I though I was weird. She's a freaking hag (last saw her on the last Robot Wars that was on terrestrial telly). I'm glad I'm not alone with this view.
Back on topic - whoever made the decision to scrap TW should be _shot_. It's a fucking _institution_, like Blue Peter. (I can still remember some of the snippets of the opening sequence back from the past - anyone remember that black magnetic liquid which would form peaks in a field? Well freaky.)
For consistency, I'd hope that if you hover over a.doc file it pulls up openoffice, or if you hover over a.html it pulls up mozilla, or if you hover over a link in a webpage it follows that link (recursively of course). I can just imagine it - if a page is slow to load and you go and make a cup of tea you come back and you're 80 pages away from where you wanted to be, and you've requested the brochures, filled in god knows how many forms, accepted several "yes I agree to let you stick electrodes up my arse" etc. etc. etc.
What if apple had had that idea... What if your mouse hovered near the trash-can...
If some things activate with a hover and other things don't then you've b0rked the UI IMHO. I wonder what Tog would say about such things. http://www.asktog.com/
""" I'm actually an advocate of linux on the desktop (yes I am) and it seems those points you mentionned don't make much sense, here's why. """
You're not the only one...
""" - Linux GUIs are faster and faster at each version. Gnome2 for example was totally re-coded with performance in mind and behaves much better now, KDE 3.1 (still a release candidate but still) on this box is working SO much faster than XP did on the SAME box ! """
The bizarre thing is that 'doze GUIs have been getting _slower_ over time. People want _slow_. They want their menus to gracefully slide down, or roll down, or fade in, or whatever fucking woopie-doo effect some drug-crazed MS programmer has come up with. (and I don't mean good drugs like dope or acid, I mean bad drugs like draino.)
So what is the target anyway, slick, or schlock?
If it's the latter, then why are linux developers even _aiming_ for it?
""" Ah, the young who don't know of the days when IBM was Microsoft, with all the DOJ attention that implies. The phrase 'IBM and the seven dwarves' was coined for a reason. """
Exactly. "Big Blue" says it all, really. Don't think that IBM are doing anything for Linux, they're doing it for IBM, and it just happens to benefit Linux as a side effect. They may well be doing it piss off MS, as there's certainly _no_ love lost between them.
Could you clarify a bit better when in the "early 80s" that you used this acronym? Microsoft was calling Windows "Windows" in 1984 """
1983/4, and the textbook we used was second-hand, I remember getting it off a guy in the year above me, but apart from that was pretty recent, so from 1982/3.
""" Something called "windows" may be an element of a product, but that doesn't equal it being a generic name for a product. """
Let's agree to disagree. From where I stand, "Windows" is about as generic as you can get.
When I was at school in the early 80s, we were told all about the "WIMP" paradigm for graphical user interfaces. The "W" stood for Windows. (Icons, Menus, Pointers, or some other shite like that for the other three letters.)
This predates MS Windows. It's _why_ they called it windows.
Similarly they had previously called DOS "DOS", because it was a Disk Operating System, rather than calling it "chimney pot". The name was unimaginative, and purely descriptive. A truly generic term. The trademark is a farce.
I remember a long time back when fvwm first came out in its fvwm95 incarnation Microsoft went ballistic, and ordered them to remove the icons that had been so blatently lifted from the W95 GUI.
Maybe, but I think they have another weapon that they can use, and have used in the past - the old "embrace and extend".
I think they'll deliberately add new features, distribute a new development environment that always choses the newest way of doing things, thus forcing all new animations/games/etc. to be non-viewable on older kit.
I think that it was ony good for mini-putt games anyway, so I won't really miss it. Apart from mini-putt, that is.
Case 6: """ Music that is used by natural-born persons in the United States and other nations which we have treaties with should be exempted for all... blah blah blah """
What about people born via C-section - don't they have rights too?
