We'll still have it at home and we'll still have it to tinker with.
Of course the problem with this is that while a lot of the work on the kernel is done by hobbyists, a lot of it is done by paid people at Red Hat, IBM, Suse, etc. If these companies go out of buisness because Linux is no longer viable as a "product", the time between releases with go up 10-fold.
Except that the petition says that if you list your email address of the petition, that SCO can sue you, which the whole point of the petition. I browsed about 400 signatures, and none of them had an email address.
Re:now, i dont get this...
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
The main problem that a GC solves is the nasty problems of several objects sharing other objects. Stuff like that is what causes memory leaks. But since you're a C++ coder I bet you already know that.
I have my own philosophy about these kind of problems, though it is my opinion. I believe that is most cases pointers aren't really needed and can be avoided. The problems they cause are just too difficult to track down when not used carefully.
Unless you're doing time-critical code, the efficiencies just aren't there. In C++ at least, 90% of the things that are done with pointers can be done with references, which are a lot safer, since most problems with them are found compile time. Most instances where pointers are really needed can be encapsulated in fairly simple classes where the new/delete problems can be carefully taken care of. And then use references and arrays of objects to do the rest.
Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English.
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
Light of a lower amplitude also carries less energy, no? Couldn't you get it from there.
Re:now, i dont get this...
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
of course the auto gc doesnt know all, but that doesnt mean it doesnt do some good.
Some good? If it doesn't do it's job correctly, you're going to have memory leaks. This is an accepted problem, and one that the developers understand. Who are you to question them? (Really, what are your qualifications? Do you know Java? How well?)
Well, if you program correctly in C++, you don't have a problem with memory leaks either. The whole point of a gc is so that memory leaks don't happen even with sloppy programming. It just isn't the case with Java.
im just thinking that you could probably do it manually if necessary.
Do what manually? Memory management? Isn't the gc supposed to do that for you? The thing is with C++, I have to do all the memory management myself (which really isn't that hard), and so I know what's going on. With java, I don't have complete control and don't know when I need to do memory management or not.
Sure I could work around the problems, but why?
Re:now, i dont get this...
on
P2P Meets Push
·
· Score: 1
Read the rest of the page where they explain it. Memory leaks can happen in Java because while the gc might do a great job deallocating space that is marked as useless, it can't do anything with space that isn't. And this does happen if you don't program correctly.
And that isn't the only reason why they didn't use Java. Read the rest of the page.
The universe is full of strange, wonderful and complex things. But the only way that human knowledge is going to progress is if the "difficult to learn" stuff is made "easy to learn" through innovative explanations, or teaching.
I personally believe that the reason that innovation in science comes is spurts is because older scientist's heads are filled with complex understanding of ideas. When these ideas are explained to a new generation, simpler and simpler ways of looking at things are created to explain the idea. The students thus gain a "simple understanding" of the same ideas. And are thus better able to go beyond those ideas.
I don't think there is very much that is "inherently" difficult to learn. Relativity is becoming easier and easier for people to understand, not because it has become simpler, but because millions of teachers have come up with easy ways to explain it.
I've been thinking about this, and have come up with a question that might invalidate it. Did SCO ever release a copy of the kernel source? If they didn't and only released a precompiled kernel like many distros, then the situation might be a bit murkier.
Five mile 802.11 range? Nigga please. Please show me a router that you can buy off the shelf that covers even half that distance.
I don't think that he's going to be able to show you one off the shelf. But I don't think that the folks doing this project are going to be running down to Best Buy and picking up 60,000 wireless routers off the shelf. Most of them will probably try to amplify the signal just *a bit* more.
Wireless connections have been known to go 5 miles with the right setup. That's the point.
In conclusion, you're either a racist or just ignorant.
Re:Is Amazon Profitable?
on
Mighty Amazon
·
· Score: 1
No, but they are quickly getting there. Most investors have stopped worrying about this since they see it coming as a given.
