It really is an excellent publication. They even "get it" technologically. The treeless edition (Disclaimer: I'm a satified subscriber to same) is available for only $8 a month. It's a 2-3MB PDF that is identical to the published newspaper, except that all appropriate things (Continued on page 4...) are hotlinked for easy navigation. Highly recommended. They're even running a special right now with the first month being free. As a data point regarding bias and values, todays issue had a short, but practically glowing, review of GTA: SA.
My workflow in O'Caml is quite similar. Using tuareg-mode in emacs, I have two windows open, one is an ocaml toplevel (A repl, basically) and the other is my sourcefile. I can easily evaluate anything from the source file in the toplevel.
I must admit I'm pretty much a rank newbie at O'Caml, but I thought I'd try to bring in a few more converts;). I certainly don't think it's perfect, but basically, to me, it gets more right than any other language I've found.
Type checking... Don't need a lisp system to run programs Interacts nicer with C libraries More conventional syntax Can be used in an imperitive style more easily Faster
Objective CAML is the language you really should be using.
Features include:
FAST
It can be compiled to native code that is just as fast as C.
Type inference
In the function
let hello foo = "Hello, " ^ foo
, it knotws that the paramter foo is a string, and it won't even compile code that tries to pass something besides a string, ever. However, it also supports polymorphic functions. For instance,
let gimme_a_one x = 1;;
can take anything what so ever as x, since it isn't used in a way that requires a specific type
Garbage collected
No malloc() or free(). Ever. Oh, and it's efficient, and can handle things like circular references just fine.
Technique agnostic
While fundamentally a functional language like lisp or haskell, it has superb support for imperitive and object-oriented programming, including multiple inheritence and all the usual goodies.
Good standard library Things like printf, regexs, hash tables, etc, are already implemented, and always available.
It really is a great language, and you should investigate it.
I'm not so sure. A certain tracking site (Who's name resembles an astronomical phenomenon...) often shows in excess of 1 million unique users downloading the various tracked torrents. So probably something like 1.5 - 2 million unique users at any given time. I'd say that's more like a 1:100 ratio than the 1:thousands you suggest.
Well, I would say it is safe to say that the average file traded over BT is, say, 1GB. That's about typical for the stuff I download via it. Mostly (legal) live concert recordings. A typical webpage is perhaps 100kb. So that's 10,000 webpage views (Probably a weeks worth for even the busiest net addict, probably more like 3 months worth for a typical home user. I often pull 10GB a week via bittorrent (http://bt.etree.org/ is your friend...)
Well, but this assumes the media is full. Sure it is if you're burning linux isos or something, but I often find myself throwing together a quick CD, sometimes with as little as 15 or 20MB of stuff on it. That's when those 100 CD spindles come in handy...
I'm not saying your're wrong, but $/gig just isn't the only meaningful measurement.
32MB of RAM? Are you *kidding* me? Even my minimal setup (X.Org + Fluxbox 0.9 + Firefox 1.0 + rxvt) is using 221MB as reported by free, with one instance of each running. (Not counting caches, buffers, etc). I'd consider 256MB the bare mimumum, MAYBE 192 in an emergency, but X alone uses 59MB. 32MB might have been enough to run XFree 3.x and fvwm or windowmaker, but it just doesn't come close for even a semi-modern desktop.
Well, you know, it's funny that you put it like that. I've found the MS hardware to be basically the most wellmade, durable (Outside of stuff like the old IBM Model M) hardware on the market.
Must have had your settings way too high. The poly counts in KOTOR were insane, so stuff like Antialiasing doesn't sit well with it. I was able to complete the game just fine on an Athlon 950 with 64MB Radeon 9600.
Well, that's the thing. Practically all animation / cartoons uses geometry that doesn't make sense. (For one example, based on what you can see, the Flintstone's living room is about the length of a football field.)
You completly missed the point. The quality of any public domain copy is limited to that of the highest quality PUBLIC release.
Think of it this way. CDs are 2 channels x 44.1khz sampling rate x 16 bits per sample. When the new format comes out, let's say it's 5 channel surround x 96khz sampling x 24bit samples. Let's assume the original music is out of copyright at this point. There is no way to take advantage of the additional quality offered by the new format. You can't pull bits out of thin air. The best you could do is interpolate the original 44khz/16bit data out to the new format, but that doesn't give you any gain.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost superior? ESPN football is superior in just about every way.
It really is an excellent publication. They even "get it" technologically. The treeless edition (Disclaimer: I'm a satified subscriber to same) is available for only $8 a month. It's a 2-3MB PDF that is identical to the published newspaper, except that all appropriate things (Continued on page 4...) are hotlinked for easy navigation. Highly recommended. They're even running a special right now with the first month being free. As a data point regarding bias and values, todays issue had a short, but practically glowing, review of GTA: SA.
Well, in all fairness, there is a reason for that, to a degree. Medical stuff has to be very, very, very sanitary.
Dead god. Has it come to this? Why do you need a strategy guide for a fscking FOOTBALL game?
