I mention this because it seems like I'm the one guy that always has to pop into "ban the phones" threads to remind people that some of us use cell phones for emergency purposes
Same here. The normal reply from kids who've never had a responsible job is that I should just stay home whenever I'm on call. I reply that as a sysadmin I'm pretty much always on call, and then the teen rebuts that I must get paid $BIGNUM so I should suck it up. Have I missed steps here?
Fortunately, businesses are smarter than kids who want to force everyone else to live their way, and realize that cell-phone carrying professionals have more spending money for things like movies and nice dinners than most.
Anyone else can use the software as he or she sees fit without giving anything up, except for programmers -- who must give up the right to their incremental improvements.
OK, that's just goofy. By your logic, laws prohibiting assault with blunt objects are discriminatory against people with arms.
Can I just say that as a user the "survive on service" model makes me uncomfortable.
You can say anything you want, even if most of us won't agree with you.:-)
We're disencentivizing making robust, easy-to-use software in exchange for one that requires some degree of brokenness to survive.
I wholeheartedly disagree. FOSS is extremely likely to get more robust with time, as an official version that remains deliberately broken for too long will probably get forked and maintained by people who want it to work. See XFree86 vs. Xorg. The licensing issue was only the last straw; it's would-be contributors were pretty much looking for an excuse to branch off a better version.
At any rate, support doesn't have to be about brokenness. It ca also be about feature additions ("we need this ability that no one else apparently wants - can we pay you to write it?") or installation/maintenance ("we need this up and running sooner than our in-house admins will be able to get it").
Novell may not see that entire figure (if anything) due to SCO going bankrupt.
Actually, my understanding is that Novell gets paid before anyone else, since the judge ruled that SCO is actually holding Novell's money improperly (converting it?). It's not like a normal debt where the judge says "you owe them this much money", but where the judge says "that stack of money right there belongs to Novell - hand it over."
Static IP's aren't static. They're just reserved DHCP addresses.
As a network admin and a former ISP tech, I'm entirely unclear on the distinction you're trying to make. A DHCP server configured to allocate a given IP to the a certain customer 100% of the time is as static as you'd ever need it to be. Sure, you could change the DHCP server. You could also reconfigure the ISP's end of a T1. Functionally, there's no difference.
You may not have noticed, but the only involvement ever mentioned in connection with Lori Drew is that she may have been aware the account was created. She did not herself create the account. She did not herself send messages to Megan Meier. She did not tell Meier to kill herself.
Grills was in the kitchen with Drew and Sarah, Lori Drew's then-13-year-old daughter, when she proposed creating a fake MySpace account to get information on Megan. Drew applauded the plan, and thought it was funny, but did not herself conceive it, Grills said.
The three of them crowded around Drew's computer as Grills set up the account. None of the three read MySpace's terms-of-service first, said Grills. As Grills began, Lori and Sarah Drew left for soccer practice, urging Grills to finish up in their absence.
That's a little different than saying "she may have been aware the account was created". Also,
Over the course of the 28 days the Josh Evans account was active, Lori Drew helped craft messages sent to Meier, Grills said, and assumed the Evans identity directly for at least one short exchange, when Grills messaged Meier and wound up talking with her mother instead. Tina Meier testified previously that she wrote "Josh" that she thought he should focus on kids his own age. Josh replied, "I understand."
I'd be willing to downgrade her from "primary actor" to "willing participant", but I don't think you can say she was only partially involved.
Einstein may have demonstrated that the math had to be right, but this sort of result was needed to demonstrate that the math correctly described the universe.
By proving it hypothetically with another mathematical construct, aka a computer simulation? To my untrained mind, this sounds like proving 1+1=2 by typing it into Python and getting the expected result. Since these researchers obviously know more about this than I do, I'll assume the problem is with my lack of understanding. So, why is this simulation a valid demonstration?
To begin with, the "New World" settlers werent in "danger" of contracting diseases from the "New World"... the diseases were from the "old world". This is like saying that our astronauts would have to worry about gang violence on mars. No... gang violence is on earth.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but North America was not a sterile environment. I promise you that Indians got sick before Europeans ever came on the scene. I mean, the biggest difference between the two groups is that one made the trip from Africa to North America more quickly.
What are the benchmarks on that when written in native assembly?
Probably slower for the 99.99% of programmers who are less clever than an optimizing compiler, especially since each CPU will have different performance tricks.
Of course an app running under a VM is slower than the equivalent app written in C/C++/whatever and compiled to native code.
Got proof, or are you just out of date? VM code can be as fast as compiled code, since it has the ability to profile code at runtime and can dynamically recompile important bits more efficiently.
The point is that this is history repeating itself; as hardware gets more capable, programming languages and techniques become slower and more bloated.
Except they're not, which is the whole point of the article. Thanks for playing!
I have received this nifty new PC that I'd like to install GNU/Linux on but in order to do so I must first power it up and delete what's already there
"...except, as we all know, every OS installer asks you if you want to start by formatting the boot drive, so this is a strawman argument and I don't need to be swayed by it."
