MY NAME IS OSAMA bin LADIn. MY FATHER WAS AN OIL PRINCE in the Saudi Empire and managed to stash $30 Million US in a securities bank. I am writing to you because I need a foreign terrorist to helP me GET THE Money out of the country......
I don't think I am... A profiler can show you problem spots, but unless you want to spend months profiling every possible execution path, you have to make guesses as to which code paths are more important to clean up. If you have a hundred different possible directions you can go, but your users tend to go down only two or three, then it's a waste of time to work on cleaning up the other 97. If your guesses are right, then good, you god a fast program, but if you are wrong and your users go down different code paths than you expected, then you've wasted your work. Hotspot, on the other hand, can clean up just the paths that are used most because it doesn't have to guess, it KNOWS what is executed most.
So, it's ok if people are BORN better/faster/stronger than others, but throw down the red card when someone tries to improve their genes with human technology. Yeah, why does that somehow feel so so evil.
but most providers provide an email->sms mapping. If we can't crack down on spam coming from the check republic, what exactly makes anyone think that they will be able to crack down on spammers who send email to sms addresses?
You must be a spider, posting your sms email address on weblogs, message boards, anywhere, and waiting for some american company to walk into your trap. Gooooold mine!
But remember that the Hot Spot can only guess what you are trying to accomplish; a C++ compiler can actually see what you are trying to accomplish. C++ compilers are not dumb, they can do really good optimizations (when you write good code, of course).
Actually, it's quite the opposite. A c++ compiler can't know exactly how a system will react in real life. Imagine you have some input from a user that decides code paths. How will the c++ optomizer know that users will pick option B 99% of the time and optomize that section first? Hotspot can watch the code as it runs and watch what it's doing and decide which pieces to optomize based on where the problem areas are.
Java always will be slower, because it's always more steps from the hardware and always running in a VM.
You don't understand what the hotspot compiler does... when it sees a bottleneck it recompiled the code into NATIVE machine code. It's as close to the hardware as you can get at that point. And since the hotspot compiler can see all the bottlenecks, no matter how obscure it is in code, it's going to be faster in many cases.
The optimizing compilers for modern C/C++ compilers are pretty good. Optimized native code is likely to beat Java's JIT compilation, or has this changed in the last couple of years?
I'm not up on optomizing C compilers, so I don't know if what I am about to say is completely true... The difference between c++ and Java optomozation is that in c++ it all has to happen based on what you THINK will be bottlenecks, since it's all compiled in from the get-go. In the HotSpot case, new execution code can be dumped in place as it is running, even going so far as unrolling a loop midway through it's operation, replacing bits and pieces exactly when they become bottlenecks.
However, you don't really get to see the speed unless your application is a fairly long-running thing, like most enterprise applications. It will be able to maximally compile down all the hot spots into assembly and has the option to recompile them in different ways if the needs of the system change.
Also, (I've been guilty of this in the past as a University Lab demonstrator) if we were helping a guy out with a problem we'd explain what to do / talk them through it. If it's a woman, we take their keyboard and do it for them - thus they learn nothing.
More likely than not we'd make him feel like a total ass for not already knowing and call him retard until he figures it out for himself just to stop us from bashing him. Is that something that women respond to?
If they own the ideas you work on in your off-time it seems to me that sounds an awful lot like unpaid overtime, and, depending what he makes, 24 * 365 * minimum wage, maybe broke the minimum wage laws too.
"It's a question of pure ability to sell tickets," said Frank Hawkins, the NFL's senior vice president for business affairs.
Why is the NFL allowed to say this but Tivo not allowed to counter with "It's a question of the pure ability to sell Tivos"? Seriously, what makes a professional sports team more important than any other business?
Spoof integrity will always come down to two factors:
I think as long as there is a valid from address I'd be happy. As long as I can send back a 5 gig/dev/random attachment to you, you can send me spam until you are blue in the face.
Verifying this is as simple as having a two way handshake protocol before delivering mail.
The producer of a product should be able to sell his product in any fashion he wants.
The problem with this is that it violates the nature of economics for many reasons. It means that you can do such absurd things as "liscense" a vital drug once and charging monthly for every minute that you don't die. You can "liscense" a dialysis machine with terms that include "you must not be gay to use this". Indeed, I can "liscense" the money that I sell in exchange for a movie such that it can only be used to buy goods and services directly from me. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have taken my money. You shouldn't have any control over what you sell after you have sold it. That is a "natural" law of economics.
