Re:Especially in the fog of marketese that is .NET
on
Advanced .NET Remoting
·
· Score: 1
The learning curve is a lot shallower for.NET remoting than for doing CORBA, especially if you just want to do relatively simple things. I think it might actually be quicker to develop simple requests with.NET remoting than sockets, and you get to avoid the error proneness of marshalling your own data.
Just ask Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Saddam. All of the existing (and former in the case of Iraq) leaderships were aided to power by the US because the former governments weren't forthcoming to US business.
Are you claiming that the current Iranian government was aided to power by the U.S.? I'm no history major, but I'm pretty sure the current Iranian government came into power through a revolution against the previous government that was aided to power by the U.S.
Re:Complete this sentence:
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
id Software might step up to the plate, if Doom III ever comes out. That game should eat some serious CPU and GPU cycles.
You really have to hand it to the Jehovah's Witnesses, they stick to their ideological guns. Many of them died in Nazi concentration camps rather than renounce their faith.
...the spiral approach (we called it "stepwise refinement" twenty-five years ago when I was in college -- there's nothing new)...
The spiral approach and stepwise refinement aren't exactly the same thing, although they are both iterative approaches. As I recall, stepwise refinement is a top-down design technique. You basically start by implementing the top-level of the system, and you put in stubs for the lower level. Then, you gradually work your down the abstraction ladder, implementing the lower level components, until you're all done.
On the other hand, the spiral approach is really all about risk management. At each iteration, you're supposed to identify and address the most significant risks in the project. This doesn't necessarily mean you're using a top-down approach, although it might.
I think the intersection of the set of people who played Duke Nukem 3D and the set of people who didn't see Evil Dead 2 or Army of Darkness is pretty much empty.
Or maybe, JUST FUCKING MAYBE , Linux isn't some sort of magical bug free OS where every buffer is checked, every race condition averted, and every service that runs on it is guaranteed bug free.
Studies that compare programming languages are hard to find (not to mention hard to do!). The best example I know is Lutz Prechelt, who did a comparison of C,C++,Java,Perl,Python, Rexx and TCL for one particular text-processing application. He tried to measure different things like productivity, number of bugs, memory consumption, speed, etc.
Re:Maybe if Microsoft Developed for Linux
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Don't forget POSIX! Windows NT had a POSIX subsystem, but it was effectively useless.
In Canada, when "digital" PCS phones first started to compete with "analog" cellular phones, the big selling point was "no service contract". It was strictly month-to-month, and you could leave any time you wanted. I haven't lived in Canada for a few years now, but I imagine it hasn't changed.
But my question is, what is the purpose of the seperation [between concepts and things]?
What does it matter, in essence?
Ummm... well, I'm a materialist, so I'm really only interested in substantial *things*, which are the only entities that can somehow affect other *things*. (On the other hand, concepts can not in any way have an effect on *things*). The world, in my view, is therefore a collection of things.
Now, I don't think being a materialist makes me a priori an athiest. If God can have an effect on the world, then he must be a *thing* (and if you believe that God created the universe, then he can certainly have an effect on things!). But we can't really get anywhere simply by discussing God as a concept.
The only reason to make a definitive remark is to state truth
I don't mean to be facetious, but what do you mean by *truth*? There are statements about mathematical truths (13 is prime), and statements about the world (Washington D.C. is the capital of the US). Which do you mean? Both?
Ah, God exists as a concept, certainly! But we can make a distinction between the set of concepts and the set of things. The interesting question is: does God exist as an element of the set of things?
A few years back, when Murdoch was a Canadian citizen...
You've got your media barons confused. You're thinking of Conrad Black. Rupert Murdoch's an Aussie. Black owns lots of newspapers, whereas Murdoch only owns one (New York Post?). Not sure if Black owns any TV stations.
Even further, I await the first pop-prog with the bollocks to just swap out a lead actor on a regular arbitrary basis. Saturday Night Live isn't popular enough for you?
I think SNL is currently the funniest that it's been in a long time (though this seems to run contrary to popular opinion). Weekend Update now almost reaches Daily Show and Onion-like levels of satirical hilarity.
For the record, I grew up in Canada, and we use the 'American' convention for decimals.
I grew up in Quebec (which is still part of Canada, last time I checked), and when I was in elementary school (late eighties) they taught us to use the comma to mark the decimal point. By the time I reached high school, they had given up on that.
In most of the US, you are an engineer if you study engineering in college, be it electrical, mechanical, etc.
It's definitely not like that in Canada. In Canada, unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer, you are not allowed to call yourself an engineer. Even if you have an engineering degree from an accredited program (a necessary but not sufficient candition), all you can do is put BEng at the end of your name (well, in Quebec, it's BEng. Different provinces call it different things).
Dude, welcome to the wonderful world of economics. They're only going to charge less if it means that they'll sell more units and make more money overall.
I have never heard anyone suggest that math is a science (except for people who call what they're doing "theoretical computer science", when they're actually doing math).
Prove to me my dead cat thrown in a cave won't be considered 10 million years old.
OK, so take your dead cat, throw it in a cave, tell some archeologists that you found some really old bones in a cave, and let them do the analysis. If they conclude the cat's ten million years old, I'll concede you're right. On the other hand, they conclude that your cat is not ten million years old, then I'm right.
Heck, let's make it interesting. How much would you like to wager?
Slashdot Mirror
The learning curve is a lot shallower for .NET remoting than for doing CORBA, especially if you just want to do relatively simple things. I think it might actually be quicker to develop simple requests with .NET remoting than sockets, and you get to avoid the error proneness of marshalling your own data.
