I was going to say all this, but thank you. As a Mormon, I believe this as well. It's part of our theology, albeit one that many members might not quite understand (just in case you ask one), since it's a admittedly subtle point. God lives by the rules of the universe like anyone else. What those rules are we obviously don't completely understand, but he lives by rules like everything else in the universe.
Why would native be so much better? Because it would be supported? I've been using ntfs-3g on the mac and it works famously. Why do we need something from apple?
Because, in the end, it all relies on getting a trusted third party involved. It's the existence of a trusted third party that makes bittorrent so free of crap, not the technology itself. Problem is that the third party is subject to attack from the industry.
With the current setup, that third party is the site providing the torrent. You just want to replace that with some trusted third party sending out md5sums. They'll get attacked just like everyone else has.
Again, how many people want to live in Antarctica? Why don't people want to live there?
Lots of people want to live there. It's just not economically viable for them to do so. Those industries that exist there are only interested in hiring people who *really* need to be there because the cost of living is so incredibly high, and so the wages and associated costs are too high. There are two guys at my office who would seriously consider living in Antarctica. But their skills are not need there.
Guess what? Same goes for Mars. Except there are probably lots more people who want to go to Mars.
The only thing in which you're right is that Mars and Antarctica are similar. But you got the people argument all wrong.
This isn't a big surprise to me. I've noticed over the years that IT folk are less and less concerned with users and more concerned with hardware. Desktop support seems to be the one thing that no one wants to do, probably because it pays the least.
Whenever I read something like this, I get a reminder how poor is biologists' comprehension of Computer Science, Information Theory, and languages.
Whenever I read a post like this, I get a reminder how poor is most techies' comprehension of biology, and more specifically, what biologists do.
Whenever I read something like this, I get a reminder how poor is biologists' comprehension of Computer Science, Information Theory, and languages. And I am a Computer Scientist who worked heavily in genetic research. Microbiologists *don't* understand enough about information theory. They need to learn more, a lot more. There really seems to be a lack of understanding of what genetics is all about. It's about figuring out how a machine works. It's about reverse engineering that machine.
The work I did was on sequencing a particular genome. The interesting thing was that once that was done, everyone on the project looked around and said, "Now what?" Seriously, finding the code is only the first step, and it certainly doesn't give you any understanding of what is going on. Geneticists spend far too much time analyzing GC content and other semi-useful statistical measures, when they should be getting into the nitty gritty of looking at the sequences, breaking them down, and figuring out how it all comes together. It's like trying to understand the linux kernel by counting how many times the word "foo" appears. Sure GC content affects the macro-chemistry of the system, but it doesn't tell you what the DNA is *doing*.
We've been looking for an answer to the question 'So, what's that made of then?' since the dawn of civilisation, it seems deeply sad that we could soon reach a point where, as a species, we shrug and say 'Dunno'.
I'm a big fan of spending lots of money on scientific research, but sometimes economics gets in the way. I would love to know the answers now too, but if the human economy just can't handle that much of an investment in basic research, then it can't.
Now, I personally think that the economy could probably spend 10 - 100 times more on basic research than it does and get a lot of good return on the investment. However, technology will progress in the meantime and hopefully, making more and more powerful colliders will become cheaper over time. Until the point at which making bigger colliders becomes cheap enough that governments will be willing to swallow the expense.
But I don't think that this is the end of particle physics. It just might delay it.
We probably agree on this. I am all for immigration. My grandfather was born in Ireland. But economic realities do require some limits on the numbers you can let in at any one time. Also, we shouldn't be misusing H1-B. If we simply want to let more people in, then lets do it by the normal immigration system, not by bastardizing a special program.
There isn't. If you open up the H1-B process, the US would be overwhelmed with coders.
I was talking about the United States, not the world. Why don't we just open up the borders completely and we'll be flooded with tons of cheap labor! It will drive down prices and salaries across the board and we'll have an economic crisis on our hands.
H1-B isn't an immigration program, it is meant only for *extremely* highly skilled or specialized employees for which no people in the USA can be found...at any price. Salary isn't supposed to be a factor. Are you seriously saying that there are literally no more coders without jobs in the United States? How about we double the salary? I think you would find plenty of coders right here in the USA if you did that.
