Had it for a month, comparing to Galaxy Tab... Positives: usable stylus for $300, fast, speakers, minimial bloatware Negatives: drains battery pretty good even when idle(can't survive 2 days for me), slow charging from PC USB port, glitches in Write stylus app
WiFi works well, so it's not the CPU on the phone. At least here in NYC the problem is not even the slow speed, as much as the the network is so oversubscribed that the phone can't get any response and the browser just times out.
> If your hypothesis was true, it would be true for ALL soviet bloc nations. However, nations like > Romania, Poland and the Ukraine seem to have come out of it. The reason why the Russians could > not come out of it has NOTHING to do with how the west handled the situation.
I'll try slowly again: First of all I'm talking about the current perception of the US in Russia, not my view on the world history. The perception I don't share by the way, but this doesn't make it invalid. Giving my experience it's also a widely-popular opinion and shared by people of different social status, profession and wealth in Russia.
The perception is that during 90s, the West (with US playing a leading role) tried to weaken Russia into a submissive role in the world. The dreadful reforms (which were advised by mostly Americans) performed during the time, certainly seem to confirm this point in the aftermath. There are obviously numerous benefits for the US/West from a subdued Russia - cheap and reliable energy sources, one less independent player in a world affairs, cheap intellectual capital, etc. The example of Romania, Poland and the Ukraine is simply not correct, as there is nothing in those countries of value to the West outside of publicity effect of "free markets" success. By the way those countries certainly don't "seem to have come out of it", as I would say Russia currently is much more stable and prosperous of the four.
Amplifying this view is also the fact that when Putin came to power the tide turned, and while relationship with US soared and western influence weakened, economy and living conditions quickly improved. Now I personally think this is mostly due to oil prices then anything else, but Moscow propaganda certainly can easily distort the picture for the masses. Nevertheless it's not hard to see that the current course is much better for the Russia than the one during Yeltsin' era.
Nobody is arguing that USSR economy lost a race to the West, due to its deficient design, low oil prices and the latest spin of an arm's race by Reagan. The point is that during 90s, in transitional period, the team of Western advisers and their Russian understudies did everything possible wrong. The industry almost collapsed, intellectual power went abroad, living standards were of the third world. Whether this was by chance or on purpose is a different subject, but the free market reforms done by other countries (China) were done with a much better result. This, justifiably, is the reason for the current Russian perception of their American "friends". Needless to say Dubya doesn't help the matters.
CLR can do this too, but only if it *also* knows the specific instance of the list (what the generic parameter types are), so it can remove fewer checks. This makes optimization harder as well since each use of a generic parameter can potentially block inlining and/or hoisting.
There is no "only if" here, as you seem to imply. If a generic is compatible with passed parameters the CLR would remove the check in JIT in all cases just like JVM. CLR is also capable of removing the check on upcast calls (i.e. list.get()) as.NET generics are truly type-safe. Java has no ability to do this.
On top of that, the tests CLR has to do are *much* slower since they have to check many parallel type hierarchies (one per generic type references). For example, when passing a LinkedList of Integers to a parameter of type List of Numbers CLR has to in effect check both List assignable from LinkedList and Number assignable from Integer.
I'm not sure I understand. Implementing IEnumerable in generics doesn't imply any "parallel type hierarchies". Are you sure you are not confusing C++ templates and CLR generics?
So in the vast majority of code not only do you end up with more checks but slower ones, and CLR has to maintain a complicated hierarchy of instantiated types to optimize this.
Are you talking about the speed of JIT phase? This is O(1) step, who the hell cares. In run-time performance the CLR generics are a lot better than JVM ones even on reference-based collections (due to beforementioned upcast elimination). On value-based ones it's an order of magnitude difference.
All so primitives can be used faster in some cases, which is pretty ironic since in my experience these cases are usually easy to optimize by hand to use an array or patch out to inline C++ or JNI'd code.
This is only because Java is limited in a number of available primitives. CLR has a built-in support for extensible value-based types, so supporting them in generics without boxing is quite useful.
ML (or Haskell, Lisp, etc) for that matter would never be popular. They've had enough time and failed to gain popularity.
The reason is simple - they dump too much on a poor brain of an average coder, who gets lost too fast to keep interest.
The way forward is to get something well-understood and Algol/C-like and extend it into the right direction incorporating ideas from functional world. A good examples of this approach are C# 3.0 and Nemerle.
The main reason for starting SVN was that a lot of things were wrong with CVS. Arguably SVN(nevermind Monotone, Arch) has only recently approached Perforce level of stability, scalability and functionality. They needed something workable probably at least five years prior. ClearCase is clearly not a Google-style solution.
One excellent Python project that doesn't get enough publicity is my favorite ORM tool by Michael Bayer - SqlAlchemy http://sqlalchemy.org/. Think Rail's ActiveRecord with Hibernate power.
