I tried posting a story about the EVM2003 project a couple weeks ago, but unfortunately it was rejected. I'll try again soon, I suppose. So this note is a little less complete (not all the background URLs and the like). The project comes out of several years of background work by some well known computer scientists, political scientists, lawyers, elections officials, and political activists. But the demo (to be written in Python, btw), is just starting development.
Anyway, the short story is that I am involved in a project to create an open source voting system, with the extra twist that the machines also produce printed ballots. That is, the electronic part makes selection more clear, and prevent overvotes and other errors, but after using the touchscreen (or mouse, or blind accomodation), voters can visually verify their ballot for accuracy before submitting it to the ballot box.
Really... nevermind whatever minimal effects it might have on your eventual salary. Maybe you'll make a little more, maybe not. Maybe it'll pay back your student loans and deferred income, maybe not.
Writing a Ph.D. in any topic is a big time investment. But at the same time, if it's something you love to learn about, the process can be a lot of fun. If you do it for your imagined eventual earnings, it will probably be hell.
FWIW, I wrote a Ph.D. in PoMo philosophy. I loved every minute of my program (which took way the heck too long to finish). OK, I admit it, I didn't love EVERY minute; but y'know, life happens (good and bad). Still, I can't imagine regretting my graduate work. I'm a better person than I would have been otherwise, and I've enjoyed th 50% of my life I've lived so far.
I'll probably die with less money in my bank account than I could have had I taken a different path in life. So what? I'm a rather well known writer about -computer programming- of all things, and I make a comfortable living. What more can I want out of life?
In 1980, I could flip on an Apple II and have a usable prompt inside of a second or two.
I'm writing this note on a Powerbook. After I open the screen, I have a usable bash prompt in front of me within two second. And even with the screen included, it weighs a pound less than my Apple II did in 1980:-).
Of course, I confess that it doesn't go through a full boot procedure, but then... it almost never does so. From a usability perspective, the machine is just "always on" (even if I log out, and in as a different user). Something Apple has got right for 23 years... and Wintels have yet to figure out (but Palm has the right idea here also).
Of course... jEdit still doesn't go nearly as fast at 1Ghz and 512MB RAM as Wordstar or VDE (anyone remember VDE, a powerful freeware DOS text editor) did at 10Mh and 512KB RAM.
There is not a chance in hell the the DOJ would have allowed a nolo or Alford plea in this case. If Hawash had agreed to anything other than a guilty plea, he'd by in Gitmo now (and for longer than 7 years, probably), without the feds bothering with specific charges. And as others upthread have written, probably his family would be rounded up for deportation in "secret evidence" against them.
Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CRIMINAL CASE.
Certainly. Alex' 2.3 update article is very useful, and covers a number of features that my book does not look at (mostly because they are peripheral to the text processing topic; but a few things I just did not know about in time for the various cutoff dates... I *did* add a word here and there even during proofreading to reflect updates). Far be it from me to suggest that Alex' doesn't know everything about what's in 2.3... or very nearly everything about everything sui generis. Andrew Kuchling's series on "What's New in Python X.X" is extremely useful for tracking version changes--he's done a magnificent job maintaining those.
Mostly it just boils down to the delays that go into publication, especially in dead-tree form. _Nutshell_ came out about three months before _TPiP_, so I had a window to look at some betas that Alex did not. FWIW, it's not in my book, but I did an article for IBM developerWorks that looks at the new [itertools] module in some detail. But even that is slightly out-of-date, since a few functions were changed prior to final release, and a few added that I did not know about when I wrote the article.
Alex Martelli has indeed written an excellent book. Actually, he almost wrote two excellent ones, since he is co-editor of _Python Cookbook_ too (but the latter is really more of a collaboration of dozens of people in the Python community than a book by an individual).
However, my book, _Text Processing in Python_, has at least one think over Alex's that is germane to this thread: I make a good effort to cover Python 2.3. I am quite confident that mine is the only book you can actually buy today that does so (I'm sure there will be more titles, and various updates, over time, of course). Don't let my title fool you, btw, I do a bit more than the title entirely admits to. But the title isn't a lie either, it really is focussed on the broad area called "text processing".
Anyway, there's nothing subtle in my plug. I really will get a couple dollars every time someone buys one (unlike the somewhat odd insinuation downthread about Sir Haxalot doing so). But then, I also invite everyone to read the entire text for free at:
http://gnosis.cx/TPiP/
So you can have something for nothing too, if you want.
The logic of selecting the better of two evils has a certain logic. But the poster Daetrin misses the logic of the electoral college.
