It depends on how they configured it. Just because a PC is daisy-chained off of the phone does not mean that the phone and voice traffic are on the same vlan.
interesting take. read the article before you
start flaming plz, he has some good points.
Sure, his points are interesting, and his math
is sound, but why does he presume that
the probability of casting the one deciding vote
is the whole measure of voter power? That is
not how I would intuitively express it. What of
a person who suggests that the measure of voter
power is the ability to contribute meaningfully
to the sum?
Republicans in New York or Californial can
rightfully say that their presidential vote is
irrelevant, and will remain so unless there is
a dramatic shift in the state's demographic,
similarly for Democrats in states like Alabama
or Nevada. These individuals can claim that
their vote would have more meaning in a popular
election.
However, to start with I don't think such
backward thinking technologies as "glassbook"
and its equivilent will make it. I just don't
see paying my money to d/l a book that I can't
copy, search, or whatnot, except through a canned
interface. And no doubt these "ebooks" will only
work on Windows, at least at first.
However, simple self publishing in HTML or PDF
is a great tool for writers. Will they be able
to make money from it through "tip jars" or whatnot. Maybe.
A more interesting technology, however, is print-on-demand. I've bought one such book so
far, and while the print quality lags behind
conventional publishing, it is on par with a
good laser printer, and certainly quite readable.
The thing about print-on-demand is that eventually
every neighborhood bookstore and printshop could
have the equipment on site. That means you walk
into your local bookstore, pick what you want
from their catalogue, and they zip you one out that afternoon. No doubt you could preorder online and pick it up the next day. I think this technology, backed by some smart online retailers, could break the conglomerate hold on publishing, and really get the little guy into the game. A good search engine could support millions of titles on as many subjects, and it would cost little to maintain the manuscripts electronicly, and you still get a real honest-to-goodness book for the price of your purchase.
For myself as the consumer, that is the model of electronic publishing I most hope will succeed.
This makes KDE unacceptable to a UNIX vendor, because half of their customers buy C++ (at great expense) and the other half use g++. Which half will the support? GNOME, based in C, doesn't have this problem. So it gets tapped even though (IMNSHO) KDE is the better desktop.
Add to this all of the developers who choose to use alternative languages. C is the lingua franca of the Unix world, and even the most out on the fringe languages provide reasonable facilities to link to C. For a variety of reasons, nothing similar is provided for C++.
I really Like languages such as Haskell, Eiffel, and Ada, and each of these provides bindings for GTK. None provide bindings for QT (at least that I know of).
Wrappers: the disadvantage of working with C (nasty, unsafe interfaces) can be corrected with wrappers for C++/ObjectiveC/Java/Python/Perl and so on. No, these are not mature at the moment, but over the next few years they are likely to improve enough to make the difference unimportant.
This is actually the most important reason that I favor Gnome/GTK over KDE/QT. I actually think that QT is a better library, but I don't use C++, and all the languages I do use (Eiffel, Haskell...) have targeted their wrappings to GTK. The reasons are simple, calling C++ libraries from non-C++ code is all but impossible in many cases, calling C code is simple and routine.
Having a C++ library be the core widget set was a mistake.
And could you kindly explain why? I understand that you cannot view them from a distance at the same time both directions, but what is the reason it cannot separately happen simultaneously at those places?
It is because of that Einstien character, or more precisely because of relativity. You see, depending on your frame of reference, what appears silmulaneous to you won't appear silmultaneous to some guy going by in a space ship. So, because there is no favored frame of reference, there is no absolute notion of silmultanity (is that a word?).
How can modern science defend their attitudes towards religions and other faiths of mankind (not to mention New Age)?
Quite easily I think. It is all a matter of burden of proof. If a religionist makes some claim that can in no way be verified or even rationally questioned, then that religionist shouldn't be surprised if we ignore him. After all, there is an unlimited variety of mysterious and cognitively empty claims that can be made: why should we favor that of religion #4355 over religion #334349.
On the other hand, some religious claims could be verified. For instance, some new-agers claim that they can levitate. That seem fairly easy to verify. Oddly enough, they seem unwilling to demonstrate outside of their inner sanctuaries, and to an audience other than faithful members of their group. Do you really blame someone for being skeptical of such claims?
Which is actually - believe it or not - the same solution that Apache uses. It'll reboot itself now and then to reduce memory leaks.
You seem to misunderstand the Apache structure. Apache does not run as a single process, but as a collection of proccesses, that are spawned as load demands. You can, if you wish, set an option that the child processes can shutdown after servicing some set number of requests. This does not affect Apache as a whole, as other processes are still running and servicing requests, and new processes will come on line as needed.
The documents justify including this option by claiming that certain platforms have memory leaks in their libraries (Sun is singled out in the latest docs I've read). I'm not aware that the memory leaks originate in Apache itself. Nor am I aware that any open source OS's have problems.
