Sounds cool, doesn't it? But now companies could start being able to restrict what you hook up to your computer. Sony does like HP right now? Now Trinitrons won't work on your Pavilion PC.
As I understand it, this would be a violation of the Clayton Act, similar to some of the arguments against Microsoft. However, if Sony developed their own proprietary interlink system (see connector conspiracy), and made it difficult for other people to develop to that spec (as Intel did with Slot 1), they could effectively accomplish the same task, although the ground is murky there.
IANAL, so this is all supposition based on similar fiascoes I've seen in the past, at best vaguely remembered.
I think a lot of the differences in the exception models reflect the differences in philosophy behind the various languages. Smalltalk is very much a late-binding environment, deferring as many decisions as possible until run time, sometimes not making the decisions at all. Java does a small amount of late binding, but it is, for the most part, early binding, trying to make almost all decisions at compile time.
Smalltalk assumes that, hey, if the exception is important, someone, somewhere will catch it, otherwise, it will recover and continue. Java will throw up its hands and say,"OK, I got an exception, no one caught it, you're fscked!", but the compiler will try to prevent you from writing code that gets you in that position in the first place.
JavaBeans address much of your issue, along with all those ready-built COM/ActiveX components you see for sale in the back of DDJ.
I don't know of anything like this for Unix yet, but Bonobo might be promising. It takes a lot of time for something like this to reach a critical mass, though.
Frankly, at that level, they should be teaching programming concepts using an environment that gives immediate gratification.
Squeak is an excellent modern example of Smalltalk-80, which was invented for just this purpose.
CISC machines tend to be much better at context switches. It does depend on the machine... but the VAX (about as CISC as you can get) could task-switch in a handful of cycles, while some RISC machines take hundreds.
There are pretty good reasons for that: VAXen had 16 general purpose registers, while (as an example) Alphas have 32 integer registers, and 32 FP registers. Copy those out, and copy the stored values in, for every context switch, and it adds up. Modern RISC architectures provide some balm for this, though, and not just because their clock rates and memory speeds are approximately four bazillion times faster than those of the VAX.
Stupid question time: Could this reliably map to an orbital telescope, which would then be able to be pointed anywhere? Rotation around the x axis could provide gravity to keep the mercury in the reservoir, while rotation around the y axis would provide the force to parabolize.
Or would the earth (and other bodies) impose too much of a gravity-induced distortion when pointed off normal?
Facts are facts. Facts don't care what anyone believes.
Argumentum ad verecundium. You still have yet to support the claim. Just saying,"Bob Smith said it, and he must know, because he said it on TV," isn't proof.
Yes, that's a straw man, but you still haven't proven anything.
It was Sharp, and they supplied software (Voquette?) that would transfer mp3 files to the MD player. However, the software would convert the mp3 files into ATRAC files. One model that ships with this is the MD-MT15VQ, which cost just over USD200. I don't know about others.
Wasn't it the New England Journal of Medicine that said you're almost four times more likely to be in an auto accident if you're using your cell phone while driving?
I'm sure people having car accidents have an increased risk of paralysis.
I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that people with cell phones are more likely to own cars (in the US, at least).
Therefore, cell phones increase the risk of paralysis!
The best time to quit is when you're getting lots done and you know exactly what you're going to do next. Tomorrow morning, you'll know exactly what you've got to start with, and once you do that, you're in the flow again.
Ernest Hemingway had a very similar analogy -- when you write, stop while there is still a little water left in the well. Overnight, the well will refill, and you can write again. Never empty the well completely.
I would quote it accurately, but I don't have A Moveable Feast at hand.
That's not the point in this case. Obviously, spending USD1k on your coolant isn't more cost effective than spending another USD150-200 on a CPU with a higher speed rating.
It's a geek thing, you wouldn't understand.
If you have two machines (or vmware), use both.
on
Why Develop On Linux?
·
· Score: 1
I am in the (enviable?) position of designing and developing Java server applications. Because of the nature of Java, I can use whatever platform has the best tool for a particular task, without having to do cross-compilation to another architecture. (Apart from the JVM.)