For example, I live in Massachusetts, and did in 2000. Of course I voted for Nader. There was not a chance in hell that Gore would fail to win the MA vote. Voting for the "50% candidate" instead of the "99% candidate" (I wouldn't agree with Green's quite 100%) is just throwing my vote away. By voting Green, I increase their visibility, and perhaps help them qualify for matching funds and the like. No matter what I do, the MA electoral votes go to Gore.
Now my friend who is unfortunate enough to still live in Colorado (where I came from) also voted Green, and for a similar reason. There was no chance that Colorado's electoral votes would go to Shrub. So for a slightly different reason, a vote for Gore is just wasted. The symbolism, visibility, and matching funds are the only thing he can get out of his Green vote.
On the other hand, if I lived in a close state--say Florida, Arizona, or Tennessee--I would most certainly have voted for Gore (despite feeling a bit unclean while doing so). Polls showed those states close enough that a voter could not be entirely certain of where the electoral votes would go. Obviously, FL turned out dramatically so.
I'm certainly not wont to argue that the electoral college is a really great setup... but it's the one we have in the USA. And voters should vote according to the actual rules (and understand them at a level greater than wish fulfillment).
Actually, although this remark lacks modesty, I wrote the book for myself, in a way. That is, whenever I want to remind MYSELF of a particular method in an odd little module I only use occassionally, I turn to my own explication of it. It reminds me of what I found the most important aspect when I investigated that particular feature during writing. So I benefit from having a copy too (or usually the e-copy that you can find on my website).
Btw. I also have some author copies that I'd like to sell to US buyers who can pay by check. Basically, I get the most money if you do it that way. If that's not convenient, please buy it some other place... but if you want to drop me an email, so much the better.
I'm not sure how much better (if any) Codewarrior does than GCC. But I had not heard of a 970 update for Codewarrior. I'm sure they -will- do one, but most likely GCC takes better advantage of the new chip right now.
On the other part... well, that's what my post was about. Consumers have no reason in the world to care what a chip is theoretically capable of--IF ONLY there was a compiler to get such performance. What matters is what you can get in the real world, where performance depends on compilers. OF COURSE you need to test the compiler along with the hardware... that's precisely what comparing GCC/970 with GCC/Xeon does, for example!
Several other posters have noted that GCC/970 is really not the same compiler as GCC/Xeon. Sure there may be a bit of code in common between the versions, but the job of a compiler is to produce object code... and by definition, the object code for 970 is different from that for Xeon.
What matters to a purchaser is "How much performance can *I* get out of this machine". If I am performing CPU-intensive scientific calculation that require the fastest CPU I can find (at least for a given number of kilodollars), I'll almost certainly spring a few hundred extra for the compiler that produces the fasted object code on that platform (if needed, there's nothing ruling out GCC automatically because it's free).
It happens that for a Xeon or P4 (or Opteron, for that matter), the compiler that produces the fastest object code is ICC. Intel has done an amazingly good job with their compiler.
Now, sure, I *could* get a similarly optimized 970 compiler for comparison.... if one existed, that is. It looks like right now, GCC is the best you can get on a 970. It doesn't do a buyer any good to know that IN PRINCIPLE a more optimized compiler could be written.
All that said, the 970 looks like a very respectable chip. And Apple is selling their new machines at a very competitive price; and Macs have extremely friendly and stable OSs. All that means that it is probably well worth buying a PowerMac even if it will crunch big computations a few percent slower than a more expensive Xeon. But still... the "GCC is the common element stuff is pretty darn bogus."
It almost goes without saying that Apple fudges their benchmarks a bit. There is a bit to the linked criticism. Apple's choice of compilers, tweaks, and options, indeed makes G5 seem better than it should. Still, the moral really is that Apple now is in the same ballpark with the fastest x86 machines, rather than lagging behind as yesterday's G4/G3 models do.
But the critiques claim that "most users" use only integer apps, not FP, and that most apps aren't multiprocessor enabled, completely misses the point. NO ONE needs the latest Xeon, Opteron, or G5 to run typical home/business apps. A G4 or P3 is plenty fast enough to run Mozilla or OpenOffice (I won't even mention proprietary apps of similar purpose:-)). The only users who have any real reason to care about the high-end specs are those who perform complex scientific modelling, graphic processing, or a few other CPU-intensive niche areas. In other words: the users who rely on FP and SMP.
A G5 is as fast as anyone can need for average applications, and probably still a little slower than the best x86 machines for high-end FP/SMP apps. But not so much slower that the other Mac benefits can't sell machines.
