You make it sound like anyone who isn't holding an uzi, ready to storm, is a selfish coward, to weak to defend himself or his loved ones. Now, that's absolutely insane. We need people who will see the cause, go all out and into war, both stratigic planning and immersed in the battle field. We need people searching for information, to better support and defend those in uniform. We need people developing and manifacturing goods to better protect and arm the men in uniform. But we also need people doing their regular job, ensring our economy sustains itself to fund these operations, but also keep the nation and those at home fed and happy.
Your children wont be to happy if every father and brother old enough to fight are shipped out to the middle east. This 'war' will not be defending freedom in that we might lose it, but defending our ideals, showing we will not waver. If we were invaded, such as with the British in the Revolution, many, many people would rise up to fight. Then we would be defending our liberty, and our rights. Here, we our not defending them from being taken away, but protecting them from being degraded.
I'm an engineer, I'm fit, I'm well educated, I'm proud of America. I have many friends just the same, many who are also going into the military. I know a good number who, on the 11th, began thinking hard about signing up, one going home to talk to his parents for the weekend, another trying (with moderate success) to enlist with the airforce (screwed up system). Would I fight this war? No. I don't see this as one where I must wear a uniform to support it, where I need to drop out of school and pick up a weapon, where the people I love are in danger. If this was WWII, the Civil, or Revolution, yes, I would. Many family members of mine died in the holocost, my grandfather even entering the state lottery when war broke out, winning but being turned down (poor hearing or something during physical - can't be drafted if turned down first time I'm told).
But the people not standing up, now, to fight is not sad. There's no need for us all to, for us to go into all out war. We need people at home and abroad; our military is vaste, so vaste there is no reason to put aside the home front to enlist. That could hurt us more, as we need consumers and workers to bring us out of recession and keep the economy strong. The war wont esculate into a global one, but a weak economy hurts us dramatically.
Re:IA64 is the "heir apparent"
on
Itanium Update
·
· Score: 1
Close. The K5 was an AMD design, which absolutely stunk. The K6 design was origionally based on the K5 architecture, but the NexGen core replaced it. IMHO, AMD at that time was worse then Cyrix, and buying NexGen saved the company from another poor designed chip, and slowly built them up. Cyrix was not so lucky, and thus continued on designing slow chips and trying to compensate with their integrated solutions (which flopped).
A quick architecture page to back me up on the K5 not being NexGen: here
From what I can see, current microproccessor ISAs are predominately serial, grabbing a job, filling up the pipeline blocks as well as possible, and using branch prediction/OOO to better fill the bubbles. They try to get a decent IPC, and crank it up immensly so the bubbles propigated will quickly move through the processor.
But new chip designs are moving towards a parrellel approach, either on these serial processor arhitectures (SMT, multi-core chips), or the ISA itself (HP's EPIC). EPIC and SMT fill in the bubbles more efficently, while the multi-core chips I assume just allow each thread to run on their own chip so more work can be done at the same time.
It seems to me that EPIC makes it easier on the average programmer, but harder on the compiler desginers. SMT boosts the incentive of using threading by programmers, and multi-core really forces programmers to deal with threads for optimal performance. Since threads can be a hassle, EPIC to me seems the cleanest.
As a chip designer, where do you think the future of microprocessor desgins should and will go? As someone who designed a multi-core chip, why did you choose this route?
ATI doesn't release these drivers to the public, so the only way to get them is through Dell. Whether they have them or not doesn't mean Dell lists them for the laptops. For instance, I have an Inspiron 7000, one of the last before the shift to the 7500. That means mine has the new video chip, a change over luckily made while it was being constructed.
So, when I want drivers for Windows Me, I only see a beta on Dell's support site. Its awful, and only for w98. Then I look at the 7500 and above, and there they are, my card exactly with new and updated drivers. These work, these actually don't crash my system, and some of these after installed actually boot up the GUI, instead of leaving me with a running system but showing the splash screen.
Dell had these drivers, just never listed them for my laptop. ATI wont release them to the public, so its a hunt. For 2000 or XP, that will likely be a hard find verses windows 9x, but still exist. Its not entirely ATI's fault, but Dell could do better by keeping driver support alive.
(Dell has other problems too. My laptop doesn't support Me or 2000 according to them, which is ridiculous since they came out right after. Dell should have been fine with it. To get DVD to work properly, I had to go to the 7500 support page, so I had sound. Dell needs to continue support for their products, not just retire the driver pages the week they rename them. The 7500 is exactly the same as my late edition 7000 from what I can tell.)
I'm about to enter junior year of undergrad, computer engineering and CS major. It'll ake me 4.5yrs total, and I'm going to go for 5 to take some grad-level courses. Then an MBA, and likely that's it.