I busted my butt for six years to get a Ph.D. and then it took me nearly a year to land another science job, and it pays peanuts.
That's your problem. Perhaps you should've looked at the job market. Most pure science degrees don't pay. I would think that you would be smart enough to figure that out since you got your Ph.D. Just because you got a degree doesn't give you some sort of entitlement to a large salary.
what happens outside of school has no bearing whatsoever on what happens in it
Thats the fundamental problem here. You believe this is true. It isn't. It would be in an ideal world, but it isn't true in the real world. Kids can't separate the two things like adults can.
Alright. We'll let your kid do what they like at home. They can abuse and bully other students all they want. Then, we'll decide that *your* kid is a disrupting influence just by being in the classroom with those students he bullies outside of class and we'll expel him.
I was confused by the whole recompile your system thing, but I did it anyway. Apparently this has something to do with the ABI. The explanation made sense to me. However, if you have some counter-explanation, I would appreciate seeing it.
AFAIK (which isn't much), the reason that spinning stations aren't used is because engineering such a system turns out to be quite a bit more difficult than at first glance.
This is a limitation of the ABI, not of the compiler's ability to optimize or the programmer's ability to code.
And nothing to do C++. The first paragraph of the second paper you mention points this out. Windows/C++ fine, Linux/C++ slow. Sounds like a Linux/Binary format problem. Sounds like Windows fixed it. Perhaps the Linux/G++/whoever screwed this up, folks should fix this.
operator overloading (evil,...)
I was taking seriously up to this point. You really seem to know your stuff. I appreciate the papers. They're quite well written. But if you think that operator overloading causes causes code to be obfuscated massively then you know NOTHING about operator overloading and how it is used in practice. Any language feature can be used for evil.
So, I appreciate the information, but what exactly is your point? Because I don't see how it has anything to do with C++.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to say all this, but thank you. As a Mormon, I believe this as well. It's part of our theology, albeit one that many members might not quite understand (just in case you ask one), since it's a admittedly subtle point. God lives by the rules of the universe like anyone else. What those rules are we obviously don't completely understand, but he lives by rules like everything else in the universe.
Why would native be so much better? Because it would be supported? I've been using ntfs-3g on the mac and it works famously. Why do we need something from apple?
You mean like, with this?
http://macntfs-3g.blogspot.com/
Because, in the end, it all relies on getting a trusted third party involved. It's the existence of a trusted third party that makes bittorrent so free of crap, not the technology itself. Problem is that the third party is subject to attack from the industry.
With the current setup, that third party is the site providing the torrent. You just want to replace that with some trusted third party sending out md5sums. They'll get attacked just like everyone else has.
Try puttycyg.
SWEET.
Again, how many people want to live in Antarctica? Why don't people want to live there?
Lots of people want to live there. It's just not economically viable for them to do so. Those industries that exist there are only interested in hiring people who *really* need to be there because the cost of living is so incredibly high, and so the wages and associated costs are too high. There are two guys at my office who would seriously consider living in Antarctica. But their skills are not need there.
Guess what? Same goes for Mars. Except there are probably lots more people who want to go to Mars.
The only thing in which you're right is that Mars and Antarctica are similar. But you got the people argument all wrong.
This isn't a big surprise to me. I've noticed over the years that IT folk are less and less concerned with users and more concerned with hardware. Desktop support seems to be the one thing that no one wants to do, probably because it pays the least.
but if the goal is science
The goal isn't always science.
Whenever I read something like this, I get a reminder how poor is biologists' comprehension of Computer Science, Information Theory, and languages.
Whenever I read a post like this, I get a reminder how poor is most techies' comprehension of biology, and more specifically, what biologists do.
Whenever I read something like this, I get a reminder how poor is biologists' comprehension of Computer Science, Information Theory, and languages. And I am a Computer Scientist who worked heavily in genetic research. Microbiologists *don't* understand enough about information theory. They need to learn more, a lot more. There really seems to be a lack of understanding of what genetics is all about. It's about figuring out how a machine works. It's about reverse engineering that machine.