Well, maybe... but big blocks of the ranks of the _NY Times_ and _UPI_ remain on CIA payroll. The same is not true for Fox though... the CIA only hires people of reasonable intelligence. None like that at Fox--but they still "report" whatever they are told to by the WH and CIA, gratis.
There is no question that meat packing is a far more dangerous occupation than is keyboard work (and likewise more dangerous is sweatshop textile work). Not a lot of computer programmers suffer amputated limbs from what they do at work, nor even autoimmune reactions from constant cuts. And RSI is much worse in meat packing (and fish processing still more so).
But that's a somewhat incomplete observation. While there is certainly racism, sexism, and class bias underlying what gets medical focus, especially in the popular media, it is also quite plainly the case that a heck of a lot more people use keyboards than pack meat. Not only professional programmers--with the rise of personal computers, nearly ever whilte- and pink- color job involves extensive keyboard use (and many in medical, warehousing, etc). The RSI rates are lower in these areas, but the base population is quite high.
I don't think a lot of white-color workers get disability and paid retirement when they get repetitive stress injuries. But I'm sure more white-color workers get reasonable workplace accomodation (ergonomic adjustments) than do blue-color workers who equally need it (or more-so). Still, the moral *I* draw from that is that MORE workplace accomodation is necessary for all workers.
Btw. A number of posters have made the specious and offensive argument that since they have used keyboards for N years, and do not suffer RSIs, then the whole issue must be whiners and liars making false claims (or it must be lack of exercise, proper typing technique, etc; the last have limited points, but the injuries are still genuine). I wonder if these same posters would like to offer some wisdom on how cancer is a media sham, and it never hurt anyone... since after all THEY don't have cancer (even after using X chemical or whatever).
|Suddenly you'll have poor artists who will be exploited because |they didn't pay their copyright fee
Of course, these poor artists won't suffer this terrible harm until many years after their death. Boo hoo!
In real life, it means that IP firms (in the example, probably companies that own millions of stock images) will lose a tiny bit of revenue on the images they bought from artists decades earlier for almost nothing. But the public as a whole will gain the (natrual) rights to use 50 year old photos as parts of projects in history books, collages, posters, newspaper reports, and so on. It's pretty obvious to me which side of things is better.
Re:Another bad Slashdot analogy
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
>People need to guard their email addresses in the same way they >practice safe sex. Don't go sticking your email address just any old >place...
This common comment pisses me off every time. JSkills is apparently unaware of it, but some of us HAVE JOBS (or projects, organizations, etc).
Publishing my email address is the best way to let legitimate, but previously unknown, persons contact me. In fact, in 99% of those cases (for me), email is clearly the correct format, and telephone, snailmail are not appropriate. In my particular case, I write articles and books, and manage some free software projects... exactly how are interested readers/developers supposed to contact me without an email address?! Other people do other things where the purpose is similar (like, say, *sell* something that correspondents might want to inquire about).
Do take a look at what I wrote though. I did not claim that science was NOT intellectually engaged. Just that the sort of thing I decided to do was -even more so-.
The remark isn't intended as a pissing match though. It's just made in the context of a reiteration of the flawed idea that "science is rigorous, humanities mere opinions." I little showiness in rebuttal of a prevalent error is a good thing, IMO.
I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, but also did graduate work in mathematics and economics. And nowadays I write books about computer science. So I know a little bit about both humanities and science. It's true I never took engineering classes; but I find it silly and implausible to claim that those are the "real classes".
The reason I choose to do humanities work was because it was FAR MORE intellectually rigorous and challenging than doing science. I could easily have done well in any field, but philosophy simply demands much more sustained mental effort than a fairly linear field like engineering, and that's what appealed to me.
The one weakness that RELAX NG has versus W3C XML Schema is a lack of general cardinality constraints. In XSD you can use 'minOccurs' and 'maxOccurs' to, e.g. require seven to twenty occurrences of a given element. In RELAX NG, you must either list the pattern seven times explicitly, or settle for an approximation like .
It would not break the RELAX NG semantic model to add more general cardinality. Say:
There certainly is a "vs." involved. There are many good reasons to choose DTDs for a given validation requirement rather than W3C XML Schemas. I address some of those in an IBM developerWorks articles:
Comparing W3C XML Schemas and Document Type Definitions (DTDs)
This is a bit old, but still correct. Not a lot has changed in either spec.