If you like the simplicity of gimmick-free text-mode browsing, then you might want to try 'w3m' or 'links'.
w3m in an x-term is, erm, surprising, almost spooky. (I won't spoil it if you've not already seen it).
links does have javascript if you desperately need it, and will happily run in a terminal or as a graphical window, if it detects X.
Personally, I run with no Java, no JavaScript, and no plugins, and - as an academic wanting to use the internet as a resource for information - find my browsing experience is hardly hampered at all.
I've only ever seen pop-ups on other people's machines. They think I'm lame for being so behind the times - I think they're lame for chosing their seriously encumbered browsing habits. So we're even, I guess.
OK, let's look at the most extreme one: (Duron 900, only gcc)
Complex 20000 0.2 1.5 640.0 105.3 6.1
The 6:1 ratio of C/C++ Complex on gcc is partly because operator+ and operator* take 2 Complex parameters. I changed that to Complex const& and the 6:1 becomes 2:1
Complex 20000 0.3 0.5 615.4 296.3 2.1
Then if you write an operator+= rather than the "a = a + b" operator+ in the code you get
Complex 20000 0.2 0.2 640.0 695.7 0.9
There you go - a factor of 7 speed increase.
THL, available for hire as a freelance programmer.
On one of my Debian systems I have _zero_ CD player apps, and _zero_ clocks. OK, I have 3 editors, but they have different features for different jobs. (vi for quick/etc/passwd mods, jed for quick text/code edits, and emacs if I know I'm going to want to open up a shell and a debugger while editing).
To be honest I don't know what base he used for the calculations. However, storage space is cheaper than CPU time, and so now he's got it in base 10 it makes sense to just store that base 10 version. If he has it in binary too, that again, he should dump that too.
And then it's easier to always access the version that's more appropriate.
People like looking for '1234567890' and stuff like that in Pi, so it does make sense to have a base 10 version. Assuming anything to do with it makes "sense"!
The proof is about 100 years old. One famous prover was the infamous "Bourbaki" (who wasn't a single person, it was a pseudonym used by a secret society of mathematicians) I don't believe this has any "oh wow" to it, but here's a pretty typical statement of the proof: http://www.math.clemson.edu/~rsimms/neat/m ath/pipr oof.html
Numerically, it has no mathematical use at all. It's fun as an exercise in algorithm designing, optimising the parallelism of these supercomputers, and I guess that could make it a momentous engineering feat. However, it wouldn't have needed to be the digits of Pi that they calculate in order to accomplish that feat.
What the heck is your calculation supposed to calculate?
1.24T characters = 1.24TB at 1 character per byte.
Simple as that.
The data _could_ be represented as 4.12Tb = 515GB if it were converted to binary. However, you _really_ don't want to do radix conversion on numbers that large if you have the chance of avoiding it.
If you wanted to store it in packed decimal instead: 2 digits/byte (PBCD) : 620GB (4 digits/short likewise) 9 digits/word : 551GB 19 digits/64bits : 522GB
So you can get within 1% of the minimum size (515GB) simply by packing the digits into 64bit words in chunks of 19 digits.
(256bit chunks could hold 77 digits, and compress the size down to 515.3GB, which is.1% wastage)
Slashdot Mirror
Own up - you touched yourself.
Pervert.
THL.
I though I was weird. She's a freaking hag (last saw her on the last Robot Wars that was on terrestrial telly). I'm glad I'm not alone with this view.
Back on topic - whoever made the decision to scrap TW should be _shot_. It's a fucking _institution_, like Blue Peter.
(I can still remember some of the snippets of the opening sequence back from the past - anyone remember that black magnetic liquid which would form peaks in a field? Well freaky.)
THL.
For consistency, I'd hope that if you hover over a .doc file it pulls up openoffice, or if you hover over a .html it pulls up mozilla, or if you hover over a link in a webpage it follows that link (recursively of course).
I can just imagine it - if a page is slow to load and you go and make a cup of tea you come back and you're 80 pages away from where you wanted to be, and you've requested the brochures, filled in god knows how many forms, accepted several "yes I agree to let you stick electrodes up my arse" etc. etc. etc.