Well, here's another data point. In C64 BASIC, floats were the default datatype. I distinctly remember that FORI=1TO100:NEXT took right at 1 second, giving 100 FLOPS. However, that also includes the overhead from the world's. slowest. interpreter. I'd think surely calling the same functions from assembly would be less terrible.
Not that any of this should detract from the original point: supercomputers are mind-bogglingly fast when compared to the hardware a lot of us here grew up with.
Yes, I understand that. But 320?!? That's about 3,000 cycles per FLOP, and it just seems excessive.
I'm pretty sure the source Weaselmancer linked refers to the C64's performance in one specific programming language. If so, I'd imagine that other languages (such as tweaked assembly) would have to be faster. Surely?
And it'd implement the entire IEEE standard with every peculiarity and requirement?
When Woz did the same thing a year before 754 was first drafted, I don't think he worried about it. Can we now please quietly admit that 754 is a standard way of doing floating point, but isn't the only implementation? Sure we can!
A C64, according to this guy runs at about 320 flops.
That just can't be. I remember the Programmer's Reference Manual showing most normal instructions finishing in 2 or 3 clocks, or maybe 350,000 IPS. I can't imagine that FLOPS would be 1,000 times slower than other opcodes. I mean, I'm pretty certain I could re-implement them in assembler in many fewer than 1,000 instructions.
I'd rather have a pragmatist than an idealist any day.
No way. Pragmatists say dumb things like "this will run faster if we denormalize all these tables", where idealists say things like "can't we try indexing it first"?
Now an old timer will know this and set the zipcode field as a varchar.
BS. We just let someone go who designed a table with an int as a courier tracking number (because the courier he'd been experimenting with used that layout). He just about freaked out when he saw a UPS number starting with "1Z", and I just about freaked out when I discovered why he was panicking.
He was an older COBOL programmer who was dedicated to using as little "core" as possible, and since ints are (in his mind) smaller than varchars, that's what he wanted to use. Never mind that the database server had 640GB of SCSI-320 RAID storage and 6GB of RAM.
The way I look at it is I'm being paid for my time.
Even simpler. In this (hypothetical) case, I'm being paid to perform a job function: triggering and supervising the boot of my computer. Since IT would get paid if they had to do it, I'm going to get paid for doing it.
Excellent show of bipartisanship! It's great to see that the election's sexism and ignorance are of the past and that we've moved ahead as a nation. Keep up the good work!
Slashdot Mirror
I mention this because it seems like I'm the one guy that always has to pop into "ban the phones" threads to remind people that some of us use cell phones for emergency purposes
Same here. The normal reply from kids who've never had a responsible job is that I should just stay home whenever I'm on call. I reply that as a sysadmin I'm pretty much always on call, and then the teen rebuts that I must get paid $BIGNUM so I should suck it up. Have I missed steps here?
Fortunately, businesses are smarter than kids who want to force everyone else to live their way, and realize that cell-phone carrying professionals have more spending money for things like movies and nice dinners than most.
Hell, you can only read a terabyte hard disk a few times before you encounter unrecoverable errors.
Umm, what?
Anyone else can use the software as he or she sees fit without giving anything up, except for programmers -- who must give up the right to their incremental improvements.
OK, that's just goofy. By your logic, laws prohibiting assault with blunt objects are discriminatory against people with arms.
Can I just say that as a user the "survive on service" model makes me uncomfortable.
You can say anything you want, even if most of us won't agree with you. :-)
We're disencentivizing making robust, easy-to-use software in exchange for one that requires some degree of brokenness to survive.
I wholeheartedly disagree. FOSS is extremely likely to get more robust with time, as an official version that remains deliberately broken for too long will probably get forked and maintained by people who want it to work. See XFree86 vs. Xorg. The licensing issue was only the last straw; it's would-be contributors were pretty much looking for an excuse to branch off a better version.
At any rate, support doesn't have to be about brokenness. It ca also be about feature additions ("we need this ability that no one else apparently wants - can we pay you to write it?") or installation/maintenance ("we need this up and running sooner than our in-house admins will be able to get it").
Novell may not see that entire figure (if anything) due to SCO going bankrupt.
Actually, my understanding is that Novell gets paid before anyone else, since the judge ruled that SCO is actually holding Novell's money improperly (converting it?). It's not like a normal debt where the judge says "you owe them this much money", but where the judge says "that stack of money right there belongs to Novell - hand it over."
Static IP's aren't static. They're just reserved DHCP addresses.
As a network admin and a former ISP tech, I'm entirely unclear on the distinction you're trying to make. A DHCP server configured to allocate a given IP to the a certain customer 100% of the time is as static as you'd ever need it to be. Sure, you could change the DHCP server. You could also reconfigure the ISP's end of a T1. Functionally, there's no difference.
You may not have noticed, but the only involvement ever mentioned in connection with Lori Drew is that she may have been aware the account was created. She did not herself create the account. She did not herself send messages to Megan Meier. She did not tell Meier to kill herself.