And if your acoustic guitar line is utter crap because some dingbat figured a $12.50 microphone would be okay for now, well, guess what? It's completely unrecoverable. All you can do is rerecord it.
It sounds like utter crap to YOU, the musicial with the golden ears... To your early fans it'll sound just fine. Once you get popular and make money you can go buy your expensive stuff.
Seriously, give me a single good reason why the artists who make a movie get free money for every viewing but the artists who made a chair don't get free money for every sitting? Seriously, how are we ever gonna get people to make and design chairs if they don't have compensation for 180 years?
o continue with the HP example, would Rowling have spent years writing and polishing the HP books if the first publisher she approached with the manuscript could rip it off and make all the profit? Maybe she would have written the first one or two, but seeing others getting fat on her work while she got nothing would have been a strong disincentive against finishing the series.
If the "rip offs" were better than the original, wouldn't society be the winner?
yes. Public performance is seperate from private use. Ever see the warning at the beginning of a VHS tape or DVD that says the movie is for private use, and may not be displayed publicly? Same deal with a CD.
That was his POINT, I believe. That this is the way it should NOT be. You are making no argument. It's like someone saying "The death penalty is wrong!" and you retorting with "It's RIGHT becuase that's what the law says".
You are absolutely right: artists chose their path, and do not get to complain.
However, there is nothing wrong with their asking to get paid something. The demand that they should create for free just seemed silly to me.
Well, if they weren't such idiots to sign away 99% of thier royalties then they wouldn't have to complain, they'd be making money hand over fist and most of thier fans would still be getting free music... They could seell ONE cd for $1 over cost and make more than selling 1000 CDs through a label. So they could let 999 have it for free and make as much as they did before!
Slashdot Mirror
Dear fellow terrorist,
MY NAME IS OSAMA bin LADIn. MY FATHER WAS AN OIL PRINCE in the Saudi Empire and managed to stash $30 Million US in a securities bank. I am writing to you because I need a foreign terrorist to helP me GET THE Money out of the country......
I don't think I am... A profiler can show you problem spots, but unless you want to spend months profiling every possible execution path, you have to make guesses as to which code paths are more important to clean up. If you have a hundred different possible directions you can go, but your users tend to go down only two or three, then it's a waste of time to work on cleaning up the other 97. If your guesses are right, then good, you god a fast program, but if you are wrong and your users go down different code paths than you expected, then you've wasted your work. Hotspot, on the other hand, can clean up just the paths that are used most because it doesn't have to guess, it KNOWS what is executed most.
So, it's ok if people are BORN better/faster/stronger than others, but throw down the red card when someone tries to improve their genes with human technology. Yeah, why does that somehow feel so so evil.
but most providers provide an email->sms mapping. If we can't crack down on spam coming from the check republic, what exactly makes anyone think that they will be able to crack down on spammers who send email to sms addresses?
You must be a spider, posting your sms email address on weblogs, message boards, anywhere, and waiting for some american company to walk into your trap. Gooooold mine!
I'm thinking my spam trap is going to be getting my phone's email address soon.
Unless it shows some bugs on "obsure" platforms like AIX.
I'm not sure that's particularly fair... C++ compiles don't have strange platform bugs!?
But remember that the Hot Spot can only guess what you are trying to accomplish; a C++ compiler can actually see what you are trying to accomplish. C++ compilers are not dumb, they can do really good optimizations (when you write good code, of course).
Actually, it's quite the opposite. A c++ compiler can't know exactly how a system will react in real life. Imagine you have some input from a user that decides code paths. How will the c++ optomizer know that users will pick option B 99% of the time and optomize that section first? Hotspot can watch the code as it runs and watch what it's doing and decide which pieces to optomize based on where the problem areas are.
Java always will be slower, because it's always more steps from the hardware and always running in a VM.
You don't understand what the hotspot compiler does... when it sees a bottleneck it recompiled the code into NATIVE machine code. It's as close to the hardware as you can get at that point. And since the hotspot compiler can see all the bottlenecks, no matter how obscure it is in code, it's going to be faster in many cases.
The optimizing compilers for modern C/C++ compilers are pretty good. Optimized native code is likely to beat Java's JIT compilation, or has this changed in the last couple of years?
I'm not up on optomizing C compilers, so I don't know if what I am about to say is completely true... The difference between c++ and Java optomozation is that in c++ it all has to happen based on what you THINK will be bottlenecks, since it's all compiled in from the get-go. In the HotSpot case, new execution code can be dumped in place as it is running, even going so far as unrolling a loop midway through it's operation, replacing bits and pieces exactly when they become bottlenecks.