Spent 5 minutes on GameFAQs? Seriously, it amazes me that anyone actually still buys strategy guides.
My workflow in O'Caml is quite similar. Using tuareg-mode in emacs, I have two windows open, one is an ocaml toplevel (A repl, basically) and the other is my sourcefile. I can easily evaluate anything from the source file in the toplevel.
Thanks for the interesting reply!
;). I certainly don't think it's perfect, but basically, to me, it gets more right than any other language I've found.
I must admit I'm pretty much a rank newbie at O'Caml, but I thought I'd try to bring in a few more converts
Vs. lisp
Type checking...
Don't need a lisp system to run programs
Interacts nicer with C libraries
More conventional syntax
Can be used in an imperitive style more easily
Faster
Features include:
FAST
It can be compiled to native code that is just as fast as C.
Type inference
In the function , it knotws that the paramter foo is a string, and it won't even compile code that tries to pass something besides a string, ever. However, it also supports polymorphic functions. For instance, can take anything what so ever as x, since it isn't used in a way that requires a specific type
Garbage collected
No malloc() or free(). Ever. Oh, and it's efficient, and can handle things like circular references just fine.
Technique agnostic
While fundamentally a functional language like lisp or haskell, it has superb support for imperitive and object-oriented programming, including multiple inheritence and all the usual goodies.
Good standard library
Things like printf, regexs, hash tables, etc, are already implemented, and always available.
It really is a great language, and you should investigate it.
A few helpful links
Offical Site
Free online book, best place to learn the language
I'm not so sure. A certain tracking site (Who's name resembles an astronomical phenomenon...) often shows in excess of 1 million unique users downloading the various tracked torrents. So probably something like 1.5 - 2 million unique users at any given time. I'd say that's more like a 1:100 ratio than the 1:thousands you suggest.
Well, I would say it is safe to say that the average file traded over BT is, say, 1GB. That's about typical for the stuff I download via it. Mostly (legal) live concert recordings. A typical webpage is perhaps 100kb. So that's 10,000 webpage views (Probably a weeks worth for even the busiest net addict, probably more like 3 months worth for a typical home user. I often pull 10GB a week via bittorrent (http://bt.etree.org/ is your friend...)
Well, but this assumes the media is full. Sure it is if you're burning linux isos or something, but I often find myself throwing together a quick CD, sometimes with as little as 15 or 20MB of stuff on it. That's when those 100 CD spindles come in handy...
I'm not saying your're wrong, but $/gig just isn't the only meaningful measurement.
The FSB on that thing is clocked faster than my CPU....
XP is worse ;)
Something like 280MB for clean boot + Moz, and that's without a shell.
Uh, no.
32MB of RAM? Are you *kidding* me? Even my minimal setup (X.Org + Fluxbox 0.9 + Firefox 1.0 + rxvt) is using 221MB as reported by free, with one instance of each running. (Not counting caches, buffers, etc). I'd consider 256MB the bare mimumum, MAYBE 192 in an emergency, but X alone uses 59MB. 32MB might have been enough to run XFree 3.x and fvwm or windowmaker, but it just doesn't come close for even a semi-modern desktop.
(I'm running Slackware 10.0 btw)
Well, you know, it's funny that you put it like that. I've found the MS hardware to be basically the most wellmade, durable (Outside of stuff like the old IBM Model M) hardware on the market.
Must have had your settings way too high. The poly counts in KOTOR were insane, so stuff like Antialiasing doesn't sit well with it. I was able to complete the game just fine on an Athlon 950 with 64MB Radeon 9600.
Well, that's the thing. Practically all animation / cartoons uses geometry that doesn't make sense. (For one example, based on what you can see, the Flintstone's living room is about the length of a football field.)
Yea, I'm sure their drives have an average lifespan of 159 years. Next caller.
Well *of course*. Who you think owned the first automobiles? The first airplanes? The first big screen TVs?, etc. Get my point?
You completly missed the point. The quality of any public domain copy is limited to that of the highest quality PUBLIC release.
Think of it this way. CDs are 2 channels x 44.1khz sampling rate x 16 bits per sample. When the new format comes out, let's say it's 5 channel surround x 96khz sampling x 24bit samples. Let's assume the original music is out of copyright at this point. There is no way to take advantage of the additional quality offered by the new format. You can't pull bits out of thin air. The best you could do is interpolate the original 44khz/16bit data out to the new format, but that doesn't give you any gain.
Totally agreed. XM's "Top Tracks" channel is basically the greatest classic rock station ever. I'm listening to it right now.
Current Track: Joe Walsh - All Night Long
Previous: Humble Pie - 30 Days in the Hole
Before That: CSN&Y - Marakkesh Express
Yes, they're also like 32kbit MP3 streams that sound like complete shit.
>I use FM radio and don't have any complaints
Are you in some bizarro world where FM doesn't run 20-25 minutes of commericials per hour?
Because, shockingly enough, XM is a BUSINESS and BANDWITH isn't FREE.