So I keep reading about the downturn of the economy, tech slumps, layoffs, etc and it has me wondering. I know my education is good, since I work hard and my school is focused, while I see friends at UCs failing classes and not really learning anything and lacking any incentive. So I'll have a good background to go into what, an overpopulated workforce in a failing economy?
Personally my interests are in processor architecture, though what I go into depends on my job offers. So, what are my chances?
My question is, why? I didn't believe this when I read it earlier, and still not now. The Alpha is a viable architecture, proven and powerful. Intel could gain patents and technology, but I thought these issues were, for the most part, resolved years ago in a secret settlement. Intel bought DEC's fabs, DEC dropped lawsuits against Intel over the P5 and other 'things.'
IA-64 and Alpha are both viable at scientific applications, and from the latest Compaq compiler, they are relatively equal in their current forms. The Alpha wouldn't die because of the 3rd party consortium (forget name: APR?). And I've read claims that many of the best engineers left when Compaq bought DEC and moved to AMD amongst others. So, what is the major gain Intel would get from this?
lol, i thought you meant forced retirement only, which is what I was refering to. Of course people should be allowed to retire when they wish to. I've known a number of people who've come out of retirement or are looking into going into it, as well as friends already starting IRAs in order to build up a nice nest egg.
For example, I've seen professors with tenure retire, and then a few years begin at a new university, obtain tenure, and later retire.
Okay, that whole statement I agree with in entirety. And in no way was I foreigner bashing, as my example with unloading skilled professionals for cheaper fresh labor was wasteful.
With graduates, I thought they usually make them sign contracts for a number of years they must work for. In any case, that case is a demand for labor which should help (temporarily) increase wages, which for any worker is a plus. To much of this could help flood the market, i guess.
Retirement age should be at the point where the individual is incompitent/unable to perform their duties. There should also be something the worker could move into (ie, more of a desk job) if possible, rather then just forced out by the company due to age.
I think that's a bit niave. Yes, I definately agree it should be brought up when the industries say they need more foriegners brought in, shouldn't dump older folks because of their salary, etc. However, the science and engineering fields are expanding and do need more students, and if your trying to say we're all working for nothing and the industry really isn't expanding past killing off old people..
Also, some people past retirement are able to become consultants, especially government scientists to their respective labs. This is very true for large scale projects, such as laser systems (ie, NIF at LLNL) where the head scientists/engineers must retire in the middle of the project. As their still badly needed afterwards, they can and do consult for about the same salary, and can help the labs afterwards. How far this goes for other scientists/engineers for companies, I'm not to sure.
PS. the foriegners bit - I just meant it was pretty bad to fire all the cobal people, say "We need people badly!" and try as hard as they could but ended up just giving in and hiring them back temporarily. It was just pitiful on the industry's part.
I am continually and consistently impressed with the linux community and their development scheme... What I find really funny is that other companies, hint the BIG Guy, would designate whole new version numbers as in 2.0, 3.0, just to give the software buying public something to clearly define one from the other.
Now that's a downright lie. Big companies do this as much and as little as small companies do - ie the Apple MacOS has numerous incriments on its numbers. If you look at many UNIX OSes, its x.y.z, with x.0 releases being far apart. But this is by no means a norm in UNIX, and Linux distributions definately changed that mentality. RedHat and others boosted their numbers so quickly that people felt almost forced to follow suit, ie. Slackware. FreeBSD decided to follow this marketting system in order to gain attention during the big Linux rush ("boom"), and you can see how changes from 2.x differs from 3.0 and so forth. Even Solaris, from 2.6 went to Solaris 7 (2.7) to 8 (2.8). Marketting, and likely somewhat due to both Linux's attention on UNIX and Microsoft's large version numbers.
However you could point to the Linux kernel or NetBSD and see some sanity in numbering. Marketting always pushes bigger numbers (the whole '2000' version gimick), and usually comercial products are more distinct between version numbers -> they are released further apart and help ensure a cycle of continous upgrades. The OSS community by no means neglects marketting, just look at all the fusses LUGs make in pushing Linux (ie, going to non-Linux conventions, SVLUG's infamous MS cd rockets, etc).
Actually we are slowing down the earth in another way too. The power generated by damns is collecting energy from the earth's spin. Fortunately, this is happening at such a low rate that the Sun will supernova first, and probably enough other annoying events our children wont wake up to have the atmosphere disappear because we.. stopped.
Are we there yet? No.
Are we there yet? No.
Are we there yet? No.
I'm not to sure if that was ever in GCC, but I do remember that was a backdoor that Thompson created. He had the compiler build it into the system, so that he could get in (only reportedly used it once, I believe). If you tried to take it out of the compiler's source, and recompile it with the 'bad' compiler, it would re-add it. It was quite nifty, and thus gets mentioned all the time here on/.