If I ssh into my webserver to do some remote admin, and I segv linuxconf (as if I'd use it, but...), I can be safe in the knowledge that Apache is still running.
Can you imagine what happens when one of the services that get loaded automaticly manifests some bizzair bug which crashes the RPC engine each time it loads.
I've seen this, and by the way, all those fancy GUI admin tools, including the control panel's 'services' applet, use RPC in some form or another. I'd stop the guilty service from loading if only I could:)
I wonder if the MICRO~1 engineers have ever heard of "single user mode"?
I have some experience with Backup-Exec, and I'd say that its much better. The UI can be a bit akward, but nothing like the byzantine crap on Arcserve.
I worked for a VAR for a spell, and we installed literally hundreds of Backup Execs, and besides the fact it was too hard for the customers to figure out (meaning each restore was a service call), I rarely was disapointed by its reliability -- minus a few odd driver mismatches that their support figured out.
I'm not saying that a programmer can't be a designer. I'm saying that a programmer shouldn't the the designer of a program that he is writing himself. It leads to conflicts discussed above.
I can see this being a good idea for some teams on some projects, but I hardly think it should be universal. It is in the management of a project where the discrimination must be made, and we all know how that works.
There really seems to be no shortage of these nitwits who make a career out of random guesses regarding the fate of our industry's latest buzzwords. There is no shortage of publications that print their drivel. And, of course, no shortage of folks who take them seriously. It is the last group that is the most distressing.
Seriously, last year how many of these industry gurus were predicting that Linux would make the major advances that it has? It wasn't on their radar. No doubt, what important advances that will happen in 2000 aren't on their radar now.
Nevertheless, those of us who work at actually making it all happen, will find the new technology, learn it, implement it, and support it -- all without the help of a single industry analyst.
The arrogance and stupidity of EToys just makes me furious. One thing is for sure, I will never buy anything from them, and I will make sure everyone I know, and who respects what I think, will be told why they shouldn't either.
That they talk about material inapropriate for children is just bullshit, a naked attempt to try to appear the good guy. No doubt EToys has some oily PR people who came up with that one. I dearly hope their tactic doesn't work. I expect they'll next try to get the "Family Values" folks on their side for the upcomming PR battle.
It may be a pipe dream, but I hope that enough folks in the public get furious enough over this that EToys is shamed out of business.
Re:These benchmarks disagree... I disagre...
on
Java Success Stories
·
· Score: 1
As much as I love to bash Java, these results are meaningless. What you have there is a comparison of a particular group of compilers (and in Java's case, a particular JVM); you don't have a comparison of languages.
All this Y2K on his site makes me think this guy is some sort of quack. I haven't seen anything about this exploid on Bugtraq yet, but maybe it is queued up.
Does anyone have any verification of this besided what is on that page?
I'm a big fan of the Alpha, and this article only confirms what I know, but I do think they overstate their case in rejecting VLIW type architectures: the compiler can spend much more time than the chip trying to find ideal execution paths. Maybe a combination of the methods will turn out to be ideal.
I'm convinced that the IA64 has many neat features, and I have no doubt that Intel can answer many of these criticisms with their own analysis.
I agree with you to some extent, but when I talked of support for Linux and BSD, I'm thinking more along the line of applications, which will be covered by what ever licence the vendor sees fit. There is no reason there should be a Word Perfect (not open source, as it is) for Linux, but not for BSD.
While the issue of the licence is important for kernel development, I don't see how that matters for those who will write applications that, by my estimation, should run happily on both systems.
For open source applications it often isn't a problem -- in most cases I should be able to compile on either system with minor modification. However, for applications that are either closed-source (and thus binary only), or those which are open source, but have complex library and other environmental issues (such as something like KDE or Gnat -- the GNU Ada compiler), I hope that the makers of such software will take the time to put out a BSD version. I just don't see any reason that they shouldn't.
Frankly I haven't crawled around in either Kernel to know which is superior, but I'm not about to accept any simplistic analysis that BSD is better than Linux, of visa-versa.
What I am convinced of, however, is that the BSD's are each a solid piece of work, and each deserves as much attention as Linux has gained lately. It isn't that much work to write software that will run on the BSD's as well a Linux, and I think vendors should be encouraged to support them.
In the end I'll probably keep using Linux, I'm comfortable with it, but I don't want that choice to be based on a lack vendor support for BSD -- we've all had enough of the "one supported OS" syndrome, let's not continue it.
I remember seeing just this sort of disclaimer on much of the Java software that I downloaded back in its beta days, so I suspect that it is boilerplate from Sun.
Which would be odd considering how much they sell Java on its apparent safety.
I imagine an Ada or Eiffel vendor wouldn't be taken seriously if such a disclaimer was included with their distribution.
