* apps having to do all the rendering. What about apps that don't do this now? Are we really going to force them through X, or will there be some middleware they can use, etc?
Apps can use the Cairo library to render. That is what most of them are doing now anyway, since that is the only practical way to get antialiased lines and scalable images on X.
* the mini x server solution... there was a problem noted due to the change in coordinate systems. How will that be solved? What other problems may we run into? etc.
The problem was not really described correctly. The Wayland developers have this idea that applications should not know what their window positions are (I don't agree with this btw). X applications when they do the X api to figure out the window position are told it is at 0,0. On X an application wanting to make a popup menu not go off the screen, compared it's window position to the screen position, and thus knew where to place the menu (on Wayland the client says what position it wants the menu in (relative to it's window) and is told how it will be clipped, so the client can try another position). This means some errors with the popup of menus in X applications.
I was under the impression that they "fixed" this by allowing the X emulation to get at the secret information about where the window is. I complained on the mailing list that this means that X clients have a special privledge and they really should allow regular clients to get this secret info, but was ignored.
* the network transparency question. They haven't completed this yet. They may not ever do it (might be 3rd party). There's already some other attempts at this that show something can be done with it, but it's just not finalized yet. We just have to wait and see. * remoting apps, and how that will relate to interoperability. Sounds like I'll be able to pull an X app up on my local Wayland desktop and have it displayed using the built in mini x server (maybe). What about the reverse? How do you export a Wayland app to a client that is only running X.org?
It looks like they are planning to use per-window RDP. This makes sense because the api and remote clients already exist, and you would run an X RDP client to display the Wayland windows.
they'll have to be able to figure sales tax for LA, Jefferson Parish, Kenner, and such sales tax holidays as might be applicable on any particular item at any particular time...
Wow that's complicated. They will probably need to use a computer connected to the internet to get that done! Oh wait...
Learned BASIC in high school on ASR-33 teletypes connected to an HP2100A computer with 16k-word of core memory. I believe the machine was already obsolete before I started with it.
Very primitive BASIC with no string variables, leading to some pretty unintuitive user interfaces, such as picking letters by number to print banners. All 4 teletypes and the "control teletype" (which could not be used, a stupid limitation of the software), and the rack holding the computer were in the same small room, and it smelled of the machine oil and a bit of electrical burning. Storage was paper tape, you had to punch it on the teletypes, but fortunately could read it on the high-speed photo tape reader in the rack. There was also a punched card reader in the rack which was used by exactly one teacher to score tests, this was a big Fortran program I think.
I also learned assembler on this machine, since that was the only way you could write programs that understood text. It could only run one such program at a time so nobody could use Basic during that time. The best one printed letters as patterns of holes into punched tape. The most complex I wrote actually did cooperative multitasking so that users could run at all 5 terminals, it built a tree of questions that it printed and the user could answer, the answer (well actually whether the first letter was odd or even) chose the next question. When the answer did not exist yet it asked the user to type in a new question, or they could type in a number of another node to make arbitrary graphs.
Later the school got a PDP-11 with video terminals running RSTE. Also at that time home computers started showing up but my family did not get one for a few more years.
Take a look at the demo video. The deer apparently got away, as when the sight gets back on it after the shot is taken, it is running away, looking uninjured.
I'm not sure why he mentioned NTFS. I believe the Windows file modified event is sent for any changes on any disk type, even on remote NFS mounts, that are done by a process on the local machine that is using the Windows api to create files. If it is limited to NTFS then Microsoft is completely bonkers.
The Soviets really did use real missiles in their parades, just without the payload.
That is exactly what the original poster was saying. The term "nuke" usually refers to the payload, and he was stating the obvious fact that they did not use missiles with payloads (and probably ones never intended to fly at all) in the parade.