$20 bill gets a facelift The new note features subtle shades of pink and blue and a new background. May 13, 2003: 11:12 AM EDT By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money staff writer
WASHINGTON (CNN/Money) - The $20 bill got a facelift Tuesday, complete with new colors, a new number arrangement and a new background, in the government's latest effort to thwart counterfeiters.
The Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing introduced the new design, featuring Andrew Jackson on the front -- without the old circle -- and a cluster of small 20s on the lower right-hand corner on the back. The front also depicts a faded bald eagle as a background with subtle pink and light blue hues.
The front of the new $20 bill unveiled by the Treasury Department Tuesday.
The Treasury plans to redesign bills every seven to 10 years to keep up with technological advances in counterfeiting.
"The soundness of a nation's currency is essential to the soundness of its economy. And to uphold our currency's soundness, it must be recognized and honored as legal tender and counterfeiting must be effectively thwarted,'' Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a ceremony at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
The last redesign of American currency was in 1996, when a new $100 bill was introduced with anti-counterfeiting features such as ink that appeared black from one angle and green from another; a watermark visible only when holding the bill up to the light; and a security strip running vertically through the bill -- features that will remain in the newest currency.
Other currencies with similar features followed -- a new $50 bill in 1997, a new $20 bill in 1998 and new $5 and $10 notes in 2000.
The bill will go into circulation in the fall, and others will be redesigned in the next few years. One- and two-dollar bills will not be redesigned.
In the meantime, the Treasury Department is working with companies in the vending, gaming and public transportation industries to help them adjust their currency-reading devices to accept the new bills.
Treasury has given these companies material they can use to update bill-acceptance devices, but nothing they can spend or use to make counterfeit bills.
But some currency experts warned that the new features likely will do little to discourage counterfeiters.
"Everything they've done before has been superseded by better counterfeiters," said Dennis Forgue, an anti-counterfeiting expert at Harlan J. Berk Ltd., a numismatic firm in Chicago. "With the effectiveness of computer-generated images these days, they can make some pretty nice counterfeits pretty quickly."
Of all the counterfeit bills in circulation, about 40 percent are produced digitally, according to the Secret Service, which was established in 1865 to fight counterfeiting.
An opposing view... click the stick.
Forgue said some counterfeiters are able to bleach the ink out of newer bills of smaller denominations, leaving just the unique currency paper and the watermark, and then print the features of a higher-denominated bill on the blank paper.
"The ones I've seen have been not that great in quality, but can pass in a lot of places," said Forgue, who doubted the features of the new bill would do anything to discourage people from this process, called "leaching."
Come again? If you don't buy the damn thing, they'd lose more money. $200 more, in fact.
Not really. If you don't buy one, then they don't make one, and so they haven't spent any money to lose. NOT making money is a bit different from LOSING money.
If we used your logic, then one might conclude that the record and movie companies are actually losing billions of dollars per year from piracy.
Yes, and I gave you a an example in which context made no difference; there was ambiguity.
A single example among the millions of ACTUAL circumstances. 99% of the time, the context of the conversation will be enough.
You're being pedantic.
Yes, because calling something "ogg" instead of "vorbis" is really so much more easy than people not having to ask what you mean in the first place. How about, oh, I don't know... avoiding the confusion altogether?
Ok. Everytime I refer to anything, I will use the complete and proper name. I'll say Divx AVI, instead of Divx, since how are people going to know if I mean an AVI or some other container format? Oh the horror! I'll say single layer DVD and double layer DVD, just so people aren't potentially confused.
Do you even know what pedantic MEANS? And did you know that most of the time it is a BAD THING?
It never will, because there will always be a lag between new APIs being introduced and Wine implementing them.
There's also going to be a lag between new APIs being introduced and windows users actually upgrading. Game companies have to keep in mind that most users are still using Windows 98.
Yes, people confuse the names. No, it isn't always clear what somebody is referring to when they talk about ogg. Say I tell people I am writing a script to index a bunch of ogg files. Will the features include the resolution of the video? Wait - did I mean that I am using ogg files, or that I'm limiting it to vorbis files? Is the feature even necessary?