It isn't even likely to drive technological innovation.
I'd have to disagree with you there. Government money goes to public and private universities in research grants, which have resulted in numerous innovations and technological advances. Government money also goes to contracts, which then spur technological innovation. While no, our government has always shifted away from internal research, some is always being done. The work done at government labs, such as JPL, LLNL, etc., are all extremely advanced (check out NIF, or its predicessors such as Nova at LLNL). Government contracts have built defense industries, for instance, but at the same time others such as IBM, Sun, etc. IBM has made numerous advances (#1 patent holder) due to foriegn and domestic contracts.
Also, your notion that ADA was horrible is unfounded. There have been arguments both ways, but none I've heard saying it was not worthwhile or significant.
No, not entirely. The beginnings of UNIX and ATT's first editions were private, but the company had no clue on what to do with its new toy. Thus, they handed it over to Universities (like MS and Sun now do) in order to get free labor. UCB and other government agencies (eg, DARPA) made significant enhancements which caused the BSD branch to be adopted far more by the industry than ATT's, until these improvements were brought into the ATT package. BSD UNIX was the most significant development of the OS, and that was by government money. The creation was not.
Reagan did not have hardly any scandals until that Iran-Contra thing
Oh yeah, we'll just twist the past a bit and forget about the election scandle. Do you remember the little side deal about giving arms to the Iranians for holding Americans prisoner until after the elections? They tried to ask the Carter Administration for funds too, but were neglected on the grounds that is was utterly sick for the U.S. to do. Many historians have argued that Carter could have won the election if it was not for this scandle, which of course the Republicans must have believed too. (Iran was at war after they took the hostiges, and needed supplies desperately)
Carter talked about the hostiges for months, making it his prime concern, both publically and privately. The fact that his hands were tied hurt him considerably at the polls. So sure, Reagan was simply innocent and cuddly.
That's exactly what happened to me. I recieved rejections from the UCs, such as SantaCruz saying it was explicitly because of my LD. I recieved a 1250 (SAT), decent SAT-2s I guess (don't recall), and had a 3.96GPA at a private school. Friends of mine went to UCSC, lower on all accounts.
My language requirements were waved by my school due to the LD (the spanish teacher recommended I get tested my freshman year). Still, it wasn't surprising since I have a mild case of cerebral palsy (went to physical/speech therapy when I was little). The thing was, I applied to lots of top private universities and the best gave me merit scholorships, the average at around half tuition. I don't get (or have asked) for extra time since I don't need it.. I may be slower at some things but since I spend a lot of time learning it, its okay (ie, I may take up all of the time, but I ace it).
The UCs definately are screwy and not setup well. They used to go on about how they'd change accept the top 10% from any California highschool. Either way, their admissions is fearful of being sued, but will try to get away with a lot (ie, were really pissed when my school called them, and turned down my appeal).
There's a better news bite at Ace's about this. Basically, the second compilation used 3 threads, so the CPU may have had less idle time and i/o bottle neck then the single.
"Unfortunately, the benchmarks vary significantly between the two tests in that the first is completely serialized while the second (dual-processor) test is run with three parallel make processes (notice the -j flag). Because the first system is running with only a single build instance, the processor is spending a great deal of time simply waiting on IO. Meanwhile, the dual-processor test was performed with not just two, but, in fact, three make processes. The difference here is that a processor will not be completely idle while waiting on IO in the second test, as there are two additional build processes running concurrently. This is why the use of the -j parameter is often recommended even for uniprocessor systems, as a parallel make will often yield much higher CPU utilization and thus faster compiles.
"Until then, it is very difficult to make a representative statement about the performance of a dual-processor Athlon system from this benchmark."
Well, you have to remember that Intel continously shrinks the die size on their chips. The 400mhz may have been an.25nm+, while the new 1Ghz are at.18 (or.13?). That shrink reduces power consumption and therefore heat disipation considerably. It also allows for higher clock rates, which is a significant reason why Intel was able to extend the P6 architecture so far.
I'd bet that if the G4 and Pentium III were at the same die size, the G4 would disipate less heat per clock. That's simply because the Motorola chips were touted for their low power/heat requirements and that Intel spends a significant amount of money on research and fabrication. Intel chips are usually at the smallest process available (though they have a conservative look, and don't switch right away). If you look at server chips (and other than AMD, most CPUs), the majority are fabbed at larger sizes then Intel's.
Why do you keep sayingthat Microsoft/BillG claimed to have invented DLLs? The author of the article claims they did, without any reference. I merely was answering the posters query as to whether the author was making that point, or whether it was just a slip up.
Oh, and yes, Microsoft did a lot of the coding for OS/2.