However, you don't really get to see the speed unless your application is a fairly long-running thing, like most enterprise applications. It will be able to maximally compile down all the hot spots into assembly and has the option to recompile them in different ways if the needs of the system change.
Also, (I've been guilty of this in the past as a University Lab demonstrator) if we were helping a guy out with a problem we'd explain what to do / talk them through it. If it's a woman, we take their keyboard and do it for them - thus they learn nothing.
More likely than not we'd make him feel like a total ass for not already knowing and call him retard until he figures it out for himself just to stop us from bashing him. Is that something that women respond to?
Do you own a Tivo or a VCR? Ever fastforward through commercials? Thief! You're depriving those poor advertisers of their hard-earned dollars!
They can take it out of my share of the public airwaves that they are using but didn't have to pay for.
That's the Malagasy fat-tailed dwarf lemur you insensitive clod!
Like if you come up with a great child-porn story, does that belong to them too?
Well if that isn't as good reason to unionize, I'm not sure what is.
If they own the ideas you work on in your off-time it seems to me that sounds an awful lot like unpaid overtime, and, depending what he makes, 24 * 365 * minimum wage, maybe broke the minimum wage laws too.
"It's a question of pure ability to sell tickets," said Frank Hawkins, the NFL's senior vice president for business affairs.
Why is the NFL allowed to say this but Tivo not allowed to counter with "It's a question of the pure ability to sell Tivos"? Seriously, what makes a professional sports team more important than any other business?
Spoof integrity will always come down to two factors:
/dev/random attachment to you, you can send me spam until you are blue in the face.
I think as long as there is a valid from address I'd be happy. As long as I can send back a 5 gig
Verifying this is as simple as having a two way handshake protocol before delivering mail.
Is it all that hard to add a 'print reciept' option to all of these voting machines?
With a paper trail, how, exactly, are we supposed to rig elections?
The producer of a product should be able to sell his product in any fashion he wants.
The problem with this is that it violates the nature of economics for many reasons. It means that you can do such absurd things as "liscense" a vital drug once and charging monthly for every minute that you don't die. You can "liscense" a dialysis machine with terms that include "you must not be gay to use this". Indeed, I can "liscense" the money that I sell in exchange for a movie such that it can only be used to buy goods and services directly from me. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have taken my money. You shouldn't have any control over what you sell after you have sold it. That is a "natural" law of economics.
And if your acoustic guitar line is utter crap because some dingbat figured a $12.50 microphone would be okay for now, well, guess what? It's completely unrecoverable. All you can do is rerecord it.
It sounds like utter crap to YOU, the musicial with the golden ears... To your early fans it'll sound just fine. Once you get popular and make money you can go buy your expensive stuff.
Seriously, give me a single good reason why the artists who make a movie get free money for every viewing but the artists who made a chair don't get free money for every sitting? Seriously, how are we ever gonna get people to make and design chairs if they don't have compensation for 180 years?
Should a movie theater be allowed to go buy a DVD at normal price, and show it in their theater without paying the copyright holder?
Sounds reasonable to me. After all, they only paid for the seats once, but can use them over and over again without paying extra, right?
o continue with the HP example, would Rowling have spent years writing and polishing the HP books if the first publisher she approached with the manuscript could rip it off and make all the profit? Maybe she would have written the first one or two, but seeing others getting fat on her work while she got nothing would have been a strong disincentive against finishing the series.
If the "rip offs" were better than the original, wouldn't society be the winner?
yes. Public performance is seperate from private use. Ever see the warning at the beginning of a VHS tape or DVD that says the movie is for private use, and may not be displayed publicly? Same deal with a CD.
That was his POINT, I believe. That this is the way it should NOT be. You are making no argument. It's like someone saying "The death penalty is wrong!" and you retorting with "It's RIGHT becuase that's what the law says".
You are absolutely right: artists chose their path, and do not get to complain.
However, there is nothing wrong with their asking to get paid something. The demand that they should create for free just seemed silly to me.
Well, if they weren't such idiots to sign away 99% of thier royalties then they wouldn't have to complain, they'd be making money hand over fist and most of thier fans would still be getting free music... They could seell ONE cd for $1 over cost and make more than selling 1000 CDs through a label. So they could let 999 have it for free and make as much as they did before!