What if apple had had that idea...
What if your mouse hovered near the trash-can...
If some things activate with a hover and other things don't then you've b0rked the UI IMHO. I wonder what Tog would say about such things. http://www.asktog.com/
"""
I'm actually an advocate of linux on the desktop (yes I am) and it seems those points you mentionned don't make much sense, here's why.
"""
You're not the only one...
"""
- Linux GUIs are faster and faster at each version. Gnome2 for example was totally re-coded with performance in mind and behaves much better now, KDE 3.1 (still a release candidate but still) on this box is working SO much faster than XP did on the SAME box !
"""
The bizarre thing is that 'doze GUIs have been getting _slower_ over time. People want _slow_. They want their menus to gracefully slide down, or roll down, or fade in, or whatever fucking woopie-doo effect some drug-crazed MS programmer has come up with.
(and I don't mean good drugs like dope or acid, I mean bad drugs like draino.)
So what is the target anyway, slick, or schlock?
If it's the latter, then why are linux developers even _aiming_ for it?
THL, where 'L' _proudly_ stands for Luddite.
"""
Ah, the young who don't know of the days when IBM was Microsoft, with all the DOJ attention that implies. The phrase 'IBM and the seven dwarves' was coined for a reason.
"""
Exactly. "Big Blue" says it all, really.
Don't think that IBM are doing anything for Linux, they're doing it for IBM, and it just happens to benefit Linux as a side effect.
They may well be doing it piss off MS, as there's certainly _no_ love lost between them.
THL.
Mitnick will be able to use the internet again on January 20th.
THL.
Happy new year. Sorry, I think I was pissed when I posted my previous reply. (And I'm UK-ish, so that doesn't mean I was angry!)
THL
"""
early 80s
Could you clarify a bit better when in the "early 80s" that you used this acronym? Microsoft was calling Windows "Windows" in 1984
"""
1983/4, and the textbook we used was second-hand, I remember getting it off a guy in the year above me, but apart from that was pretty recent, so from 1982/3.
"""
Something called "windows" may be an element of a product, but that doesn't equal it being a generic name for a product.
"""
Let's agree to disagree. From where I stand, "Windows" is about as generic as you can get.
THL.
That's _not_ irony.
THL.
When I was at school in the early 80s, we were told all about the "WIMP" paradigm for graphical user interfaces. The "W" stood for Windows.
(Icons, Menus, Pointers, or some other shite like that for the other three letters.)
This predates MS Windows. It's _why_ they called it windows.
Similarly they had previously called DOS "DOS", because it was a Disk Operating System, rather than calling it "chimney pot". The name was unimaginative, and purely descriptive. A truly generic term. The trademark is a farce.
THL.
I remember a long time back when fvwm first came out in its fvwm95 incarnation Microsoft went ballistic, and ordered them to remove the icons that had been so blatently lifted from the W95 GUI.
THL.
Maybe, but I think they have another weapon that they can use, and have used in the past - the old "embrace and extend".
I think they'll deliberately add new features, distribute a new development environment that always choses the newest way of doing things, thus forcing all new animations/games/etc. to be non-viewable on older kit.
I think that it was ony good for mini-putt games anyway, so I won't really miss it. Apart from mini-putt, that is.
THL.
Case 6: ... blah blah blah
"""
Music that is used by natural-born persons in the United States and other nations which we have treaties with should be exempted for all
"""
What about people born via C-section - don't they have rights too?
THL.
Debian, and I'm sure many other distros also have a 'privoxy' package, which is highly configurable shite-removing proxy.
It's fairly mature, and really does the business.
THL.
If you like the simplicity of gimmick-free text-mode browsing, then you might want to try 'w3m' or 'links'.
w3m in an x-term is, erm, surprising, almost spooky. (I won't spoil it if you've not already seen it).
links does have javascript if you desperately need it, and will happily run in a terminal or as a graphical window, if it detects X.