"And to combat the relatively tiny amount of disk space that would likely be available, the early designers of Windows invented DLLs, or dynamic link libraries, which are files that simply contain code that can be shared between multiple applications and the operating system, simultaneously, so that this code wouldn't need to exist on the system in numerous locations."
CRL has probably been the best ISP I've seen, and recently was acquired by Applied Theory. I dropped my subscription last year, when I moved onto ethernet, but if A.T. is anything close, they;re who you want. CRL was not a new startup (had been around since the mid-80s, was wide spread, reliable and fast. I had a slip/ppp/shell account (5mb shell/15mb web), which is the most I've seen offered for dial-up. CRL, and now A.T., hosts CDROM.com, and the systems (were) Sun boxes. I'm pretty sure they used fBSD for smaller jobs, if I recall correctly (I knew a few people who worked for them).
Anyways, it was slightly over $20/month with CRL, never busy, good speeds, etc. Fast responce from support, etc. If A.T. didn't ruin them, then CRL would be the best.
hmm, how much crap is this post? For one thing, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that the win98 SE upgrade from '98 is not $125. Actually, when it came out, IIRC, the cd was free except $5 s/h. Currently, Microsoft has this to say about the upgrade.
The Windows 98 Upgrade is for licensed users of Windows 95, Window 3.1, and Windows for Workgroups 3.1x.
Existing Windows 98 (original version - Gold) users wanting to upgrade to the Second Edition level can purchase the Windows 98 Second Edition Updates CD for $19.95 (US)/ $34.95 (CAN) from the Microsoft Windows 98 web site.
Now, you also seem to pretend that everyone who buys a copy of windows will automatically upgrade to the next version, at a retail price. I've known many, many people who don't both to (I have known no one who has "rushed" out to get the latest edition). You also assume everyone started from windows 3.1 and upgraded.. nope.
Most of the legal copies of windows floating around are bundled with computers, where the suppliers (ala Dell) may pay a small price (for being MS buddies). We can assume Dell tacks on the price of Windows that they paid and then the hardware costs, and their bonus. Your then paying less then retail for windows, and your only extra charge is to create Dell's profit.
Oh, and I beta tested Millenium too. Who really cares?
Oh, he was trolling. But you forgot that Roberge left this semester, probably for good (his company is about to enter the market). I had him last year, and I always wondered why he skipped it. He was good and I hear the woman who replaced him isn't to wonderful.
One of the major reasons why IIT isn't known is because a few years back money was tight, and professors left (forced or not), somewhat due to failing to give tenure. Motorola and Hyat stepped in and its getting back in shape, but I had a professor another university warn me about that. Had great things to say otherwise.
The CS cur. is a bit light, especially first year. But almost every other college is the same, as if you look at CMU's its quite close. The major difference is that CS105/106 is first semester (200). I actually liked ours a little better, as CMU's seemed to be to strict (ie, humanities/philosophies were pre-picked). Course, thts what I remember, and easily could be a bit wrong.
A friend at UCSC seems to have had a worse time then here. The classes sounded as if they taught less and he failed two (quarter, tho, so throuws me off a bit). IIT is nothing like the crap people have been saying on here, as you'd agree. The EE/CPE isn't light, and every night these last two weeks I've been working for 6+ hours studying. The works hard, taught well, and done well.
This guy got it right and most people talking on here just give wild speculations. Slashdot gets reaction, not logical thought.
Well, I always figured that RMS and his followers push the GPL because it emphasizes a belief of theirs - one I don't share. They've decided that no one should profit from the programs they write, and has built enough of a code base/platform that reinventing the wheel in order to get around the GPL becomes ever more difficult. I personally see the GPL as quite viral and diminishing options for people. Developers should be compinsated, just like musicians, directors/actors, etc. I do of course realize everyhing you stated, but people wouldn't flock around if they understood and disagreed. People are dumb, they believe pirating movies, music, and software is perfectly moral and just.
As to open source (such as BSD), I disagree with your friend. It has shown to follow a trend close to scientific study - sharing information allows greater progress. The sharing at most requires you to acknolodge the developer, and the code can be used in any project. Just like in science (ie, chemisty), companies and research institutes progress the field, leaving a mixture for community development and corperate profits.
------------------------------------------
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Slashdot Mirror
Fight or cower?
You make it sound like anyone who isn't holding an uzi, ready to storm, is a selfish coward, to weak to defend himself or his loved ones. Now, that's absolutely insane. We need people who will see the cause, go all out and into war, both stratigic planning and immersed in the battle field. We need people searching for information, to better support and defend those in uniform. We need people developing and manifacturing goods to better protect and arm the men in uniform. But we also need people doing their regular job, ensring our economy sustains itself to fund these operations, but also keep the nation and those at home fed and happy.