Still being a pedantic twat.
Ever heard of context? Ever heard of conversation? If I'm writing such a program, then I ASK (CONVERSATION) the person who is talking to me what they mean, if I'm confused. I'm probably not confused because of CONTEXT.
The ability of a sovereign nation to do "whatever it wants" is directly proportional to the size of it's arsenal.
Have you got a better idea? Perhaps we should all just "get along"? Humans have used force since, well, forever, to solve disagreements. It's human nature and it isn't going to change anytime soon, no matter how many "peace" advocates try to change it.
I'm just glad that the biggest arsenal is the hands of a country that has some decent amount of human rights and the people are free to disagree with their government. Do you really think that if Iraq had the arsenal that the USA has, that the world would be a happier place?
Only in the same way that individuals are free to do whatever they want, with only the consequences of the police taking them to prison.
States, even they claim sovreignty, are actually affected by numerous international agreements. Sure, Iraq *can* do whatever they want. But we saw the results of that didn't we?
What I want to know is if these are counting genes which are active in humans (i.e. activated by master genes) or are inactive genes (say for a monkey-like tail;-)) counted too?
IANAG(Geneticist), but I would guess that they're counting hypothetical genes since determing if some gene is expressed is WHOLE LOT more work that sequencing it. So your tail-gene would be counted. However, genes that aren't exressed tend to mutate over time and can be recocgnized as such.
Not trying to flame or anything, but I'm curious about the chances of this actually getting done? Have you completed an open source project before?
Re:Move them off the MOBO please!
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
And most people don't need wheelbarrows anymore.
Yes, actually the ones who have a garden do. It's simple and it works.
While we're at it, is there a chance we can get a new kind of floppy controller? I think it's lame how my Athlon slows to a crawl when I'm formatting a floppy. Maybe serializing floppy access and adding a 32K buffer would fix things.
I'll respond with your own repsponse here, with the words "port" and "connector" replaced with "drive".
It's time to get rid of the 'geek' drives on PCs. If you want legacy drives you can get an add-in card with them or a USB shim.
It's called USB floppy drives.
Re:I'd rather...
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That having been said it's a lot easier to slap RS232 on a device than it is USB... but that's just a question of time before the USB chips become as cheap/easy as UART's...
When is that going to be? Let's try never.
I designed and built a UART in my first digital design class. The point isn't that cheap==easy, the point is that the protocol is so much simpler for RS232 than it is for USB.
Creating a USB device requires all sorts of stuff to comply with the standard. They don't put anti-lock brakes on wheelbarrows and never will, no matter how cheap they get. It doesn't make any sense.
To the contrary, you are missing the fact that integer division could have been provided with a character other than "/" which already had a well established meaning. Other languages use div, for example.
Do you know the history of C? Do you know why it was created?
It was created in a time when all the hardware programmers were using assembly, and only assembly to write code because none of the other languages out there let you talk to the hardware in a semi-efficient way.
So along came C, which assumed you knew something about assembly in the first place and you didn't need hand holding to get through some integer arithmetic. It assumed that you knew what integer division was, and used it when you wanted to. And didn't when you didn't. Back in that day, integer division was often the only kind available natively (and still is in some embedded situations). You wouldn't want to accidently activate the whole set of floating-point division routines unless you really wanted to.
PolSci nerds are no less nerds than CompSci nerds.
No, they're politicians. And politicians are evil.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone who's interested in something, calling themself a "basketweaving" nerd, or "sports" nerd or any number of totally *normal* activities.
SPORTS NERD?!?!
I *actually* heard this one once. How can someone who is interested in SPORTS of all things classify themselves as a nerd? I don't remember anyone being ridiculed for being interested in sports when I was a kid. What, as soon as nerds and geeks started to get rich off the dot-com boom, everyone wants to be one? I hope that now that is over, everything will go back to normal.