If you really need to prove that the communists attacked other countries (you actually kind of limited it to only communist other countries, which is only a subset of "neighbors" and they did nasty things to other neighbors too) you can, but it still looked like spew from somebody so angry that they cannot see straight. Prefixing it with "I know the above poster is joking but some of you may not be aware of just how non-peaceful Communists really were" would have helped.
You are really flailing trying to defend the fact that you cannot recognize a joke, sorry. Just realize and admit you did a stupid thing. You are obviously intelligent since you went through the work of collecting references and everything, I'll give you that.
I agree there are probably people who believe communism is a nirvana and everything is perfect. However it is OBVIOUS that the poster writing in response to "did the US and USSR use real nukes in their parades" with "Damn straight they did. And every communist lived in peace with their neighbors." is not one of them. He was making a joke, implicitly implying that the falsehood of real nukes being used in parades is equal to the falsehood of communists being peaceful with their neighbors. Get it?
I also agree that sarcasm is sometimes hard to see on the Internet. But this is not a good example. Sometimes is is pretty obvious, such as in this case.
The gp posted a lengthy article about how mean communist countries were to each other. This seems to imply he thought the ggp (who said "and every communist lived in peace with their neighbors") seriously thought communists were peaceful. I believe the ggp was trying to make a joke and in no way believed that, and the person going through the trouble to post the lengthy article trying to refute him was seriously "whooshed" by the joke and should be embarrassed.
Actually I'm a little unclear what you are trying to say, can you explain.
In fact, the Aurora theater shooter could have killed more people with $10 than he did with the guns. Simply, penny lock the doors. Walk in with 2 gallons of gas and a lighter. Everyone would have been burned to death. And none would have escaped.
Do you seriously really believe that is as likely to work as him being able to kill some people with a gun? I'm generally pretty neutral on this, but you are saying some pretty insane stupid things here that make me doubt the logical basis of people on your side.
IMHO guns themselves are not really as dangerous as people make them out to be, if you consider the numbers of them around. I also think they are overblown as a self-defense, my only encounter with crime was to be surprised at close-range by a mugger with a gun, and I am pretty certain that if I had been carrying a concealed weapon then I would have lost a $500 gun and not just $50 from my wallet.
This has been perverted into the false claim that their health insurance should be less expensive for smokers. This is false.
The cost per year of a smoker is higher and thus their health insurance should be more. They will die sooner and thus stop paying for health insurance, resulting in them paying less in the long run, which matches the result that they also consume less health services in the long run.
The op said "Calling into the kernel code every allocation / deallocation of dynamic memory is slow." I'm pretty certain no malloc has done that for decades.
Interesting, did not know about the low-pressure boiling method. However the article pretty clearly describes the closed loop method which does not boil the water.
You must be thinking of something else. According to the article the plant produces cold water but it is still seawater. (I believe they mean that it pumps cold water up from the bottom and it is still colder than the surrounding water even after the heat exchanger).
The heat exchangers are on the surface, not on land. The problem is that a pipe to land (rather than straight up to the surface) would be many times longer and would lose most of the temperature difference.
Okay, because you seem to be an idiot, I will demonstrate how to cut & paste. It is your job to skip all the intermediate redirect pages and get the real news article.
The following link, about a real civilian killing a real robber with his privately-owned gun, is about 1000 times more convincing than you frothing at the mouth and posting links to a page that purposely makes it difficult to follow the news links:
Are you totally incabable of copying the suppposed "real news links" off the propaganda sites and pasting them here? You are the one that does not get it. If it says "Read the full article here", go to that point, copy the link, and PASTE IT HERE!!! Crap almighty I want to shoot you for your ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
* apps having to do all the rendering. What about apps that don't do this now? Are we really going to force them through X, or will there be some middleware they can use, etc?
Apps can use the Cairo library to render. That is what most of them are doing now anyway, since that is the only practical way to get antialiased lines and scalable images on X.
* the mini x server solution... there was a problem noted due to the change in coordinate systems. How will that be solved? What other problems may we run into? etc.