Your children wont be to happy if every father and brother old enough to fight are shipped out to the middle east. This 'war' will not be defending freedom in that we might lose it, but defending our ideals, showing we will not waver. If we were invaded, such as with the British in the Revolution, many, many people would rise up to fight. Then we would be defending our liberty, and our rights. Here, we our not defending them from being taken away, but protecting them from being degraded.
I'm an engineer, I'm fit, I'm well educated, I'm proud of America. I have many friends just the same, many who are also going into the military. I know a good number who, on the 11th, began thinking hard about signing up, one going home to talk to his parents for the weekend, another trying (with moderate success) to enlist with the airforce (screwed up system). Would I fight this war? No. I don't see this as one where I must wear a uniform to support it, where I need to drop out of school and pick up a weapon, where the people I love are in danger. If this was WWII, the Civil, or Revolution, yes, I would. Many family members of mine died in the holocost, my grandfather even entering the state lottery when war broke out, winning but being turned down (poor hearing or something during physical - can't be drafted if turned down first time I'm told).
But the people not standing up, now, to fight is not sad. There's no need for us all to, for us to go into all out war. We need people at home and abroad; our military is vaste, so vaste there is no reason to put aside the home front to enlist. That could hurt us more, as we need consumers and workers to bring us out of recession and keep the economy strong. The war wont esculate into a global one, but a weak economy hurts us dramatically.
Close. The K5 was an AMD design, which absolutely stunk. The K6 design was origionally based on the K5 architecture, but the NexGen core replaced it. IMHO, AMD at that time was worse then Cyrix, and buying NexGen saved the company from another poor designed chip, and slowly built them up. Cyrix was not so lucky, and thus continued on designing slow chips and trying to compensate with their integrated solutions (which flopped).
A quick architecture page to back me up on the K5 not being NexGen: here
From what I can see, current microproccessor ISAs are predominately serial, grabbing a job, filling up the pipeline blocks as well as possible, and using branch prediction/OOO to better fill the bubbles. They try to get a decent IPC, and crank it up immensly so the bubbles propigated will quickly move through the processor.
But new chip designs are moving towards a parrellel approach, either on these serial processor arhitectures (SMT, multi-core chips), or the ISA itself (HP's EPIC). EPIC and SMT fill in the bubbles more efficently, while the multi-core chips I assume just allow each thread to run on their own chip so more work can be done at the same time.
It seems to me that EPIC makes it easier on the average programmer, but harder on the compiler desginers. SMT boosts the incentive of using threading by programmers, and multi-core really forces programmers to deal with threads for optimal performance. Since threads can be a hassle, EPIC to me seems the cleanest.
As a chip designer, where do you think the future of microprocessor desgins should and will go? As someone who designed a multi-core chip, why did you choose this route?
ATI doesn't release these drivers to the public, so the only way to get them is through Dell. Whether they have them or not doesn't mean Dell lists them for the laptops. For instance, I have an Inspiron 7000, one of the last before the shift to the 7500. That means mine has the new video chip, a change over luckily made while it was being constructed.
So, when I want drivers for Windows Me, I only see a beta on Dell's support site. Its awful, and only for w98. Then I look at the 7500 and above, and there they are, my card exactly with new and updated drivers. These work, these actually don't crash my system, and some of these after installed actually boot up the GUI, instead of leaving me with a running system but showing the splash screen.
Dell had these drivers, just never listed them for my laptop. ATI wont release them to the public, so its a hunt. For 2000 or XP, that will likely be a hard find verses windows 9x, but still exist. Its not entirely ATI's fault, but Dell could do better by keeping driver support alive.
(Dell has other problems too. My laptop doesn't support Me or 2000 according to them, which is ridiculous since they came out right after. Dell should have been fine with it. To get DVD to work properly, I had to go to the 7500 support page, so I had sound. Dell needs to continue support for their products, not just retire the driver pages the week they rename them. The 7500 is exactly the same as my late edition 7000 from what I can tell.)
I'm about to enter junior year of undergrad, computer engineering and CS major. It'll ake me 4.5yrs total, and I'm going to go for 5 to take some grad-level courses. Then an MBA, and likely that's it.
So I keep reading about the downturn of the economy, tech slumps, layoffs, etc and it has me wondering. I know my education is good, since I work hard and my school is focused, while I see friends at UCs failing classes and not really learning anything and lacking any incentive. So I'll have a good background to go into what, an overpopulated workforce in a failing economy?
Personally my interests are in processor architecture, though what I go into depends on my job offers. So, what are my chances?
-----------------------------------------
My question is, why? I didn't believe this when I read it earlier, and still not now. The Alpha is a viable architecture, proven and powerful. Intel could gain patents and technology, but I thought these issues were, for the most part, resolved years ago in a secret settlement. Intel bought DEC's fabs, DEC dropped lawsuits against Intel over the P5 and other 'things.'