In any case, this is definately "Stuff that matters."
No, it's just news. Normal, everyday news. If I want regular normal news, then I'll go to CNN.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell would you know AC?
We'll still have it at home and we'll still have it to tinker with.
Of course the problem with this is that while a lot of the work on the kernel is done by hobbyists, a lot of it is done by paid people at Red Hat, IBM, Suse, etc. If these companies go out of buisness because Linux is no longer viable as a "product", the time between releases with go up 10-fold.
Except that the petition says that if you list your email address of the petition, that SCO can sue you, which the whole point of the petition. I browsed about 400 signatures, and none of them had an email address.
The main problem that a GC solves is the nasty problems of several objects sharing other objects. Stuff like that is what causes memory leaks. But since you're a C++ coder I bet you already know that.
I have my own philosophy about these kind of problems, though it is my opinion. I believe that is most cases pointers aren't really needed and can be avoided. The problems they cause are just too difficult to track down when not used carefully.
Unless you're doing time-critical code, the efficiencies just aren't there. In C++ at least, 90% of the things that are done with pointers can be done with references, which are a lot safer, since most problems with them are found compile time. Most instances where pointers are really needed can be encapsulated in fairly simple classes where the new/delete problems can be carefully taken care of. And then use references and arrays of objects to do the rest.
Light of a lower amplitude also carries less energy, no? Couldn't you get it from there.
of course the auto gc doesnt know all, but that doesnt mean it doesnt do some good.
Some good? If it doesn't do it's job correctly, you're going to have memory leaks. This is an accepted problem, and one that the developers understand. Who are you to question them? (Really, what are your qualifications? Do you know Java? How well?)
Well, if you program correctly in C++, you don't have a problem with memory leaks either. The whole point of a gc is so that memory leaks don't happen even with sloppy programming. It just isn't the case with Java.
im just thinking that you could probably do it manually if necessary.
Do what manually? Memory management? Isn't the gc supposed to do that for you? The thing is with C++, I have to do all the memory management myself (which really isn't that hard), and so I know what's going on. With java, I don't have complete control and don't know when I need to do memory management or not.
Sure I could work around the problems, but why?
Read the rest of the page where they explain it. Memory leaks can happen in Java because while the gc might do a great job deallocating space that is marked as useless, it can't do anything with space that isn't. And this does happen if you don't program correctly.
And that isn't the only reason why they didn't use Java. Read the rest of the page.
Or, why don't they?
The universe is full of strange, wonderful and complex things. But the only way that human knowledge is going to progress is if the "difficult to learn" stuff is made "easy to learn" through innovative explanations, or teaching.
I personally believe that the reason that innovation in science comes is spurts is because older scientist's heads are filled with complex understanding of ideas. When these ideas are explained to a new generation, simpler and simpler ways of looking at things are created to explain the idea. The students thus gain a "simple understanding" of the same ideas. And are thus better able to go beyond those ideas.
I don't think there is very much that is "inherently" difficult to learn. Relativity is becoming easier and easier for people to understand, not because it has become simpler, but because millions of teachers have come up with easy ways to explain it.
I've been thinking about this, and have come up with a question that might invalidate it. Did SCO ever release a copy of the kernel source? If they didn't and only released a precompiled kernel like many distros, then the situation might be a bit murkier.
Five mile 802.11 range? Nigga please. Please show me a router that you can buy off the shelf that covers even half that distance.
I don't think that he's going to be able to show you one off the shelf. But I don't think that the folks doing this project are going to be running down to Best Buy and picking up 60,000 wireless routers off the shelf. Most of them will probably try to amplify the signal just *a bit* more.
Wireless connections have been known to go 5 miles with the right setup. That's the point.
In conclusion, you're either a racist or just ignorant.
No, but they are quickly getting there. Most investors have stopped worrying about this since they see it coming as a given.
$20 bill gets a facelift
... click the stick.
The new note features subtle shades of pink and blue and a new background.