For front-end work with a modeller (Together/J) or IDE (VisualAge for Java), I use NT. Both of these products are available for Linux, but the freely available JVMs are either too slow or too flaky for constant use. In addition, the Linux version sometimes lags behind the NT version. (There is no VA/Java for Java 2.) For database interaction, I use TOAD, which is not available on Linux.
However, I use a Linux box (display exported to the NT box) for all of my debugging. I can tile 12 or more visible xterms in one screen, so I can watch the server output, all of the logfiles (application, servlet engine, web server), system activity (top), test harnesses, and still have screens to do rapid searches through code. Since I host all of the source and class files on a filesystem exported via Samba, all of my data is synchronised.
Basically, I draw the line as follows: if it uses a GUI, use Windows; if it uses a CLI, use Linux. I duplicate some tools on both environments (EMACS, perl, cygwin on NT; VA/Java, Together/J on Linux), but only for occasional use.
All they do is master it with footage shot on crappy videotape, with a few seconds of multi-angle content. Until they get it right, the only advantages are that the tape doesn't break the second time you watch it, and the smaller DVD case is easier to hide than those oversized VHS boxes.;>
Actually, the purpose of patents is to get "technology" disseminated, so that everyone can benefit from it. In exchange, the inventor receives temporary exclusive protection from duplication of the technology.
Indeed. The simple fact of the matter is that a consumer has the legal right (under US law) to create a backup copy of a recording that he has legitimately purchased. Interfering with this process through mandated "antipiracy" features is a cheat and a fraud.
I've been under the same impression. However, my cursory examination of the Copyright Act and other relevent material (Berne Convention, etc.), indicates that this is a misconception.
You are permitted a single archival copy of software following your description, but you are not permitted an archival copy of any other copyrighted matter unless you are a library, with certain restrictions and guidelines for claiming such status.
If you can give me a citation on this claim, I'd really appreciate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds cool, doesn't it? But now companies could start being able to restrict what you hook up to your computer. Sony does like HP right now? Now Trinitrons won't work on your Pavilion PC.
As I understand it, this would be a violation of the Clayton Act, similar to some of the arguments against Microsoft. However, if Sony developed their own proprietary interlink system (see connector conspiracy), and made it difficult for other people to develop to that spec (as Intel did with Slot 1), they could effectively accomplish the same task, although the ground is murky there.
IANAL, so this is all supposition based on similar fiascoes I've seen in the past, at best vaguely remembered.
I think a lot of the differences in the exception models reflect the differences in philosophy behind the various languages. Smalltalk is very much a late-binding environment, deferring as many decisions as possible until run time, sometimes not making the decisions at all. Java does a small amount of late binding, but it is, for the most part, early binding, trying to make almost all decisions at compile time.
Smalltalk assumes that, hey, if the exception is important, someone, somewhere will catch it, otherwise, it will recover and continue. Java will throw up its hands and say,"OK, I got an exception, no one caught it, you're fscked!", but the compiler will try to prevent you from writing code that gets you in that position in the first place.
JavaBeans address much of your issue, along with all those ready-built COM/ActiveX components you see for sale in the back of DDJ.
I don't know of anything like this for Unix yet, but Bonobo might be promising. It takes a lot of time for something like this to reach a critical mass, though.
Can they see octarine?
Frankly, at that level, they should be teaching programming concepts using an environment that gives immediate gratification.
Squeak is an excellent modern example of Smalltalk-80, which was invented for just this purpose.
There are pretty good reasons for that: VAXen had 16 general purpose registers, while (as an example) Alphas have 32 integer registers, and 32 FP registers. Copy those out, and copy the stored values in, for every context switch, and it adds up. Modern RISC architectures provide some balm for this, though, and not just because their clock rates and memory speeds are approximately four bazillion times faster than those of the VAX.
Stupid question time: Could this reliably map to an orbital telescope, which would then be able to be pointed anywhere? Rotation around the x axis could provide gravity to keep the mercury in the reservoir, while rotation around the y axis would provide the force to parabolize.
Or would the earth (and other bodies) impose too much of a gravity-induced distortion when pointed off normal?
So I've signed up for a course in Acting, a course in Direction, a course in Post Production.