So Ace's says that the newest compilation of SPEC outperforms the Itanium (Merced). I think the Merced has a lot of potential, in the fact that it isn't the cleanest design (more of a proof of concept and a 1st attempt to learn from), and that I doubt the Intel compiler is very up to par. Yet it still gives an impressive performance, if you believe SPEC.
IA-64 and Alpha are both viable at scientific applications, and from the latest Compaq compiler, they are relatively equal in their current forms. The Alpha wouldn't die because of the 3rd party consortium (forget name: APR?). And I've read claims that many of the best engineers left when Compaq bought DEC and moved to AMD amongst others. So, what is the major gain Intel would get from this?
-----------------------------------------
lol, i thought you meant forced retirement only, which is what I was refering to. Of course people should be allowed to retire when they wish to. I've known a number of people who've come out of retirement or are looking into going into it, as well as friends already starting IRAs in order to build up a nice nest egg.
For example, I've seen professors with tenure retire, and then a few years begin at a new university, obtain tenure, and later retire.
-----------------------------------------
Okay, that whole statement I agree with in entirety. And in no way was I foreigner bashing, as my example with unloading skilled professionals for cheaper fresh labor was wasteful.
With graduates, I thought they usually make them sign contracts for a number of years they must work for. In any case, that case is a demand for labor which should help (temporarily) increase wages, which for any worker is a plus. To much of this could help flood the market, i guess.
Retirement age should be at the point where the individual is incompitent/unable to perform their duties. There should also be something the worker could move into (ie, more of a desk job) if possible, rather then just forced out by the company due to age.
-----------------------------------------
I think that's a bit niave. Yes, I definately agree it should be brought up when the industries say they need more foriegners brought in, shouldn't dump older folks because of their salary, etc. However, the science and engineering fields are expanding and do need more students, and if your trying to say we're all working for nothing and the industry really isn't expanding past killing off old people..
Also, some people past retirement are able to become consultants, especially government scientists to their respective labs. This is very true for large scale projects, such as laser systems (ie, NIF at LLNL) where the head scientists/engineers must retire in the middle of the project. As their still badly needed afterwards, they can and do consult for about the same salary, and can help the labs afterwards. How far this goes for other scientists/engineers for companies, I'm not to sure.
PS. the foriegners bit - I just meant it was pretty bad to fire all the cobal people, say "We need people badly!" and try as hard as they could but ended up just giving in and hiring them back temporarily. It was just pitiful on the industry's part.
-----------------------------------------
I am continually and consistently impressed with the linux community and their development scheme... What I find really funny is that other companies, hint the BIG Guy, would designate whole new version numbers as in 2.0, 3.0, just to give the software buying public something to clearly define one from the other.
Now that's a downright lie. Big companies do this as much and as little as small companies do - ie the Apple MacOS has numerous incriments on its numbers. If you look at many UNIX OSes, its x.y.z, with x.0 releases being far apart. But this is by no means a norm in UNIX, and Linux distributions definately changed that mentality. RedHat and others boosted their numbers so quickly that people felt almost forced to follow suit, ie. Slackware. FreeBSD decided to follow this marketting system in order to gain attention during the big Linux rush ("boom"), and you can see how changes from 2.x differs from 3.0 and so forth. Even Solaris, from 2.6 went to Solaris 7 (2.7) to 8 (2.8). Marketting, and likely somewhat due to both Linux's attention on UNIX and Microsoft's large version numbers.
However you could point to the Linux kernel or NetBSD and see some sanity in numbering. Marketting always pushes bigger numbers (the whole '2000' version gimick), and usually comercial products are more distinct between version numbers -> they are released further apart and help ensure a cycle of continous upgrades. The OSS community by no means neglects marketting, just look at all the fusses LUGs make in pushing Linux (ie, going to non-Linux conventions, SVLUG's infamous MS cd rockets, etc).
-----------------------------------------
Actually we are slowing down the earth in another way too. The power generated by damns is collecting energy from the earth's spin. Fortunately, this is happening at such a low rate that the Sun will supernova first, and probably enough other annoying events our children wont wake up to have the atmosphere disappear because we.. stopped.
Are we there yet? No.
Are we there yet? No.
Are we there yet? No.
-----------------------------------------
Can you use a NetBSD box with Sun emulation in order to get IE5 up? I believe Net/Open/Free all have this emulation support.
-----------------------------------------
I'm not to sure if that was ever in GCC, but I do remember that was a backdoor that Thompson created. He had the compiler build it into the system, so that he could get in (only reportedly used it once, I believe). If you tried to take it out of the compiler's source, and recompile it with the 'bad' compiler, it would re-add it. It was quite nifty, and thus gets mentioned all the time here on /.
