Sure there's a point. It keeps someone ELSE with less honorable intentions from patenting the same/a similar idea just to sit on it and prevent anyone else from doing it.
Ruby's C interface is, from what I understand, similar to Python's, ie, quite functional nad integrated, although I haven't really messed with it.
The actual standard lib is smaller, but this has the advantage that the source tarball is maybe 1/3rd the size of pythons (I'm thinking along the lines of 2.5MB vs 8 MB or so). Modules to do just about anything are available at the RAA (Ruby Application Archive) (http://raa.ruby-lang.org)
Mainly lots of small projects. Converting one fixed width format to another, things like that. Repetitive to a degree, but not to the point of being able to write a framework, as there is usually special logic involved. I'm also the only programmer at my place employment who writes in modern languages (IE: Not COBOL) so I'm given free reign by and large technically, as long as I can justify WHY X is a valid solution to problem Y.
I've used python for several years, but only 2 weeks after stumbling across "Programming Ruby" (Available free at http://www.rubycentral.com/book/), I've switched all new development to Ruby. As a language, it just clicks for me. It's like the best of all possible worlds. It brings in the cleanliness of Python (without the whitespace issues, for those who dislike that), the hack value of Perl (tightly integated regex, etc), the OO of smalltalk/java (for those that like that kind of thing), and essentially anonymous functions like a functional language. Many things are expressed in a very logical manner, and this allows you to concentrate on how to accomplice a task.
A comparison:
Python
adict = {'key':'val','key2':'val2','key3':3.14}
for k in adict.keys():
----print 'k -> '+str(adict[k])
As a counterpoint, ground based 'scopes are much more flexible. It's possible to change various things as needed for expiriments. It's also MUCH more practical, as it is possible to actually do maintaince on the thing. Heck, we could probably build that 100m wonder for what a single maintaince mission to Hubble costs. In addition, there's no reason a ground based telescope can't last for 100+ years. Not gonna happen in space.
If anything, he should be appluaded for A: Doing the EEs, and all the bonus material, and pricing it for $35 or less, a steal for a package of that quality.
Because he did it. LoTR was the most ambitious movie shoot EVER, just about any way you look at it. This was a MASSIVE undertaking. A typical movie shoot runs somewhere between 50 and 90 days. LoTR ran almost a year and half, and that's not counting the many, many, hours of additonal shooting done after early cuts were assembled. Many have tried to do movies on this scale. PJ is remarkable for being the first to pull it off completly. I think the movies have revived a great traditon in filmmaking, the epic, a style perhaps best typified by the David Lean epics of the 1960's (Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence Of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago). Lean did a fantastic job on those pictures, and did amazing things. However, he had the advantage of working in more-or-less the real world. PJ had to invent his world, bring Tolkiens written words to life. He managed to avoid turning LoTR into another Apocolypse Now, a movie, that while grandiose in scope, comes off as disjointed, and at times forced. Jackson managed to do what most had called impossible, bring Tolkiens work to the big screen in a way that is both accessible to the masses, and yet true to the source material. There have been very few movies that have walked that tightrope, and made it to the other side. THAT is why he deserves the Oscar.
I've never seen a real IT deployment (That 486 OpenBSD firewall doesn't count!), where the OS cost was more than 5, maybe 10 at the most, percent of the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Lucas *helped* a bit with the movie, by opening up ILM's sound library.
Grab the portupgrade port.
That provides a script for doing port installs.
So you can do something like
portinstall -P foobaz
This will isntall the 'foobaz' package. The -P option tells it to attempt to use a binary package before falling back on a source build.
No, not possible. The two vechicles were in totally different orbits.
Sure there's a point. It keeps someone ELSE with less honorable intentions from patenting the same/a similar idea just to sit on it and prevent anyone else from doing it.
But a truly smart investor wouldn't put all of his eggs into one basket like that.
Wow way to repost the same damn thing.
Ruby's C interface is, from what I understand, similar to Python's, ie, quite functional nad integrated, although I haven't really messed with it.