May 13, 2003: 11:12 AM EDT
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money staff writer
WASHINGTON (CNN/Money) - The $20 bill got a facelift Tuesday, complete with new colors, a new number arrangement and a new background, in the government's latest effort to thwart counterfeiters.
The Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing introduced the new design, featuring Andrew Jackson on the front -- without the old circle -- and a cluster of small 20s on the lower right-hand corner on the back. The front also depicts a faded bald eagle as a background with subtle pink and light blue hues.
The front of the new $20 bill unveiled by the Treasury Department Tuesday.
The Treasury plans to redesign bills every seven to 10 years to keep up with technological advances in counterfeiting.
"The soundness of a nation's currency is essential to the soundness of its economy. And to uphold our currency's soundness, it must be recognized and honored as legal tender and counterfeiting must be effectively thwarted,'' Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in a ceremony at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
The last redesign of American currency was in 1996, when a new $100 bill was introduced with anti-counterfeiting features such as ink that appeared black from one angle and green from another; a watermark visible only when holding the bill up to the light; and a security strip running vertically through the bill -- features that will remain in the newest currency.
Other currencies with similar features followed -- a new $50 bill in 1997, a new $20 bill in 1998 and new $5 and $10 notes in 2000.
The bill will go into circulation in the fall, and others will be redesigned in the next few years. One- and two-dollar bills will not be redesigned.
In the meantime, the Treasury Department is working with companies in the vending, gaming and public transportation industries to help them adjust their currency-reading devices to accept the new bills.
Treasury has given these companies material they can use to update bill-acceptance devices, but nothing they can spend or use to make counterfeit bills.
But some currency experts warned that the new features likely will do little to discourage counterfeiters.
"Everything they've done before has been superseded by better counterfeiters," said Dennis Forgue, an anti-counterfeiting expert at Harlan J. Berk Ltd., a numismatic firm in Chicago. "With the effectiveness of computer-generated images these days, they can make some pretty nice counterfeits pretty quickly."
Of all the counterfeit bills in circulation, about 40 percent are produced digitally, according to the Secret Service, which was established in 1865 to fight counterfeiting.
An opposing view
Forgue said some counterfeiters are able to bleach the ink out of newer bills of smaller denominations, leaving just the unique currency paper and the watermark, and then print the features of a higher-denominated bill on the blank paper.
"The ones I've seen have been not that great in quality, but can pass in a lot of places," said Forgue, who doubted the features of the new bill would do anything to discourage people from this process, called "leaching."
Come again? If you don't buy the damn thing, they'd lose more money. $200 more, in fact.
Not really. If you don't buy one, then they don't make one, and so they haven't spent any money to lose. NOT making money is a bit different from LOSING money.
If we used your logic, then one might conclude that the record and movie companies are actually losing billions of dollars per year from piracy.
Yes, and I gave you a an example in which context made no difference; there was ambiguity.
A single example among the millions of ACTUAL circumstances. 99% of the time, the context of the conversation will be enough.
You're being pedantic.
Yes, because calling something "ogg" instead of "vorbis" is really so much more easy than people not having to ask what you mean in the first place. How about, oh, I don't know... avoiding the confusion altogether?
Ok. Everytime I refer to anything, I will use the complete and proper name. I'll say Divx AVI, instead of Divx, since how are people going to know if I mean an AVI or some other container format? Oh the horror! I'll say single layer DVD and double layer DVD, just so people aren't potentially confused.
Do you even know what pedantic MEANS? And did you know that most of the time it is a BAD THING?
It never will, because there will always be a lag between new APIs being introduced and Wine implementing them.
There's also going to be a lag between new APIs being introduced and windows users actually upgrading. Game companies have to keep in mind that most users are still using Windows 98.
Yes, people confuse the names. No, it isn't always clear what somebody is referring to when they talk about ogg. Say I tell people I am writing a script to index a bunch of ogg files. Will the features include the resolution of the video? Wait - did I mean that I am using ogg files, or that I'm limiting it to vorbis files? Is the feature even necessary?