I am currently working on a series of articles on RELAX NG. In most ways, I think RELAX NG really is the best of all worlds. It is more powerful than W3C XML Schemas, while being a natural extension of the semantics of DTDs. Moreover, if you choose to use the compact syntax (non-XML), you get something very easy to read and edit by hand.
>we switched to StarOffice on 1000 PCs... (grand total cost, $25.00)
I wholeheartedly agree that switching to StarOffic or other open source applications is the right thing to do for many reasons. Maintainability, security, cost, and just plain morally.
However, the total cost of switching 1000 PCs is most certainly NOT $25. I presume that was the cost of the original media. But someone needed to install the software; presumably, someone making more than a few pennies an hour. And someone needs to deal with corruption or problems that arise in installations (not because StarOffic is worse than other things, it is just the nature of software). And it takes time to learn new software, no matter how good the new software is. Maybe that learning is accompanied by formal retraining (i.e. paid trainers), or maybe each individual user has to devote a non-zero amount of time learning on her own (instead of doing something else useful, and for which she is paid wages).
At the end of this, I'm sure the switch saved a substantial amount of money over using MS-Office. But it just discredits the claim to pretend it is $25.
OH... I almost forgot what is perhaps the most important thing: For most file manipulation/launching actions, I use an "orthodox file manager (OFM)" called FileJet. There are actually several good OFMs for OS/2, but this is my favorite (paid-for shareware). Midnight commander *hints* at what these tools can do, but a really good one is without question the best way to fork with files/directories/etc.
I really have not found anything as good for *nix systems, although obviously there is nothing conceptually impossible about writing one.
Well... I use OS/2 every day on my main machine (including as I post). It is not perfect, and I sometimes wish some new functionality was available, but no one has ported it (or written an OS2-specific variant). But for the work I actually do day-to-day, this system is better than any other options.
Of course, the WPS (workplace shell) is an object oriented interface that is FAR better than that on any other platform (including BeOS, Gnome, KDE, Windows, MacOS9/X, etc). But nonetheless, most of what I actually do is within specific applications, and an platform that lets me reasonably switch between apps is bearable. I have a set of applications that I am quite happy with, and in many cases simply have not found anything on Linux/FreeBSD, or MacOS X (or "minor" platforms either) that I am entirely comfortable using. Windows, of course, is not under serious consideration for full time use.
Part of my happiness with current apps is inertia. I'm familiar with certain applications, and want to avoid a learning curve. But in many cases, I've really TRIED to find something as good elsewhere, and simiply have not been satisfied. Here are the main things I use:
- Yarn Mail/Newsreader: I like this app. It is easy to navigate, unifies mail and news, is text mode/keyboard driven, is extensible with outside tools. Admittedly, I know the mutt--and perhaps some other *nix tools--would be as good, so this is mostly a matter of familiarity.
- Mozilla: Available most everywhere, but this includes my OS/2 box.
- Python: Available most everywhere too, including OS/2.
- Boxer editor: I have used this editor for years, and really like it. I like the ancient OS/2 version better than the new Windows versions even (text mode, for one thing). This is an area where I am dramatically unhappy with my options elsewhere. Toys like joe, or even jed, just don't do enough. But vi and emacs are just way too steep a learning curve for me to really use (even though I know every capability is hidden in there somewhere). Jedit is OK for my iBook, but a bit slow. Nedit is bearable too, but canot be used in a console, which is what I really want. Boxer has menus that actually *show* you what it can do (with shortcut hints in the menus), and Boxer actually handles wrapped text in flexible ways, unlike almost every other editor (changing margin, text widths, hanging indents, etc., all per paragraph). Lots of editors work for code... few are usuable for writing books and articles like I do.
- Good command line. You need to enhance OS/2's shell to make it fully usable. But I use a REXX script called 'cmdshl' that adds the needed colorization, tab completion, history, etc. I could also get bash or others if I wanted. (The default CMD.EXE is better than Windows, but not as good as I want).
- Ghostscript/Ghostview: Up to date on these, most platforms are fine too... but I'm OK with OS/2 here.
- Occassionally I run old, but still good, Win16 commercial tools, mostly WordPerfect 7, and Quattro Pro. Mostly I like these better than OpenOffice equivalents (if only because of my legacy documents). But OpenOffice I could live with (when will the OSX version be available?!).
Slashdot Mirror
I tried posting a story about the EVM2003 project a couple weeks ago, but unfortunately it was rejected. I'll try again soon, I suppose. So this note is a little less complete (not all the background URLs and the like). The project comes out of several years of background work by some well known computer scientists, political scientists, lawyers, elections officials, and political activists. But the demo (to be written in Python, btw), is just starting development.