There was some talk of integrating it with TurboGears to create some competition for SqlObject. Not sure where this stands currently.
Please mod the parent up! AJAX is a very bad stack technically. Here are the steps for google to build a platform that doesn't suck:
1) Kill HTTP/XML for RPC. Buy http://www.zeroc.com/ and open-source ICE. 2) Kill JavaScript. Throw manpower behind a FAST, multi-language, multi-platform, open VM. Java is not it for numerous reason. Mono would be the best current candidate technically. Perhaps Parrot. There should not be a war between Ruby, Python and C#, if the platforms are united in VM. 3) Kill HTML. Pick a widget set and make sure it works flawlessly on the before-mentioned VM. Then extend it to create nice sexy controls.
By the way MS is doing all of this with.NET already...
How many more failures can they take before their CEO realizies he's not Steve Jobs and Nokia is not Apple? Their core strength in phones was always more about fashion design than technology, so why reinvent itself? Look at Dell - no R&D, despite being big and sucessful "tech" company, just marketing and distribution. Nokia should do what they do (or at least did) well, just come up with a new cool looking form factor (and don't forget changable faceplates) for an existing platform and leave the business of building a platform to somebody with a clue, like Apple, Intel, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Sun...
That's because Motorolas and Nokias of this world don't give a shit about some start-up Indian network providers. Which would change when the providers become big and powerfull - the state US wireless market is in.
publically owned services can outperform the private sector? This must be a joke. Mandatory BBC? 190GBP. Optional HBO? 144USD. Returning back into reality from the socialist illusion? Priceless.
The nice option about the airport is it will let more than one airport act as the same network - so when I walk from the back to the front of my house, I'm not switching from network 1 to network 2. I know it says it in the article but it's nice to see in action.
Why does everyone think this is an Apple exclusive feature?
Every single access point out there (DLink, Netgear, Linksys) for like $100(CompUSA, ~$70 on the net) has this option and more, such as point-to-point, point-to-multipoint bridging, etc. Most of them can also be managed with a simple web browser, not a $1K iMac.
So think different, Apple Fanboys, as usual your beloved vendor is selling you an overpriced piece with a lock into the platform. Of course, you get to admire its looks every time you climb up to the attic.
I just had this service(Express Network) cancelled. For the web it's OK, if you can live with multiple software and hardware bugs. For terminal(telnet,ssh,vnc) access it's unusable as the latencies are in the satellite ISP range (pings >300ms).
Who the hell Verizon markets the thing to anyway? I'm personally not gonna fork $100 to read slashdot and browse porn on the train. My company would if it could also be used for real work, which this POS service doesn't deliver one bit.
USB2 external IDE enclosure is the best back up solution for now and in a foreseeable future.
Reasons:
1) Fastest speed. With 7200 RPM drives I get up to 850MB(MBytes) during Retrospect Express backup in Win2K. No tape can match this.
2) Lowest cost. Nothing can touch the cost either. Hard drive is the lowest cost media per GB. CDRs are cheaper, but not CD-RW. The whole setup - the enclosure (no name) & USB2.0 adapter (VIA6202 based, cheap-ass card) can be had for less than $80. And a lot of new mobos have built-in USB2.
3) Compatibility. The thing can be plugged into anything made in the last 5 years. Major minus for Firewire.
4) Versatility. Could be used for a lot of other things. Transferring files, external DVD, burners, hooking up laptop drives.
5) Reliability. IMHO no open media is as good as hard drives. CDs get scratched and you are just never sure if you'll be able to read it in another drive.
6) No (very litle) spawning. My 80GB hard drive holds my whole home network backup. I would have to use 4 DVD-Rs for this thing.
If you want quality for a low price then look towards the M3. Great power but the real kicker is the handling. Nothing handles better than a BMW (flame on).
M3 is an incredible car, but is not even close to the best value. In US that would be the new Nissan 350Z($26K base) or Subaru WRX. Both of this cars give you "M3 level performance" far a lot less money.
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but even network transparency is not an X Windows advantage nowadays. Citrix/XP Terminal Server/PC Anywhere/VNC/etc. all do it very well.
Make DirectFB as fast as possible, first. Then add the network pseudo-driver that will allow for remote display.
Slashdot Mirror
having our buddy Edward around should be handy for Putin!
Had it for a month, comparing to Galaxy Tab...
Positives: usable stylus for $300, fast, speakers, minimial bloatware
Negatives: drains battery pretty good even when idle(can't survive 2 days for me), slow charging from PC USB port, glitches in Write stylus app
WiFi works well, so it's not the CPU on the phone. At least here in NYC the problem is not even the slow speed, as much as the the network is so oversubscribed that the phone can't get any response and the browser just times out.