Still being a pedantic twat.
Ever heard of context? Ever heard of conversation? If I'm writing such a program, then I ASK (CONVERSATION) the person who is talking to me what they mean, if I'm confused. I'm probably not confused because of CONTEXT.
The ability of a sovereign nation to do "whatever it wants" is directly proportional to the size of it's arsenal.
Have you got a better idea? Perhaps we should all just "get along"? Humans have used force since, well, forever, to solve disagreements. It's human nature and it isn't going to change anytime soon, no matter how many "peace" advocates try to change it.
I'm just glad that the biggest arsenal is the hands of a country that has some decent amount of human rights and the people are free to disagree with their government. Do you really think that if Iraq had the arsenal that the USA has, that the world would be a happier place?
Only in the same way that individuals are free to do whatever they want, with only the consequences of the police taking them to prison.
States, even they claim sovreignty, are actually affected by numerous international agreements. Sure, Iraq *can* do whatever they want. But we saw the results of that didn't we?
What I want to know is if these are counting genes which are active in humans (i.e. activated by master genes) or are inactive genes (say for a monkey-like tail ;-)) counted too?
IANAG(Geneticist), but I would guess that they're counting hypothetical genes since determing if some gene is expressed is WHOLE LOT more work that sequencing it. So your tail-gene would be counted. However, genes that aren't exressed tend to mutate over time and can be recocgnized as such.
Not trying to flame or anything, but I'm curious about the chances of this actually getting done? Have you completed an open source project before?
And most people don't need wheelbarrows anymore.
Yes, actually the ones who have a garden do. It's simple and it works.
While we're at it, is there a chance we can get a new kind of floppy controller? I think it's lame how my Athlon slows to a crawl when I'm formatting a floppy. Maybe serializing floppy access and adding a 32K buffer would fix things.
I'll respond with your own repsponse here, with the words "port" and "connector" replaced with "drive".
It's time to get rid of the 'geek' drives on PCs. If you want legacy drives you can get an add-in card with them or a USB shim.
It's called USB floppy drives.
That having been said it's a lot easier to slap RS232 on a device than it is USB... but that's just a question of time before the USB chips become as cheap/easy as UART's...
When is that going to be? Let's try never.
I designed and built a UART in my first digital design class. The point isn't that cheap==easy, the point is that the protocol is so much simpler for RS232 than it is for USB.
Creating a USB device requires all sorts of stuff to comply with the standard. They don't put anti-lock brakes on wheelbarrows and never will, no matter how cheap they get. It doesn't make any sense.
To the contrary, you are missing the fact that integer division could have been provided with a character other than "/" which already had a well established meaning. Other languages use div, for example.
Do you know the history of C? Do you know why it was created?
It was created in a time when all the hardware programmers were using assembly, and only assembly to write code because none of the other languages out there let you talk to the hardware in a semi-efficient way.
So along came C, which assumed you knew something about assembly in the first place and you didn't need hand holding to get through some integer arithmetic. It assumed that you knew what integer division was, and used it when you wanted to. And didn't when you didn't. Back in that day, integer division was often the only kind available natively (and still is in some embedded situations). You wouldn't want to accidently activate the whole set of floating-point division routines unless you really wanted to.
PolSci nerds are no less nerds than CompSci nerds.
No, they're politicians. And politicians are evil.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone who's interested in something, calling themself a "basketweaving" nerd, or "sports" nerd or any number of totally *normal* activities.
SPORTS NERD?!?!
I *actually* heard this one once. How can someone who is interested in SPORTS of all things classify themselves as a nerd? I don't remember anyone being ridiculed for being interested in sports when I was a kid. What, as soon as nerds and geeks started to get rich off the dot-com boom, everyone wants to be one? I hope that now that is over, everything will go back to normal.
In any case, this is definately "Stuff that matters."
No, it's just news. Normal, everyday news. If I want regular normal news, then I'll go to CNN.
Why I oughta...!