Personally, I run with no Java, no JavaScript, and no plugins, and - as an academic wanting to use the internet as a resource for information - find my browsing experience is hardly hampered at all.
I've only ever seen pop-ups on other people's machines. They think I'm lame for being so behind the times - I think they're lame for chosing their seriously encumbered browsing habits. So we're even, I guess.
THL.
OK, let's look at the most extreme one:
(Duron 900, only gcc)
Complex 20000 0.2 1.5 640.0 105.3 6.1
The 6:1 ratio of C/C++ Complex on gcc is partly because operator+ and operator* take 2 Complex parameters. I changed that to Complex const& and the 6:1 becomes 2:1
Complex 20000 0.3 0.5 615.4 296.3 2.1
Then if you write an operator+= rather than the
"a = a + b" operator+ in the code you get
Complex 20000 0.2 0.2 640.0 695.7 0.9
There you go - a factor of 7 speed increase.
THL, available for hire as a freelance programmer.
900MHz Duron. ./step_gcc
Total absolute time: 3.21 sec
Abstraction Penalty: 0.95
So the more abstracted code is _faster_?!?!?
(I reran half a dozen times, I never got any results >1.0 from any of the 12 tests)
THL
But you're only saying that because you've got a life.
THL.
"""
/loan/ can be arranged, if you know what I mean.)
/you/ of course, but 'them'.
Drug addicts, can eventually become wrapped up enough in the life style, that they can become dealers, or sometimes get freebees.
"""
You know shit. addicts _never_ get freebies.
Once they're addicted thy _always_ pay. (sure, a
It's the people you're trying to _hook_ that you give freebies to.
Not
THL.
"""
/etc/passwd mods, jed for quick text/code edits, and emacs if I know I'm going to want to open up a shell and a debugger while editing).
Debian is already extremely bloated.
"""
You're either an idiot troll, or you're an idiot.
On one of my Debian systems I have _zero_ CD player apps, and _zero_ clocks. OK, I have 3 editors, but they have different features for different jobs. (vi for quick
THL.
To be honest I don't know what base he used for the calculations. However, storage space is cheaper than CPU time, and so now he's got it in base 10 it makes sense to just store that base 10 version. If he has it in binary too, that again, he should dump that too.
And then it's easier to always access the version that's more appropriate.
People like looking for '1234567890' and stuff like that in Pi, so it does make sense to have a base 10 version. Assuming anything to do with it makes "sense"!
THL.
Re the US/Japan issue - I was watching the "Ladder to Heaven" Southpark episode last night.
This reminded me of it more than just a little bit.
To explain it would spoilt it - give it a watch.
THL.
The proof is about 100 years old.m ath/pipr oof.html
One famous prover was the infamous "Bourbaki" (who wasn't a single person, it was a pseudonym used by a secret society of mathematicians)
I don't believe this has any "oh wow" to it, but here's a pretty typical statement of the proof:
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~rsimms/neat/
THL.
Numerically, it has no mathematical use at all. It's fun as an exercise in algorithm designing, optimising the parallelism of these supercomputers, and I guess that could make it a momentous engineering feat. However, it wouldn't have needed to be the digits of Pi that they calculate in order to accomplish that feat.
THL.
What the heck is your calculation supposed to calculate?
.1% wastage)
1.24T characters = 1.24TB
at 1 character per byte.
Simple as that.
The data _could_ be represented as 4.12Tb = 515GB if it were converted to binary.
However, you _really_ don't want to do radix conversion on numbers that large if you have the chance of avoiding it.
If you wanted to store it in packed decimal instead:
2 digits/byte (PBCD) : 620GB
(4 digits/short likewise)
9 digits/word : 551GB
19 digits/64bits : 522GB
So you can get within 1% of the minimum size (515GB) simply by packing the digits into 64bit words in chunks of 19 digits.
(256bit chunks could hold 77 digits, and compress the size down to 515.3GB, which is
THL.