their problem in less than a minute?
For an individual solution? No. For being available, ready to dispense such solutions? Yes. (It's called User Support, and many people work doing just that.)
ICANN screwed up initial allocations in the first place by not putting US domains in .us and global thigns in the gTLDs.
While it is a screwup, it's one that predates ICANN (1985 vs 1998). Blame where blame's due.
30,000 lines of Makefiles and build scripts. All of it avoidable by using Eclipse.
Mod parent up as Funny.