> If your hypothesis was true, it would be true for ALL soviet bloc nations. However, nations like
> Romania, Poland and the Ukraine seem to have come out of it. The reason why the Russians could
> not come out of it has NOTHING to do with how the west handled the situation.
I'll try slowly again:
First of all I'm talking about the current perception of the US in Russia, not my view on the world history. The perception I don't share by the way, but this doesn't make it invalid. Giving my experience it's also a widely-popular opinion and shared by people of different social status, profession and wealth in Russia.
The perception is that during 90s, the West (with US playing a leading role) tried to weaken Russia into a submissive role in the world. The dreadful reforms (which were advised by mostly Americans) performed during the time, certainly seem to confirm this point in the aftermath. There are obviously numerous benefits for the US/West from a subdued Russia - cheap and reliable energy sources, one less independent player in a world affairs, cheap intellectual capital, etc. The example of Romania, Poland and the Ukraine is simply not correct, as there is nothing in those countries of value to the West outside of publicity effect of "free markets" success. By the way those countries certainly don't "seem to have come out of it", as I would say Russia currently is much more stable and prosperous of the four.
Amplifying this view is also the fact that when Putin came to power the tide turned, and while relationship with US soared and western influence weakened, economy and living conditions quickly improved. Now I personally think this is mostly due to oil prices then anything else, but Moscow propaganda certainly can easily distort the picture for the masses. Nevertheless it's not hard to see that the current course is much better for the Russia than the one during Yeltsin' era.
Way to miss a point.
Nobody is arguing that USSR economy lost a race to the West, due to its deficient design, low oil prices and the latest spin of an arm's race by Reagan. The point is that during 90s, in transitional period, the team of Western advisers and their Russian understudies did everything possible wrong. The industry almost collapsed, intellectual power went abroad, living standards were of the third world. Whether this was by chance or on purpose is a different subject, but the free market reforms done by other countries (China) were done with a much better result. This, justifiably, is the reason for the current Russian perception of their American "friends". Needless to say Dubya doesn't help the matters.
+5?
.NET generics are truly type-safe. Java has no ability to do this.
CLR can do this too, but only if it *also* knows the specific instance of the list (what the generic parameter types are), so it can remove fewer checks. This makes optimization harder as well since each use of a generic parameter can potentially block inlining and/or hoisting.
There is no "only if" here, as you seem to imply. If a generic is compatible with passed parameters the CLR would remove the check in JIT in all cases just like JVM. CLR is also capable of removing the check on upcast calls (i.e. list.get()) as
On top of that, the tests CLR has to do are *much* slower since they have to check many parallel type hierarchies (one per generic type references). For example, when passing a LinkedList of Integers to a parameter of type List of Numbers CLR has to in effect check both List assignable from LinkedList and Number assignable from Integer.
I'm not sure I understand. Implementing IEnumerable in generics doesn't imply any "parallel type hierarchies". Are you sure you are not confusing C++ templates and CLR generics?
So in the vast majority of code not only do you end up with more checks but slower ones, and CLR has to maintain a complicated hierarchy of instantiated types to optimize this.
Are you talking about the speed of JIT phase? This is O(1) step, who the hell cares. In run-time performance the CLR generics are a lot better than JVM ones even on reference-based collections (due to beforementioned upcast elimination). On value-based ones it's an order of magnitude difference.
All so primitives can be used faster in some cases, which is pretty ironic since in my experience these cases are usually easy to optimize by hand to use an array or patch out to inline C++ or JNI'd code.
This is only because Java is limited in a number of available primitives. CLR has a built-in support for extensible value-based types, so supporting them in generics without boxing is quite useful.
http://nemerle.org/Main_Page (I hope nobody from RSDN reads this...).
:)
Damn, RSDN/Nemerle mafia is taking over Slashdot. When should we expect Vlad2 to make an appearance?
ML (or Haskell, Lisp, etc) for that matter would never be popular. They've had enough time and failed to gain popularity. The reason is simple - they dump too much on a poor brain of an average coder, who gets lost too fast to keep interest. The way forward is to get something well-understood and Algol/C-like and extend it into the right direction incorporating ideas from functional world. A good examples of this approach are C# 3.0 and Nemerle.
The main reason for starting SVN was that a lot of things were wrong with CVS. Arguably SVN(nevermind Monotone, Arch) has only recently approached Perforce level of stability, scalability and functionality. They needed something workable probably at least five years prior. ClearCase is clearly not a Google-style solution.
Looks like a good choice to me.
Haskell is available on http://krugle.com/.
One excellent Python project that doesn't get enough publicity is my favorite ORM tool by Michael Bayer - SqlAlchemy http://sqlalchemy.org/. Think Rail's ActiveRecord with Hibernate power.