For those who haven't used it, Thawte is an alternative service to Verisign, whose rates are on average about one half of Verisign's. I think all of these Certificate services are overpriced scams, but at least Thawte was less so.
It may not in fact end up a career ending move for the agents in question (assuming that this turns out to be true), and that is too bad. It is exactly these sorts of abuses of power that make me angry, and frankly I have no patience with those goons in the government that would use what threats they have to silence speech, when clearly that have no legal grounds to oppose it.
No doubt, however, that those in power will close ranks around the offenders, and for one simple reason: they are all such offenders.
The problem with this is that you suppose that, by default, our religious beliefs are private affairs, but history gives a rather different impression of religion and your "personal spirituality" seems to be an invention of the past two-hundred years.
Certainly any programming language can be compiled into JVM bytecodes; however, the instruction set of the JVM has been designed around Java's object model. Other languages, such as C++ or Eiffel, that use a different object model are going to thus be at a disadvantage. These language can be (and in the case of Eiffel, are) compiled into JVM, for those cases where such is necessary, but now that we still have a choice (that is now that Sun hasn't completely bowled over the marketplace with Java), we should demand a Virtual Machine that is not predisposed to just one programming language.
With all due respect, if you're going to look out of your windows into this pluralistic world, you are just going to have to accept that some of us don't place any special value on that name or the person it, perhaps, represents. Does this "slandering" of "Jesus" offend you? Too bad. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a raving fundamentalist. However, it is their shallow repetition of that name and his supposed commandments that are offensive to me. The name "Jesus" is indeed used on the battle flag of a most offensive political movement, one that seeks to squash every social advance we've worked so hard (since the renaissance) to bring about.
If Christians want to plead offense let them first clean up their own back yard.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a Floridian, I think folks are missing the obvious point here: this is Florida, and we'll certainly screw it up.
It depends on how they configured it. Just because a PC is daisy-chained off of the phone does not mean that the phone and voice traffic are on the same vlan.
Sure, his points are interesting, and his math is sound, but why does he presume that the probability of casting the one deciding vote is the whole measure of voter power? That is not how I would intuitively express it. What of a person who suggests that the measure of voter power is the ability to contribute meaningfully to the sum?
Republicans in New York or Californial can rightfully say that their presidential vote is irrelevant, and will remain so unless there is a dramatic shift in the state's demographic, similarly for Democrats in states like Alabama or Nevada. These individuals can claim that their vote would have more meaning in a popular election.
However, to start with I don't think such backward thinking technologies as "glassbook" and its equivilent will make it. I just don't see paying my money to d/l a book that I can't copy, search, or whatnot, except through a canned interface. And no doubt these "ebooks" will only work on Windows, at least at first.
However, simple self publishing in HTML or PDF is a great tool for writers. Will they be able to make money from it through "tip jars" or whatnot. Maybe.
A more interesting technology, however, is print-on-demand. I've bought one such book so far, and while the print quality lags behind conventional publishing, it is on par with a good laser printer, and certainly quite readable. The thing about print-on-demand is that eventually every neighborhood bookstore and printshop could have the equipment on site. That means you walk into your local bookstore, pick what you want from their catalogue, and they zip you one out that afternoon. No doubt you could preorder online and pick it up the next day. I think this technology, backed by some smart online retailers, could break the conglomerate hold on publishing, and really get the little guy into the game. A good search engine could support millions of titles on as many subjects, and it would cost little to maintain the manuscripts electronicly, and you still get a real honest-to-goodness book for the price of your purchase.
For myself as the consumer, that is the model of electronic publishing I most hope will succeed.
Add to this all of the developers who choose to use alternative languages. C is the lingua franca of the Unix world, and even the most out on the fringe languages provide reasonable facilities to link to C. For a variety of reasons, nothing similar is provided for C++.
I really Like languages such as Haskell, Eiffel, and Ada, and each of these provides bindings for GTK. None provide bindings for QT (at least that I know of).
For that simple reason I prefer Gnome.
Having a C++ library be the core widget set was a mistake.
It is because of that Einstien character, or more precisely because of relativity. You see, depending on your frame of reference, what appears silmulaneous to you won't appear silmultaneous to some guy going by in a space ship. So, because there is no favored frame of reference, there is no absolute notion of silmultanity (is that a word?).
On the other hand, some religious claims could be verified. For instance, some new-agers claim that they can levitate. That seem fairly easy to verify. Oddly enough, they seem unwilling to demonstrate outside of their inner sanctuaries, and to an audience other than faithful members of their group. Do you really blame someone for being skeptical of such claims?
The documents justify including this option by claiming that certain platforms have memory leaks in their libraries (Sun is singled out in the latest docs I've read). I'm not aware that the memory leaks originate in Apache itself. Nor am I aware that any open source OS's have problems.