From Wired:
That's a little different than saying "she may have been aware the account was created". Also,
I'd be willing to downgrade her from "primary actor" to "willing participant", but I don't think you can say she was only partially involved.
Einstein may have demonstrated that the math had to be right, but this sort of result was needed to demonstrate that the math correctly described the universe.
By proving it hypothetically with another mathematical construct, aka a computer simulation? To my untrained mind, this sounds like proving 1+1=2 by typing it into Python and getting the expected result. Since these researchers obviously know more about this than I do, I'll assume the problem is with my lack of understanding. So, why is this simulation a valid demonstration?
To begin with, the "New World" settlers werent in "danger" of contracting diseases from the "New World"... the diseases were from the "old world". This is like saying that our astronauts would have to worry about gang violence on mars. No... gang violence is on earth.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but North America was not a sterile environment. I promise you that Indians got sick before Europeans ever came on the scene. I mean, the biggest difference between the two groups is that one made the trip from Africa to North America more quickly.
And what happens if they fly past a piece of aluminum foil?
And the turtles, all the way down.
Can you imagine how sick I got of hearing "Oh, McGrew, you've done it again?"
About as sick as I got of "like Captain Kirk? Aye-aye! HAR HAR HAR" as ten thousand successive wits invented the joke for the first time.
What are the benchmarks on that when written in native assembly?
Probably slower for the 99.99% of programmers who are less clever than an optimizing compiler, especially since each CPU will have different performance tricks.
Of course an app running under a VM is slower than the equivalent app written in C/C++/whatever and compiled to native code.
Got proof, or are you just out of date? VM code can be as fast as compiled code, since it has the ability to profile code at runtime and can dynamically recompile important bits more efficiently.
The point is that this is history repeating itself; as hardware gets more capable, programming languages and techniques become slower and more bloated.
Except they're not, which is the whole point of the article. Thanks for playing!
I have received this nifty new PC that I'd like to install GNU/Linux on but in order to do so I must first power it up and delete what's already there
"...except, as we all know, every OS installer asks you if you want to start by formatting the boot drive, so this is a strawman argument and I don't need to be swayed by it."
Well, here's another data point. In C64 BASIC, floats were the default datatype. I distinctly remember that FORI=1TO100:NEXT took right at 1 second, giving 100 FLOPS. However, that also includes the overhead from the world's. slowest. interpreter. I'd think surely calling the same functions from assembly would be less terrible.
Not that any of this should detract from the original point: supercomputers are mind-bogglingly fast when compared to the hardware a lot of us here grew up with.
Yes, I understand that. But 320?!? That's about 3,000 cycles per FLOP, and it just seems excessive.
I'm pretty sure the source Weaselmancer linked refers to the C64's performance in one specific programming language. If so, I'd imagine that other languages (such as tweaked assembly) would have to be faster. Surely?
And it'd implement the entire IEEE standard with every peculiarity and requirement?
When Woz did the same thing a year before 754 was first drafted, I don't think he worried about it. Can we now please quietly admit that 754 is a standard way of doing floating point, but isn't the only implementation? Sure we can!
A C64, according to this guy runs at about 320 flops.
That just can't be. I remember the Programmer's Reference Manual showing most normal instructions finishing in 2 or 3 clocks, or maybe 350,000 IPS. I can't imagine that FLOPS would be 1,000 times slower than other opcodes. I mean, I'm pretty certain I could re-implement them in assembler in many fewer than 1,000 instructions.
I'd rather have a pragmatist than an idealist any day.
No way. Pragmatists say dumb things like "this will run faster if we denormalize all these tables", where idealists say things like "can't we try indexing it first"?
Now an old timer will know this and set the zipcode field as a varchar.
BS. We just let someone go who designed a table with an int as a courier tracking number (because the courier he'd been experimenting with used that layout). He just about freaked out when he saw a UPS number starting with "1Z", and I just about freaked out when I discovered why he was panicking.
He was an older COBOL programmer who was dedicated to using as little "core" as possible, and since ints are (in his mind) smaller than varchars, that's what he wanted to use. Never mind that the database server had 640GB of SCSI-320 RAID storage and 6GB of RAM.
That's why restaurant servers are required to ask "is Pepsi okay?" if you ask for a Coke in a Pepsi joint.
I thought it was to avoid complaints from people who ordered a Coke and got a Pepsi instead.
Vista Ultimate was what, like Ã600 retail when it first came out?
No. The best version of Vista cost $129 from the beginning.
Mathematica is the greatest tool out there, and is the only software out there where I'm consistently excited about no versions
I'd have to agree with you. There are no versions of Mathemetica that excite me, either.
The way I look at it is I'm being paid for my time.
Even simpler. In this (hypothetical) case, I'm being paid to perform a job function: triggering and supervising the boot of my computer. Since IT would get paid if they had to do it, I'm going to get paid for doing it.
Excellent show of bipartisanship! It's great to see that the election's sexism and ignorance are of the past and that we've moved ahead as a nation. Keep up the good work!