-----------------------------------------
It isn't even likely to drive technological innovation.
I'd have to disagree with you there. Government money goes to public and private universities in research grants, which have resulted in numerous innovations and technological advances. Government money also goes to contracts, which then spur technological innovation. While no, our government has always shifted away from internal research, some is always being done. The work done at government labs, such as JPL, LLNL, etc., are all extremely advanced (check out NIF, or its predicessors such as Nova at LLNL). Government contracts have built defense industries, for instance, but at the same time others such as IBM, Sun, etc. IBM has made numerous advances (#1 patent holder) due to foriegn and domestic contracts.
Also, your notion that ADA was horrible is unfounded. There have been arguments both ways, but none I've heard saying it was not worthwhile or significant.
-----------------------------------------
The development of Unix was privately funded.
No, not entirely. The beginnings of UNIX and ATT's first editions were private, but the company had no clue on what to do with its new toy. Thus, they handed it over to Universities (like MS and Sun now do) in order to get free labor. UCB and other government agencies (eg, DARPA) made significant enhancements which caused the BSD branch to be adopted far more by the industry than ATT's, until these improvements were brought into the ATT package. BSD UNIX was the most significant development of the OS, and that was by government money. The creation was not.
-----------------------------------------
Reagan did not have hardly any scandals until that Iran-Contra thing
Oh yeah, we'll just twist the past a bit and forget about the election scandle. Do you remember the little side deal about giving arms to the Iranians for holding Americans prisoner until after the elections? They tried to ask the Carter Administration for funds too, but were neglected on the grounds that is was utterly sick for the U.S. to do. Many historians have argued that Carter could have won the election if it was not for this scandle, which of course the Republicans must have believed too. (Iran was at war after they took the hostiges, and needed supplies desperately)
Carter talked about the hostiges for months, making it his prime concern, both publically and privately. The fact that his hands were tied hurt him considerably at the polls. So sure, Reagan was simply innocent and cuddly.
-----------------------------------------
That's exactly what happened to me. I recieved rejections from the UCs, such as SantaCruz saying it was explicitly because of my LD. I recieved a 1250 (SAT), decent SAT-2s I guess (don't recall), and had a 3.96GPA at a private school. Friends of mine went to UCSC, lower on all accounts.
My language requirements were waved by my school due to the LD (the spanish teacher recommended I get tested my freshman year). Still, it wasn't surprising since I have a mild case of cerebral palsy (went to physical/speech therapy when I was little). The thing was, I applied to lots of top private universities and the best gave me merit scholorships, the average at around half tuition. I don't get (or have asked) for extra time since I don't need it.. I may be slower at some things but since I spend a lot of time learning it, its okay (ie, I may take up all of the time, but I ace it).
The UCs definately are screwy and not setup well. They used to go on about how they'd change accept the top 10% from any California highschool. Either way, their admissions is fearful of being sued, but will try to get away with a lot (ie, were really pissed when my school called them, and turned down my appeal).
-----------------------------------------
There's a better news bite at Ace's about this. Basically, the second compilation used 3 threads, so the CPU may have had less idle time and i/o bottle neck then the single.
"Unfortunately, the benchmarks vary significantly between the two tests in that the first is completely serialized while the second (dual-processor) test is run with three parallel make processes (notice the -j flag). Because the first system is running with only a single build instance, the processor is spending a great deal of time simply waiting on IO. Meanwhile, the dual-processor test was performed with not just two, but, in fact, three make processes. The difference here is that a processor will not be completely idle while waiting on IO in the second test, as there are two additional build processes running concurrently. This is why the use of the -j parameter is often recommended even for uniprocessor systems, as a parallel make will often yield much higher CPU utilization and thus faster compiles.
"Until then, it is very difficult to make a representative statement about the performance of a dual-processor Athlon system from this benchmark."
-----------------------------------------
Well, you have to remember that Intel continously shrinks the die size on their chips. The 400mhz may have been an .25nm+, while the new 1Ghz are at .18 (or .13?). That shrink reduces power consumption and therefore heat disipation considerably. It also allows for higher clock rates, which is a significant reason why Intel was able to extend the P6 architecture so far.
I'd bet that if the G4 and Pentium III were at the same die size, the G4 would disipate less heat per clock. That's simply because the Motorola chips were touted for their low power/heat requirements and that Intel spends a significant amount of money on research and fabrication. Intel chips are usually at the smallest process available (though they have a conservative look, and don't switch right away). If you look at server chips (and other than AMD, most CPUs), the majority are fabbed at larger sizes then Intel's.
This would just be my guess at things, though.