I've seen this, and by the way, all those fancy GUI admin tools, including the control panel's 'services' applet, use RPC in some form or another. I'd stop the guilty service from loading if only I could :)
I wonder if the MICRO~1 engineers have ever heard of "single user mode"?
I have some experience with Backup-Exec, and I'd say that its much better. The UI can be a bit akward, but nothing like the byzantine crap on Arcserve.
I worked for a VAR for a spell, and we installed literally hundreds of Backup Execs, and besides the fact it was too hard for the customers to figure out (meaning each restore was a service call), I rarely was disapointed by its reliability -- minus a few odd driver mismatches that their support figured out.
I wonder if we'll ever see it on Linux.
I can see this being a good idea for some teams on some projects, but I hardly think it should be universal. It is in the management of a project where the discrimination must be made, and we all know how that works.
There really seems to be no shortage of these nitwits who make a career out of random guesses regarding the fate of our industry's latest buzzwords. There is no shortage of publications that print their drivel. And, of course, no shortage of folks who take them seriously. It is the last group that is the most distressing.
Seriously, last year how many of these industry gurus were predicting that Linux would make the major advances that it has? It wasn't on their radar. No doubt, what important advances that will happen in 2000 aren't on their radar now.
Nevertheless, those of us who work at actually making it all happen, will find the new technology, learn it, implement it, and support it -- all without the help of a single industry analyst.
That they talk about material inapropriate for children is just bullshit, a naked attempt to try to appear the good guy. No doubt EToys has some oily PR people who came up with that one. I dearly hope their tactic doesn't work. I expect they'll next try to get the "Family Values" folks on their side for the upcomming PR battle.
It may be a pipe dream, but I hope that enough folks in the public get furious enough over this that EToys is shamed out of business.
As much as I love to bash Java, these results are meaningless. What you have there is a comparison of a particular group of compilers (and in Java's case, a particular JVM); you don't have a comparison of languages.
Does anyone have any verification of this besided what is on that page?
I'm convinced that the IA64 has many neat features, and I have no doubt that Intel can answer many of these criticisms with their own analysis.
That being said, the SMT idea is really neat.
While the issue of the licence is important for kernel development, I don't see how that matters for those who will write applications that, by my estimation, should run happily on both systems.
For open source applications it often isn't a problem -- in most cases I should be able to compile on either system with minor modification. However, for applications that are either closed-source (and thus binary only), or those which are open source, but have complex library and other environmental issues (such as something like KDE or Gnat -- the GNU Ada compiler), I hope that the makers of such software will take the time to put out a BSD version. I just don't see any reason that they shouldn't.
What I am convinced of, however, is that the BSD's are each a solid piece of work, and each deserves as much attention as Linux has gained lately. It isn't that much work to write software that will run on the BSD's as well a Linux, and I think vendors should be encouraged to support them.
In the end I'll probably keep using Linux, I'm comfortable with it, but I don't want that choice to be based on a lack vendor support for BSD -- we've all had enough of the "one supported OS" syndrome, let's not continue it.
Which would be odd considering how much they sell Java on its apparent safety.
I imagine an Ada or Eiffel vendor wouldn't be taken seriously if such a disclaimer was included with their distribution.
For those who haven't used it, Thawte is an alternative service to Verisign, whose rates are on average about one half of Verisign's. I think all of these Certificate services are overpriced scams, but at least Thawte was less so.
It may not in fact end up a career ending move for the agents in question (assuming that this turns out to be true), and that is too bad. It is exactly these sorts of abuses of power that make me angry, and frankly I have no patience with those goons in the government that would use what threats they have to silence speech, when clearly that have no legal grounds to oppose it.
No doubt, however, that those in power will close ranks around the offenders, and for one simple reason: they are all such offenders.
The problem with this is that you suppose that, by default, our religious beliefs are private affairs, but history gives a rather different impression of religion and your "personal spirituality" seems to be an invention of the past two-hundred years.
Certainly any programming language can be compiled into JVM bytecodes; however, the instruction set of the JVM has been designed around Java's object model. Other languages, such as C++ or Eiffel, that use a different object model are going to thus be at a disadvantage. These language can be (and in the case of Eiffel, are) compiled into JVM, for those cases where such is necessary, but now that we still have a choice (that is now that Sun hasn't completely bowled over the marketplace with Java), we should demand a Virtual Machine that is not predisposed to just one programming language.
With all due respect, if you're going to look out of your windows into this pluralistic world, you are just going to have to accept that some of us don't place any special value on that name or the person it, perhaps, represents. Does this "slandering" of "Jesus" offend you? Too bad. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a raving fundamentalist. However, it is their shallow repetition of that name and his supposed commandments that are offensive to me. The name "Jesus" is indeed used on the battle flag of a most offensive political movement, one that seeks to squash every social advance we've worked so hard (since the renaissance) to bring about.
If Christians want to plead offense let them first clean up their own back yard.