The problem was not really described correctly. The Wayland developers have this idea that applications should not know what their window positions are (I don't agree with this btw). X applications when they do the X api to figure out the window position are told it is at 0,0. On X an application wanting to make a popup menu not go off the screen, compared it's window position to the screen position, and thus knew where to place the menu (on Wayland the client says what position it wants the menu in (relative to it's window) and is told how it will be clipped, so the client can try another position). This means some errors with the popup of menus in X applications.
I was under the impression that they "fixed" this by allowing the X emulation to get at the secret information about where the window is. I complained on the mailing list that this means that X clients have a special privledge and they really should allow regular clients to get this secret info, but was ignored.
* the network transparency question. They haven't completed this yet. They may not ever do it (might be 3rd party). There's already some other attempts at this that show something can be done with it, but it's just not finalized yet. We just have to wait and see.
* remoting apps, and how that will relate to interoperability. Sounds like I'll be able to pull an X app up on my local Wayland desktop and have it displayed using the built in mini x server (maybe). What about the reverse? How do you export a Wayland app to a client that is only running X.org?
It looks like they are planning to use per-window RDP. This makes sense because the api and remote clients already exist, and you would run an X RDP client to display the Wayland windows.
they'll have to be able to figure sales tax for LA, Jefferson Parish, Kenner, and such sales tax holidays as might be applicable on any particular item at any particular time...
Wow that's complicated. They will probably need to use a computer connected to the internet to get that done! Oh wait...
Learned BASIC in high school on ASR-33 teletypes connected to an HP2100A computer with 16k-word of core memory. I believe the machine was already obsolete before I started with it.
Very primitive BASIC with no string variables, leading to some pretty unintuitive user interfaces, such as picking letters by number to print banners. All 4 teletypes and the "control teletype" (which could not be used, a stupid limitation of the software), and the rack holding the computer were in the same small room, and it smelled of the machine oil and a bit of electrical burning. Storage was paper tape, you had to punch it on the teletypes, but fortunately could read it on the high-speed photo tape reader in the rack. There was also a punched card reader in the rack which was used by exactly one teacher to score tests, this was a big Fortran program I think.
I also learned assembler on this machine, since that was the only way you could write programs that understood text. It could only run one such program at a time so nobody could use Basic during that time. The best one printed letters as patterns of holes into punched tape. The most complex I wrote actually did cooperative multitasking so that users could run at all 5 terminals, it built a tree of questions that it printed and the user could answer, the answer (well actually whether the first letter was odd or even) chose the next question. When the answer did not exist yet it asked the user to type in a new question, or they could type in a number of another node to make arbitrary graphs.
Later the school got a PDP-11 with video terminals running RSTE. Also at that time home computers started showing up but my family did not get one for a few more years.
Take a look at the demo video. The deer apparently got away, as when the sight gets back on it after the shot is taken, it is running away, looking uninjured.
I'm not sure why he mentioned NTFS. I believe the Windows file modified event is sent for any changes on any disk type, even on remote NFS mounts, that are done by a process on the local machine that is using the Windows api to create files. If it is limited to NTFS then Microsoft is completely bonkers.
The original unit should be put back and allowed to fail...
The Soviets really did use real missiles in their parades, just without the payload.
That is exactly what the original poster was saying. The term "nuke" usually refers to the payload, and he was stating the obvious fact that they did not use missiles with payloads (and probably ones never intended to fly at all) in the parade.
If you really need to prove that the communists attacked other countries (you actually kind of limited it to only communist other countries, which is only a subset of "neighbors" and they did nasty things to other neighbors too) you can, but it still looked like spew from somebody so angry that they cannot see straight. Prefixing it with "I know the above poster is joking but some of you may not be aware of just how non-peaceful Communists really were" would have helped.
Also not sure what is wrong with Slashdot, but I cannot see that other reply except by clicking on the link you gave.