The actual standard lib is smaller, but this has the advantage that the source tarball is maybe 1/3rd the size of pythons (I'm thinking along the lines of 2.5MB vs 8 MB or so). Modules to do just about anything are available at the RAA (Ruby Application Archive) (http://raa.ruby-lang.org)
Mainly lots of small projects. Converting one fixed width format to another, things like that. Repetitive to a degree, but not to the point of being able to write a framework, as there is usually special logic involved. I'm also the only programmer at my place employment who writes in modern languages (IE: Not COBOL) so I'm given free reign by and large technically, as long as I can justify WHY X is a valid solution to problem Y.
Here's a program I've written in ruby, just today, in about 2 hours.
It generates a graphical waveform from the component harmonics, as well as graphing the first 10 harmonics.
Source Code: http://tylere.com/waveform.rb.txt
Some Examples:
Square Wave
A Phased Sine Wave
Triangular Wave
Sawtooth Wave
Total agreement.
I've used python for several years, but only 2 weeks after stumbling across "Programming Ruby" (Available free at http://www.rubycentral.com/book/), I've switched all new development to Ruby. As a language, it just clicks for me. It's like the best of all possible worlds. It brings in the cleanliness of Python (without the whitespace issues, for those who dislike that), the hack value of Perl (tightly integated regex, etc), the OO of smalltalk/java (for those that like that kind of thing), and essentially anonymous functions like a functional language. Many things are expressed in a very logical manner, and this allows you to concentrate on how to accomplice a task.
A comparison:
Python
adict = {'key':'val','key2':'val2','key3':3.14}
for k in adict.keys():
----print 'k -> '+str(adict[k])
Ruby
adict = {'key'=>'val','key2'=>'val2','key3'=>3.14}
adict.each{|k,v| puts k,' -> ',v}
The only thing a musician hates more than noise is weight.
Argh...stupid Slashcode.
Basicaly you take a 5.1 setup and add left and right "side" speakers
I think 7.1 is something like:
.1
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
It's already available!
Although you'll need a CityBlock-ATX motherboard, just buy a new Carnigie Hall module.
Does one really need a 1000 page reference on PHP? The online documentation is free, downloadable, and quite complete.
Or use it to take out a dam or something...
What are you doing to your poor iBook, using it as a tennis racquet?
Not really. ISS has been hit by several micromediorites in the last few years. They've just been lucky enough that the cabin has never been breeched.
Two things really
1: It's impossible to inspect it in space, a replace things before they fail, and possibly take other things out with them.
2: Micrometorites. Small Mass Big Velocity
As a counterpoint, ground based 'scopes are much more flexible. It's possible to change various things as needed for expiriments. It's also MUCH more practical, as it is possible to actually do maintaince on the thing. Heck, we could probably build that 100m wonder for what a single maintaince mission to Hubble costs. In addition, there's no reason a ground based telescope can't last for 100+ years. Not gonna happen in space.
Solar panels have all kinds of nasty stuff in them.
Urm, he's credited as both.
That's being rather nitpickish, I'd say.
If anything, he should be appluaded for A: Doing the EEs, and all the bonus material, and pricing it for $35 or less, a steal for a package of that quality.
I'll bite.
Why does he deserve the Oscar?
Because he did it. LoTR was the most ambitious movie shoot EVER, just about any way you look at it. This was a MASSIVE undertaking. A typical movie shoot runs somewhere between 50 and 90 days. LoTR ran almost a year and half, and that's not counting the many, many, hours of additonal shooting done after early cuts were assembled. Many have tried to do movies on this scale. PJ is remarkable for being the first to pull it off completly. I think the movies have revived a great traditon in filmmaking, the epic, a style perhaps best typified by the David Lean epics of the 1960's (Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence Of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago). Lean did a fantastic job on those pictures, and did amazing things. However, he had the advantage of working in more-or-less the real world. PJ had to invent his world, bring Tolkiens written words to life. He managed to avoid turning LoTR into another Apocolypse Now, a movie, that while grandiose in scope, comes off as disjointed, and at times forced. Jackson managed to do what most had called impossible, bring Tolkiens work to the big screen in a way that is both accessible to the masses, and yet true to the source material. There have been very few movies that have walked that tightrope, and made it to the other side. THAT is why he deserves the Oscar.
Not really.
I've never seen a real IT deployment (That 486 OpenBSD firewall doesn't count!), where the OS cost was more than 5, maybe 10 at the most, percent of the cost.