There was some talk of integrating it with TurboGears to create some competition for SqlObject. Not sure where this stands currently.
Please mod the parent up!
.NET already...
AJAX is a very bad stack technically. Here are the steps for google to build a platform that doesn't suck:
1) Kill HTTP/XML for RPC. Buy http://www.zeroc.com/ and open-source ICE.
2) Kill JavaScript. Throw manpower behind a FAST, multi-language, multi-platform, open VM. Java is not it for numerous reason. Mono would be the best current candidate technically. Perhaps Parrot. There should not be a war between Ruby, Python and C#, if the platforms are united in VM.
3) Kill HTML. Pick a widget set and make sure it works flawlessly on the before-mentioned VM. Then extend it to create nice sexy controls.
By the way MS is doing all of this with
A good solution already exists to prevent keyloggers, etc. Actually some banks are rolling it out already - http://us.etrade.com/e/t/jumppage/viewjumppage?Pag eName=secureid_enter/.
Works with any device, costs $25 once (which could probably be lowered) and provides actual security.
How many more failures can they take before their CEO realizies he's not Steve Jobs and Nokia is not Apple? Their core strength in phones was always more about fashion design than technology, so why reinvent itself? Look at Dell - no R&D, despite being big and sucessful "tech" company, just marketing and distribution. Nokia should do what they do (or at least did) well, just come up with a new cool looking form factor (and don't forget changable faceplates) for an existing platform and leave the business of building a platform to somebody with a clue, like Apple, Intel, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Sun...
That's because Motorolas and Nokias of this world don't give a shit about some start-up Indian network providers. Which would change when the providers become big and powerfull - the state US wireless market is in.
Agreed on packaging.
But what abilities will WiFi in Revo give that are not available in XBox today?
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xboxwirelessada pter.htm
How about IIOP/CORBA, which did everything SOAP does now in 1990 with about 1/10th of the bandwidth.
I'm sure if a star player could play on a thousand different tables at the same time the game field would be a lot different....
publically owned services can outperform the private sector?
This must be a joke.
Mandatory BBC? 190GBP.
Optional HBO? 144USD.
Returning back into reality from the socialist illusion? Priceless.
The nice option about the airport is it will let more than one airport act as the same network - so when I walk from the back to the front of my house, I'm not switching from network 1 to network 2. I know it says it in the article but it's nice to see in action.
Why does everyone think this is an Apple exclusive feature?
Every single access point out there (DLink, Netgear, Linksys) for like $100(CompUSA, ~$70 on the net) has this option and more, such as point-to-point, point-to-multipoint bridging, etc. Most of them can also be managed with a simple web browser, not a $1K iMac.
So think different, Apple Fanboys, as usual your beloved vendor is selling you an overpriced piece with a lock into the platform. Of course, you get to admire its looks every time you climb up to the attic.
I just had this service(Express Network) cancelled. For the web it's OK, if you can live with multiple software and hardware bugs. For terminal(telnet,ssh,vnc) access it's unusable as the latencies are in the satellite ISP range (pings >300ms).
Who the hell Verizon markets the thing to anyway? I'm personally not gonna fork $100 to read slashdot and browse porn on the train. My company would if it could also be used for real work, which this POS service doesn't deliver one bit.
USB2 external IDE enclosure is the best back up solution for now and in a foreseeable future.
Reasons:
1) Fastest speed. With 7200 RPM drives I get up to 850MB(MBytes) during Retrospect Express backup in Win2K. No tape can match this.
2) Lowest cost. Nothing can touch the cost either. Hard drive is the lowest cost media per GB. CDRs are cheaper, but not CD-RW. The whole setup - the enclosure (no name) & USB2.0 adapter (VIA6202 based, cheap-ass card) can be had for less than $80. And a lot of new mobos have built-in USB2.
3) Compatibility. The thing can be plugged into anything made in the last 5 years. Major minus for Firewire.
4) Versatility. Could be used for a lot of other things. Transferring files, external DVD, burners, hooking up laptop drives.
5) Reliability. IMHO no open media is as good as hard drives. CDs get scratched and you are just never sure if you'll be able to read it in another drive.
6) No (very litle) spawning. My 80GB hard drive holds my whole home network backup. I would have to use 4 DVD-Rs for this thing.
If you want quality for a low price then look towards the M3. Great power but the real kicker is the handling. Nothing handles better than a BMW (flame on).
M3 is an incredible car, but is not even close to the best value.
In US that would be the new Nissan 350Z($26K base) or Subaru WRX. Both of this cars give you "M3 level performance" far a lot less money.
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but even network transparency is not an X Windows advantage nowadays. Citrix/XP Terminal Server/PC Anywhere/VNC/etc. all do it very well.
Make DirectFB as fast as possible, first. Then add the network pseudo-driver that will allow for remote display.