Anyway, the short story is that I am involved in a project to create an open source voting system, with the extra twist that the machines also produce printed ballots. That is, the electronic part makes selection more clear, and prevent overvotes and other errors, but after using the touchscreen (or mouse, or blind accomodation), voters can visually verify their ballot for accuracy before submitting it to the ballot box.
Read an announcement of the project at http://gnosis.cx/voting-project/announce.html.
Check out the sourceforge page for EVM2003. We also have a mailing list archive.
Really... nevermind whatever minimal effects it might have on your eventual salary. Maybe you'll make a little more, maybe not. Maybe it'll pay back your student loans and deferred income, maybe not.
Writing a Ph.D. in any topic is a big time investment. But at the same time, if it's something you love to learn about, the process can be a lot of fun. If you do it for your imagined eventual earnings, it will probably be hell.
FWIW, I wrote a Ph.D. in PoMo philosophy. I loved every minute of my program (which took way the heck too long to finish). OK, I admit it, I didn't love EVERY minute; but y'know, life happens (good and bad). Still, I can't imagine regretting my graduate work. I'm a better person than I would have been otherwise, and I've enjoyed th 50% of my life I've lived so far.
I'll probably die with less money in my bank account than I could have had I taken a different path in life. So what? I'm a rather well known writer about -computer programming- of all things, and I make a comfortable living. What more can I want out of life?
I'm writing this note on a Powerbook. After I open the screen, I have a usable bash prompt in front of me within two second. And even with the screen included, it weighs a pound less than my Apple II did in 1980
Of course, I confess that it doesn't go through a full boot procedure, but then... it almost never does so. From a usability perspective, the machine is just "always on" (even if I log out, and in as a different user). Something Apple has got right for 23 years... and Wintels have yet to figure out (but Palm has the right idea here also).
Of course... jEdit still doesn't go nearly as fast at 1Ghz and 512MB RAM as Wordstar or VDE (anyone remember VDE, a powerful freeware DOS text editor) did at 10Mh and 512KB RAM.
There is not a chance in hell the the DOJ would have allowed a nolo or Alford plea in this case. If Hawash had agreed to anything other than a guilty plea, he'd by in Gitmo now (and for longer than 7 years, probably), without the feds bothering with specific charges. And as others upthread have written, probably his family would be rounded up for deportation in "secret evidence" against them.
Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CRIMINAL CASE.
Certainly. Alex' 2.3 update article is very useful, and covers a number of features that my book does not look at (mostly because they are peripheral to the text processing topic; but a few things I just did not know about in time for the various cutoff dates... I *did* add a word here and there even during proofreading to reflect updates). Far be it from me to suggest that Alex' doesn't know everything about what's in 2.3... or very nearly everything about everything sui generis. Andrew Kuchling's series on "What's New in Python X.X" is extremely useful for tracking version changes--he's done a magnificent job maintaining those.
Mostly it just boils down to the delays that go into publication, especially in dead-tree form. _Nutshell_ came out about three months before _TPiP_, so I had a window to look at some betas that Alex did not. FWIW, it's not in my book, but I did an article for IBM developerWorks that looks at the new [itertools] module in some detail. But even that is slightly out-of-date, since a few functions were changed prior to final release, and a few added that I did not know about when I wrote the article.
Yours, David...
Alex Martelli has indeed written an excellent book. Actually, he almost wrote two excellent ones, since he is co-editor of _Python Cookbook_ too (but the latter is really more of a collaboration of dozens of people in the Python community than a book by an individual).
However, my book, _Text Processing in Python_, has at least one think over Alex's that is germane to this thread: I make a good effort to cover Python 2.3. I am quite confident that mine is the only book you can actually buy today that does so (I'm sure there will be more titles, and various updates, over time, of course). Don't let my title fool you, btw, I do a bit more than the title entirely admits to. But the title isn't a lie either, it really is focussed on the broad area called "text processing".
Anyway, there's nothing subtle in my plug. I really will get a couple dollars every time someone buys one (unlike the somewhat odd insinuation downthread about Sir Haxalot doing so). But then, I also invite everyone to read the entire text for free at:
http://gnosis.cx/TPiP/
So you can have something for nothing too, if you want.
David Mertz
I meant, of course:
no chance that Colorado's electoral votes would FAIL TO go to Shrub
The logic of selecting the better of two evils has a certain logic. But the poster Daetrin misses the logic of the electoral college.