It took until I was halfway through that sentence to realise you're not talking about new programming languages. IKIBHTL.
Ouch. I suck. :-)
Facts are facts. Facts don't care what anyone believes.
Argumentum ad verecundium. You still have yet to support the claim. Just saying,"Bob Smith said it, and he must know, because he said it on TV," isn't proof.
Yes, that's a straw man, but you still haven't proven anything.
Bzzt. Godwin's Law does not state that the invoker of Hitler, Nazism, or whatever loses. It merely states that the discussion is over at that point.
It was Sharp, and they supplied software (Voquette?) that would transfer mp3 files to the MD player. However, the software would convert the mp3 files into ATRAC files. One model that ships with this is the MD-MT15VQ, which cost just over USD200. I don't know about others.
Wasn't it the New England Journal of Medicine that said you're almost four times more likely to be in an auto accident if you're using your cell phone while driving?
I'm sure people having car accidents have an increased risk of paralysis.
I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that people with cell phones are more likely to own cars (in the US, at least).
Therefore, cell phones increase the risk of paralysis!
The best time to quit is when you're getting lots done and you know exactly what you're going to do next. Tomorrow morning, you'll know exactly what you've got to start with, and once you do that, you're in the flow again.
Ernest Hemingway had a very similar analogy -- when you write, stop while there is still a little water left in the well. Overnight, the well will refill, and you can write again. Never empty the well completely.
I would quote it accurately, but I don't have A Moveable Feast at hand.
That's not the point in this case. Obviously, spending USD1k on your coolant isn't more cost effective than spending another USD150-200 on a CPU with a higher speed rating.
It's a geek thing, you wouldn't understand.
I am in the (enviable?) position of designing and developing Java server applications. Because of the nature of Java, I can use whatever platform has the best tool for a particular task, without having to do cross-compilation to another architecture. (Apart from the JVM.)
For front-end work with a modeller (Together/J) or IDE (VisualAge for Java), I use NT. Both of these products are available for Linux, but the freely available JVMs are either too slow or too flaky for constant use. In addition, the Linux version sometimes lags behind the NT version. (There is no VA/Java for Java 2.) For database interaction, I use TOAD, which is not available on Linux.
However, I use a Linux box (display exported to the NT box) for all of my debugging. I can tile 12 or more visible xterms in one screen, so I can watch the server output, all of the logfiles (application, servlet engine, web server), system activity (top), test harnesses, and still have screens to do rapid searches through code. Since I host all of the source and class files on a filesystem exported via Samba, all of my data is synchronised.
Basically, I draw the line as follows: if it uses a GUI, use Windows; if it uses a CLI, use Linux. I duplicate some tools on both environments (EMACS, perl, cygwin on NT; VA/Java, Together/J on Linux), but only for occasional use.
They're russian. The only smell that would seem "funny" to them would be deodorant.
Crack is of course the less addictive form of Pokemon.
All they do is master it with footage shot on crappy videotape, with a few seconds of multi-angle content. Until they get it right, the only advantages are that the tape doesn't break the second time you watch it, and the smaller DVD case is easier to hide than those oversized VHS boxes.
Actually, the purpose of patents is to get "technology" disseminated, so that everyone can benefit from it. In exchange, the inventor receives temporary exclusive protection from duplication of the technology.
Remind me to avoid whatever roads you drive on. Hasn't someone tried to take your license away yet?
"This program has just performed an illegal operation. Your local police force will arrive shortly to take it into custody."
You were not hit with rubber bullets. You were hit with rubber balls fired from guns very similar to paintball guns.
He also has the virtue of being witty and intelligent. ;>
Indeed. The simple fact of the matter is that a consumer has the legal right (under US law) to create a backup copy of a recording that he has legitimately purchased. Interfering with this process through mandated "antipiracy" features is a cheat and a fraud.
I've been under the same impression. However, my cursory examination of the Copyright Act and other relevent material (Berne Convention, etc.), indicates that this is a misconception.
You are permitted a single archival copy of software following your description, but you are not permitted an archival copy of any other copyrighted matter unless you are a library, with certain restrictions and guidelines for claiming such status.
If you can give me a citation on this claim, I'd really appreciate it.