You are really flailing trying to defend the fact that you cannot recognize a joke, sorry. Just realize and admit you did a stupid thing. You are obviously intelligent since you went through the work of collecting references and everything, I'll give you that.
I agree there are probably people who believe communism is a nirvana and everything is perfect. However it is OBVIOUS that the poster writing in response to "did the US and USSR use real nukes in their parades" with "Damn straight they did. And every communist lived in peace with their neighbors." is not one of them. He was making a joke, implicitly implying that the falsehood of real nukes being used in parades is equal to the falsehood of communists being peaceful with their neighbors. Get it?
I also agree that sarcasm is sometimes hard to see on the Internet. But this is not a good example. Sometimes is is pretty obvious, such as in this case.
Not sure what you are getting at.
The gp posted a lengthy article about how mean communist countries were to each other. This seems to imply he thought the ggp (who said "and every communist lived in peace with their neighbors") seriously thought communists were peaceful. I believe the ggp was trying to make a joke and in no way believed that, and the person going through the trouble to post the lengthy article trying to refute him was seriously "whooshed" by the joke and should be embarrassed.
Actually I'm a little unclear what you are trying to say, can you explain.
Whooosh!!!!!
I think the swap for explosives would pick up cartridges hidden in it? I guess I am unclear what you are saying.
In fact, the Aurora theater shooter could have killed more people with $10 than he did with the guns. Simply, penny lock the doors. Walk in with 2 gallons of gas and a lighter. Everyone would have been burned to death. And none would have escaped.
Do you seriously really believe that is as likely to work as him being able to kill some people with a gun? I'm generally pretty neutral on this, but you are saying some pretty insane stupid things here that make me doubt the logical basis of people on your side.
IMHO guns themselves are not really as dangerous as people make them out to be, if you consider the numbers of them around. I also think they are overblown as a self-defense, my only encounter with crime was to be surprised at close-range by a mugger with a gun, and I am pretty certain that if I had been carrying a concealed weapon then I would have lost a $500 gun and not just $50 from my wallet.
This has been perverted into the false claim that their health insurance should be less expensive for smokers. This is false.
The cost per year of a smoker is higher and thus their health insurance should be more. They will die sooner and thus stop paying for health insurance, resulting in them paying less in the long run, which matches the result that they also consume less health services in the long run.
I've always heard that the part most likely to fail in a modern car is the nut that holds the steering wheel.
The op said "Calling into the kernel code every allocation / deallocation of dynamic memory is slow." I'm pretty certain no malloc has done that for decades.
It does not call the kernel on every malloc call, that's what I meant. The op acted as though malloc/new called the kernel every time.
Interesting, did not know about the low-pressure boiling method. However the article pretty clearly describes the closed loop method which does not boil the water.
You might want to try the Intel compiler. This was three years ago but it produced obviously faster results than either gcc or msvc.
malloc does not call into the kernel.
I use "__thread" in gcc. Did that not work for you?
You must be thinking of something else. According to the article the plant produces cold water but it is still seawater. (I believe they mean that it pumps cold water up from the bottom and it is still colder than the surrounding water even after the heat exchanger).
The article said the working fluid is ammonia.
The heat exchangers are on the surface, not on land. The problem is that a pipe to land (rather than straight up to the surface) would be many times longer and would lose most of the temperature difference.
Okay, because you seem to be an idiot, I will demonstrate how to cut & paste. It is your job to skip all the intermediate redirect pages and get the real news article.
The following link, about a real civilian killing a real robber with his privately-owned gun, is about 1000 times more convincing than you frothing at the mouth and posting links to a page that purposely makes it difficult to follow the news links:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Robber-gunned-down-on-Pasadena-street-4415402.php
Are you totally incabable of copying the suppposed "real news links" off the propaganda sites and pasting them here? You are the one that does not get it. If it says "Read the full article here", go to that point, copy the link, and PASTE IT HERE!!! Crap almighty I want to shoot you for your ignorance.