-----------------------------------------
Why do you keep sayingthat Microsoft/BillG claimed to have invented DLLs? The author of the article claims they did, without any reference. I merely was answering the posters query as to whether the author was making that point, or whether it was just a slip up.
Oh, and yes, Microsoft did a lot of the coding for OS/2.
-----------------------------------------
In te Fusion review,
"And to combat the relatively tiny amount of disk space that would likely be available, the early designers of Windows invented DLLs, or dynamic link libraries, which are files that simply contain code that can be shared between multiple applications and the operating system, simultaneously, so that this code wouldn't need to exist on the system in numerous locations."
So, he is in fact claiming that MS invented DLLs.
-----------------------------------------
CRL has probably been the best ISP I've seen, and recently was acquired by Applied Theory. I dropped my subscription last year, when I moved onto ethernet, but if A.T. is anything close, they;re who you want. CRL was not a new startup (had been around since the mid-80s, was wide spread, reliable and fast. I had a slip/ppp/shell account (5mb shell/15mb web), which is the most I've seen offered for dial-up. CRL, and now A.T., hosts CDROM.com, and the systems (were) Sun boxes. I'm pretty sure they used fBSD for smaller jobs, if I recall correctly (I knew a few people who worked for them).
Anyways, it was slightly over $20/month with CRL, never busy, good speeds, etc. Fast responce from support, etc. If A.T. didn't ruin them, then CRL would be the best.
-----------------------------------------
hmm, how much crap is this post? For one thing, if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know that the win98 SE upgrade from '98 is not $125. Actually, when it came out, IIRC, the cd was free except $5 s/h. Currently, Microsoft has this to say about the upgrade.
The Windows 98 Upgrade is for licensed users of Windows 95, Window 3.1, and Windows for Workgroups 3.1x.
Existing Windows 98 (original version - Gold) users wanting to upgrade to the Second Edition level can purchase the Windows 98 Second Edition Updates CD for $19.95 (US)/ $34.95 (CAN) from the Microsoft Windows 98 web site.
Now, you also seem to pretend that everyone who buys a copy of windows will automatically upgrade to the next version, at a retail price. I've known many, many people who don't both to (I have known no one who has "rushed" out to get the latest edition). You also assume everyone started from windows 3.1 and upgraded.. nope.
Most of the legal copies of windows floating around are bundled with computers, where the suppliers (ala Dell) may pay a small price (for being MS buddies). We can assume Dell tacks on the price of Windows that they paid and then the hardware costs, and their bonus. Your then paying less then retail for windows, and your only extra charge is to create Dell's profit.
Oh, and I beta tested Millenium too. Who really cares?
-----------------------------------------
Oh, he was trolling. But you forgot that Roberge left this semester, probably for good (his company is about to enter the market). I had him last year, and I always wondered why he skipped it. He was good and I hear the woman who replaced him isn't to wonderful.
One of the major reasons why IIT isn't known is because a few years back money was tight, and professors left (forced or not), somewhat due to failing to give tenure. Motorola and Hyat stepped in and its getting back in shape, but I had a professor another university warn me about that. Had great things to say otherwise.
The CS cur. is a bit light, especially first year. But almost every other college is the same, as if you look at CMU's its quite close. The major difference is that CS105/106 is first semester (200). I actually liked ours a little better, as CMU's seemed to be to strict (ie, humanities/philosophies were pre-picked). Course, thts what I remember, and easily could be a bit wrong.
A friend at UCSC seems to have had a worse time then here. The classes sounded as if they taught less and he failed two (quarter, tho, so throuws me off a bit). IIT is nothing like the crap people have been saying on here, as you'd agree. The EE/CPE isn't light, and every night these last two weeks I've been working for 6+ hours studying. The works hard, taught well, and done well.
This guy got it right and most people talking on here just give wild speculations. Slashdot gets reaction, not logical thought.
-----------------------------------------
Well, I always figured that RMS and his followers push the GPL because it emphasizes a belief of theirs - one I don't share. They've decided that no one should profit from the programs they write, and has built enough of a code base/platform that reinventing the wheel in order to get around the GPL becomes ever more difficult. I personally see the GPL as quite viral and diminishing options for people. Developers should be compinsated, just like musicians, directors/actors, etc. I do of course realize everyhing you stated, but people wouldn't flock around if they understood and disagreed. People are dumb, they believe pirating movies, music, and software is perfectly moral and just.
As to open source (such as BSD), I disagree with your friend. It has shown to follow a trend close to scientific study - sharing information allows greater progress. The sharing at most requires you to acknolodge the developer, and the code can be used in any project. Just like in science (ie, chemisty), companies and research institutes progress the field, leaving a mixture for community development and corperate profits.
------------------------------------------
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
-----------------------------------------