The work I did was on sequencing a particular genome. The interesting thing was that once that was done, everyone on the project looked around and said, "Now what?" Seriously, finding the code is only the first step, and it certainly doesn't give you any understanding of what is going on. Geneticists spend far too much time analyzing GC content and other semi-useful statistical measures, when they should be getting into the nitty gritty of looking at the sequences, breaking them down, and figuring out how it all comes together. It's like trying to understand the linux kernel by counting how many times the word "foo" appears. Sure GC content affects the macro-chemistry of the system, but it doesn't tell you what the DNA is *doing*.
We've been looking for an answer to the question 'So, what's that made of then?' since the dawn of civilisation, it seems deeply sad that we could soon reach a point where, as a species, we shrug and say 'Dunno'.
I'm a big fan of spending lots of money on scientific research, but sometimes economics gets in the way. I would love to know the answers now too, but if the human economy just can't handle that much of an investment in basic research, then it can't.
Now, I personally think that the economy could probably spend 10 - 100 times more on basic research than it does and get a lot of good return on the investment. However, technology will progress in the meantime and hopefully, making more and more powerful colliders will become cheaper over time. Until the point at which making bigger colliders becomes cheap enough that governments will be willing to swallow the expense.
But I don't think that this is the end of particle physics. It just might delay it.
Many of those are design patents and not particularly relevant to the issue at hand.
We probably agree on this. I am all for immigration. My grandfather was born in Ireland. But economic realities do require some limits on the numbers you can let in at any one time. Also, we shouldn't be misusing H1-B. If we simply want to let more people in, then lets do it by the normal immigration system, not by bastardizing a special program.
There isn't. If you open up the H1-B process, the US would be overwhelmed with coders.
I was talking about the United States, not the world. Why don't we just open up the borders completely and we'll be flooded with tons of cheap labor! It will drive down prices and salaries across the board and we'll have an economic crisis on our hands.
H1-B isn't an immigration program, it is meant only for *extremely* highly skilled or specialized employees for which no people in the USA can be found...at any price. Salary isn't supposed to be a factor. Are you seriously saying that there are literally no more coders without jobs in the United States? How about we double the salary? I think you would find plenty of coders right here in the USA if you did that.
I busted my butt for six years to get a Ph.D. and then it took me nearly a year to land another science job, and it pays peanuts.
That's your problem. Perhaps you should've looked at the job market. Most pure science degrees don't pay. I would think that you would be smart enough to figure that out since you got your Ph.D. Just because you got a degree doesn't give you some sort of entitlement to a large salary.
Turning out thousands of line of average code isn't that hard.
Then why is there a shortage of people willing to do it?
Because they are a monopoly.
Yeah. That'll work.
Intent
Schools have to right to protect their students from abuse and have responsibility to provide a welcome learning atmosphere.
what happens outside of school has no bearing whatsoever on what happens in it
Thats the fundamental problem here. You believe this is true. It isn't. It would be in an ideal world, but it isn't true in the real world. Kids can't separate the two things like adults can.
Alright. We'll let your kid do what they like at home. They can abuse and bully other students all they want. Then, we'll decide that *your* kid is a disrupting influence just by being in the classroom with those students he bullies outside of class and we'll expel him.
I was confused by the whole recompile your system thing, but I did it anyway. Apparently this has something to do with the ABI. The explanation made sense to me. However, if you have some counter-explanation, I would appreciate seeing it.
Other than those two? Speak to the point, not the analogy. The vast majority of games are written in C/C++. Why is that? Why isn't Java being used?
AFAIK (which isn't much), the reason that spinning stations aren't used is because engineering such a system turns out to be quite a bit more difficult than at first glance.
This is a limitation of the ABI, not of the compiler's ability to optimize or the programmer's ability to code.
...)
And nothing to do C++. The first paragraph of the second paper you mention points this out. Windows/C++ fine, Linux/C++ slow. Sounds like a Linux/Binary format problem. Sounds like Windows fixed it. Perhaps the Linux/G++/whoever screwed this up, folks should fix this.
operator overloading (evil,
I was taking seriously up to this point. You really seem to know your stuff. I appreciate the papers. They're quite well written. But if you think that operator overloading causes causes code to be obfuscated massively then you know NOTHING about operator overloading and how it is used in practice. Any language feature can be used for evil.
So, I appreciate the information, but what exactly is your point? Because I don't see how it has anything to do with C++.