Just ask Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Saddam. All of the existing (and former in the case of Iraq) leaderships were aided to power by the US because the former governments weren't forthcoming to US business.
Are you claiming that the current Iranian government was aided to power by the U.S.? I'm no history major, but I'm pretty sure the current Iranian government came into power through a revolution against the previous government that was aided to power by the U.S.
id Software might step up to the plate, if Doom III ever comes out. That game should eat some serious CPU and GPU cycles.
You really have to hand it to the Jehovah's Witnesses, they stick to their ideological guns. Many of them died in Nazi concentration camps rather than renounce their faith.
...the spiral approach (we called it "stepwise refinement" twenty-five years ago when I was in college -- there's nothing new)...
The spiral approach and stepwise refinement aren't exactly the same thing, although they are both iterative approaches. As I recall, stepwise refinement is a top-down design technique. You basically start by implementing the top-level of the system, and you put in stubs for the lower level. Then, you gradually work your down the abstraction ladder, implementing the lower level components, until you're all done.
On the other hand, the spiral approach is really all about risk management. At each iteration, you're supposed to identify and address the most significant risks in the project. This doesn't necessarily mean you're using a top-down approach, although it might.
I think the intersection of the set of people who played Duke Nukem 3D and the set of people who didn't see Evil Dead 2 or Army of Darkness is pretty much empty.
Lewis Carroll put this to good use in "Jabberwocky"
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Actually, in College Park, Maryland we had a bit of a hiccup. We lost power for a few minutes.
Or maybe, JUST FUCKING MAYBE , Linux isn't some sort of magical bug free OS where every buffer is checked, every race condition averted, and every service that runs on it is guaranteed bug free.
;)
That would be OpenBSD.
If you could sue over software not working as advertised, the world would be a very different place.
Then again, who advertises their software as "bug free?"
Studies that compare programming languages are hard to find (not to mention hard to do!). The best example I know is Lutz Prechelt, who did a comparison of C,C++,Java,Perl,Python, Rexx and TCL for one particular text-processing application. He tried to measure different things like productivity, number of bugs, memory consumption, speed, etc.
Don't forget POSIX! Windows NT had a POSIX subsystem, but it was effectively useless.
You left out one thing: lock-in contracts.
In Canada, when "digital" PCS phones first started to compete with "analog" cellular phones, the big selling point was "no service contract". It was strictly month-to-month, and you could leave any time you wanted. I haven't lived in Canada for a few years now, but I imagine it hasn't changed.
But my question is, what is the purpose of the seperation [between concepts and things]?
What does it matter, in essence?
Ummm... well, I'm a materialist, so I'm really only interested in substantial *things*, which are the only entities that can somehow affect other *things*. (On the other hand, concepts can not in any way have an effect on *things*). The world, in my view, is therefore a collection of things.
Now, I don't think being a materialist makes me a priori an athiest. If God can have an effect on the world, then he must be a *thing* (and if you believe that God created the universe, then he can certainly have an effect on things!). But we can't really get anywhere simply by discussing God as a concept.
The only reason to make a definitive remark is to state truth
I don't mean to be facetious, but what do you mean by *truth*? There are statements about mathematical truths (13 is prime), and statements about the world (Washington D.C. is the capital of the US). Which do you mean? Both?
There is a god. You are discussing it.
Ah, God exists as a concept, certainly! But we can make a distinction between the set of concepts and the set of things. The interesting question is: does God exist as an element of the set of things?
A few years back, when Murdoch was a Canadian citizen...
You've got your media barons confused. You're thinking of Conrad Black. Rupert Murdoch's an Aussie. Black owns lots of newspapers, whereas Murdoch only owns one (New York Post?). Not sure if Black owns any TV stations.
Even further, I await the first pop-prog with the bollocks to just swap out a lead actor on a regular arbitrary basis.
Saturday Night Live isn't popular enough for you?
I think SNL is currently the funniest that it's been in a long time (though this seems to run contrary to popular opinion). Weekend Update now almost reaches Daily Show and Onion-like levels of satirical hilarity.
For the record, I grew up in Canada, and we use the 'American' convention for decimals.
I grew up in Quebec (which is still part of Canada, last time I checked), and when I was in elementary school (late eighties) they taught us to use the comma to mark the decimal point. By the time I reached high school, they had given up on that.
In most of the US, you are an engineer if you study engineering in college, be it electrical, mechanical, etc.
It's definitely not like that in Canada. In Canada, unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer, you are not allowed to call yourself an engineer. Even if you have an engineering degree from an accredited program (a necessary but not sufficient candition), all you can do is put BEng at the end of your name (well, in Quebec, it's BEng. Different provinces call it different things).
Dude, welcome to the wonderful world of economics. They're only going to charge less if it means that they'll sell more units and make more money overall.
I have never heard anyone suggest that math is a science (except for people who call what they're doing "theoretical computer science", when they're actually doing math).
Prove to me my dead cat thrown in a cave won't be considered 10 million years old.
OK, so take your dead cat, throw it in a cave, tell some archeologists that you found some really old bones in a cave, and let them do the analysis. If they conclude the cat's ten million years old, I'll concede you're right. On the other hand, they conclude that your cat is not ten million years old, then I'm right.
Heck, let's make it interesting. How much would you like to wager?
What was the last thing that Dell innovated?
I'd say they came up with a pretty innovative way of selling computers.
That, and the highest bandwidth all-optical network on the planet, baby!
I have to disagree. My favorite Ralph Wiggum line ever is:
"Hi, Supernintendo Chalmers!"
I still laugh each time I think about that one.