For example, I live in Massachusetts, and did in 2000. Of course I voted for Nader. There was not a chance in hell that Gore would fail to win the MA vote. Voting for the "50% candidate" instead of the "99% candidate" (I wouldn't agree with Green's quite 100%) is just throwing my vote away. By voting Green, I increase their visibility, and perhaps help them qualify for matching funds and the like. No matter what I do, the MA electoral votes go to Gore.
Now my friend who is unfortunate enough to still live in Colorado (where I came from) also voted Green, and for a similar reason. There was no chance that Colorado's electoral votes would go to Shrub. So for a slightly different reason, a vote for Gore is just wasted. The symbolism, visibility, and matching funds are the only thing he can get out of his Green vote.
On the other hand, if I lived in a close state--say Florida, Arizona, or Tennessee--I would most certainly have voted for Gore (despite feeling a bit unclean while doing so). Polls showed those states close enough that a voter could not be entirely certain of where the electoral votes would go. Obviously, FL turned out dramatically so.
I'm certainly not wont to argue that the electoral college is a really great setup... but it's the one we have in the USA. And voters should vote according to the actual rules (and understand them at a level greater than wish fulfillment).
Actually, although this remark lacks modesty, I wrote the book for myself, in a way. That is, whenever I want to remind MYSELF of a particular method in an odd little module I only use occassionally, I turn to my own explication of it. It reminds me of what I found the most important aspect when I investigated that particular feature during writing. So I benefit from having a copy too (or usually the e-copy that you can find on my website).
Btw. I also have some author copies that I'd like to sell to US buyers who can pay by check. Basically, I get the most money if you do it that way. If that's not convenient, please buy it some other place... but if you want to drop me an email, so much the better.
David Mertz
http://gnosis.cx/TPiP/
I'm not sure how much better (if any) Codewarrior does than GCC. But I had not heard of a 970 update for Codewarrior. I'm sure they -will- do one, but most likely GCC takes better advantage of the new chip right now.
On the other part... well, that's what my post was about. Consumers have no reason in the world to care what a chip is theoretically capable of--IF ONLY there was a compiler to get such performance. What matters is what you can get in the real world, where performance depends on compilers. OF COURSE you need to test the compiler along with the hardware... that's precisely what comparing GCC/970 with GCC/Xeon does, for example!
Several other posters have noted that GCC/970 is really not the same compiler as GCC/Xeon. Sure there may be a bit of code in common between the versions, but the job of a compiler is to produce object code... and by definition, the object code for 970 is different from that for Xeon.
What matters to a purchaser is "How much performance can *I* get out of this machine". If I am performing CPU-intensive scientific calculation that require the fastest CPU I can find (at least for a given number of kilodollars), I'll almost certainly spring a few hundred extra for the compiler that produces the fasted object code on that platform (if needed, there's nothing ruling out GCC automatically because it's free).
It happens that for a Xeon or P4 (or Opteron, for that matter), the compiler that produces the fastest object code is ICC. Intel has done an amazingly good job with their compiler.
Now, sure, I *could* get a similarly optimized 970 compiler for comparison.... if one existed, that is. It looks like right now, GCC is the best you can get on a 970. It doesn't do a buyer any good to know that IN PRINCIPLE a more optimized compiler could be written.
All that said, the 970 looks like a very respectable chip. And Apple is selling their new machines at a very competitive price; and Macs have extremely friendly and stable OSs. All that means that it is probably well worth buying a PowerMac even if it will crunch big computations a few percent slower than a more expensive Xeon. But still... the "GCC is the common element stuff is pretty darn bogus."
It almost goes without saying that Apple fudges their benchmarks a bit. There is a bit to the linked criticism. Apple's choice of compilers, tweaks, and options, indeed makes G5 seem better than it should. Still, the moral really is that Apple now is in the same ballpark with the fastest x86 machines, rather than lagging behind as yesterday's G4/G3 models do.
:-)). The only users who have any real reason to care about the high-end specs are those who perform complex scientific modelling, graphic processing, or a few other CPU-intensive niche areas. In other words: the users who rely on FP and SMP.
But the critiques claim that "most users" use only integer apps, not FP, and that most apps aren't multiprocessor enabled, completely misses the point. NO ONE needs the latest Xeon, Opteron, or G5 to run typical home/business apps. A G4 or P3 is plenty fast enough to run Mozilla or OpenOffice (I won't even mention proprietary apps of similar purpose
A G5 is as fast as anyone can need for average applications, and probably still a little slower than the best x86 machines for high-end FP/SMP apps. But not so much slower that the other Mac benefits can't sell machines.
The new standard of American justice:
Presumed innocent until the RIAA decides you might be guilty!
Well, maybe... but big blocks of the ranks of the _NY Times_ and _UPI_ remain on CIA payroll. The same is not true for Fox though... the CIA only hires people of reasonable intelligence. None like that at Fox--but they still "report" whatever they are told to by the WH and CIA, gratis.
There is no question that meat packing is a far more dangerous occupation than is keyboard work (and likewise more dangerous is sweatshop textile work). Not a lot of computer programmers suffer amputated limbs from what they do at work, nor even autoimmune reactions from constant cuts. And RSI is much worse in meat packing (and fish processing still more so).
But that's a somewhat incomplete observation. While there is certainly racism, sexism, and class bias underlying what gets medical focus, especially in the popular media, it is also quite plainly the case that a heck of a lot more people use keyboards than pack meat. Not only professional programmers--with the rise of personal computers, nearly ever whilte- and pink- color job involves extensive keyboard use (and many in medical, warehousing, etc). The RSI rates are lower in these areas, but the base population is quite high.
I don't think a lot of white-color workers get disability and paid retirement when they get repetitive stress injuries. But I'm sure more white-color workers get reasonable workplace accomodation (ergonomic adjustments) than do blue-color workers who equally need it (or more-so). Still, the moral *I* draw from that is that MORE workplace accomodation is necessary for all workers.
Btw. A number of posters have made the specious and offensive argument that since they have used keyboards for N years, and do not suffer RSIs, then the whole issue must be whiners and liars making false claims (or it must be lack of exercise, proper typing technique, etc; the last have limited points, but the injuries are still genuine). I wonder if these same posters would like to offer some wisdom on how cancer is a media sham, and it never hurt anyone... since after all THEY don't have cancer (even after using X chemical or whatever).
Lotus Notes.
I used this product back in 1998 on my then job. I liked it pretty well then, and I understand they've made some improved versions even.
|Suddenly you'll have poor artists who will be exploited because
|they didn't pay their copyright fee
Of course, these poor artists won't suffer this terrible harm until many years after their death. Boo hoo!
In real life, it means that IP firms (in the example, probably companies that own millions of stock images) will lose a tiny bit of revenue on the images they bought from artists decades earlier for almost nothing. But the public as a whole will gain the (natrual) rights to use 50 year old photos as parts of projects in history books, collages, posters, newspaper reports, and so on. It's pretty obvious to me which side of things is better.
>People need to guard their email addresses in the same way they ...
>practice safe sex. Don't go sticking your email address just any old
>place
This common comment pisses me off every time. JSkills is apparently unaware of it, but some of us HAVE JOBS (or projects, organizations, etc).
Publishing my email address is the best way to let legitimate, but previously unknown, persons contact me. In fact, in 99% of those cases (for me), email is clearly the correct format, and telephone, snailmail are not appropriate. In my particular case, I write articles and books, and manage some free software projects... exactly how are interested readers/developers supposed to contact me without an email address?! Other people do other things where the purpose is similar (like, say, *sell* something that correspondents might want to inquire about).
Do take a look at what I wrote though. I did not claim that science was NOT intellectually engaged. Just that the sort of thing I decided to do was -even more so-.
The remark isn't intended as a pissing match though. It's just made in the context of a reiteration of the flawed idea that "science is rigorous, humanities mere opinions." I little showiness in rebuttal of a prevalent error is a good thing, IMO.
I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, but also did graduate work in mathematics and economics. And nowadays I write books about computer science. So I know a little bit about both humanities and science. It's true I never took engineering classes; but I find it silly and implausible to claim that those are the "real classes".
The reason I choose to do humanities work was because it was FAR MORE intellectually rigorous and challenging than doing science. I could easily have done well in any field, but philosophy simply demands much more sustained mental effort than a fairly linear field like engineering, and that's what appealed to me.
But yes! Grade inflation is a foolish conceit.
The one weakness that RELAX NG has versus W3C XML Schema is a lack of general cardinality constraints. In XSD you can use 'minOccurs' and 'maxOccurs' to, e.g. require seven to twenty occurrences of a given element. In RELAX NG, you must either list the pattern seven times explicitly, or settle for an approximation like .
...
It would not break the RELAX NG semantic model to add more general cardinality. Say:
<cardinality min="7" max="20">
<element name="foo">
</cardinality>
Maybe in version 2.0 or something.
There certainly is a "vs." involved. There are many good reasons to choose DTDs for a given validation requirement rather than W3C XML Schemas. I address some of those in an IBM developerWorks articles:
Comparing W3C XML Schemas and Document Type Definitions (DTDs)
This is a bit old, but still correct. Not a lot has changed in either spec.
I am currently working on a series of articles on RELAX NG. In most ways, I think RELAX NG really is the best of all worlds. It is more powerful than W3C XML Schemas, while being a natural extension of the semantics of DTDs. Moreover, if you choose to use the compact syntax (non-XML), you get something very easy to read and edit by hand.
David...
>we switched to StarOffice on 1000 PCs... (grand total cost, $25.00)
I wholeheartedly agree that switching to StarOffic or other open source applications is the right thing to do for many reasons. Maintainability, security, cost, and just plain morally.
However, the total cost of switching 1000 PCs is most certainly NOT $25. I presume that was the cost of the original media. But someone needed to install the software; presumably, someone making more than a few pennies an hour. And someone needs to deal with corruption or problems that arise in installations (not because StarOffic is worse than other things, it is just the nature of software). And it takes time to learn new software, no matter how good the new software is. Maybe that learning is accompanied by formal retraining (i.e. paid trainers), or maybe each individual user has to devote a non-zero amount of time learning on her own (instead of doing something else useful, and for which she is paid wages).
At the end of this, I'm sure the switch saved a substantial amount of money over using MS-Office. But it just discredits the claim to pretend it is $25.
OH... I almost forgot what is perhaps the most important thing: For most file manipulation/launching actions, I use an "orthodox file manager (OFM)" called FileJet. There are actually several good OFMs for OS/2, but this is my favorite (paid-for shareware). Midnight commander *hints* at what these tools can do, but a really good one is without question the best way to fork with files/directories/etc.
I really have not found anything as good for *nix systems, although obviously there is nothing conceptually impossible about writing one.
Well... I use OS/2 every day on my main machine (including as I post). It is not perfect, and I sometimes wish some new functionality was available, but no one has ported it (or written an OS2-specific variant). But for the work I actually do day-to-day, this system is better than any other options.
Of course, the WPS (workplace shell) is an object oriented interface that is FAR better than that on any other platform (including BeOS, Gnome, KDE, Windows, MacOS9/X, etc). But nonetheless, most of what I actually do is within specific applications, and an platform that lets me reasonably switch between apps is bearable. I have a set of applications that I am quite happy with, and in many cases simply have not found anything on Linux/FreeBSD, or MacOS X (or "minor" platforms either) that I am entirely comfortable using. Windows, of course, is not under serious consideration for full time use.
Part of my happiness with current apps is inertia. I'm familiar with certain applications, and want to avoid a learning curve. But in many cases, I've really TRIED to find something as good elsewhere, and simiply have not been satisfied. Here are the main things I use:
- Yarn Mail/Newsreader: I like this app. It is easy to navigate, unifies mail and news, is text mode/keyboard driven, is extensible with outside tools. Admittedly, I know the mutt--and perhaps some other *nix tools--would be as good, so this is mostly a matter of familiarity.
- Mozilla: Available most everywhere, but this includes my OS/2 box.
- Python: Available most everywhere too, including OS/2.
- Boxer editor: I have used this editor for years, and really like it. I like the ancient OS/2 version better than the new Windows versions even (text mode, for one thing). This is an area where I am dramatically unhappy with my options elsewhere. Toys like joe, or even jed, just don't do enough. But vi and emacs are just way too steep a learning curve for me to really use (even though I know every capability is hidden in there somewhere). Jedit is OK for my iBook, but a bit slow. Nedit is bearable too, but canot be used in a console, which is what I really want. Boxer has menus that actually *show* you what it can do (with shortcut hints in the menus), and Boxer actually handles wrapped text in flexible ways, unlike almost every other editor (changing margin, text widths, hanging indents, etc., all per paragraph). Lots of editors work for code... few are usuable for writing books and articles like I do.
- Good command line. You need to enhance OS/2's shell to make it fully usable. But I use a REXX script called 'cmdshl' that adds the needed colorization, tab completion, history, etc. I could also get bash or others if I wanted. (The default CMD.EXE is better than Windows, but not as good as I want).
- Ghostscript/Ghostview: Up to date on these, most platforms are fine too... but I'm OK with OS/2 here.
- Occassionally I run old, but still good, Win16 commercial tools, mostly WordPerfect 7, and Quattro Pro. Mostly I like these better than OpenOffice equivalents (if only because of my legacy documents). But OpenOffice I could live with (when will the OSX version be available?!).