The US gets a lot of guff about Kyoto, but while Canada ratified the treaty two years ago, it hasn't actually put a plan in place to meet any of the targets. No laws to curb emissions on vehicles, no powerplant switches, nada.
Kyoto requires that greenhouse gas levels drop 6% below 1990 levels. In 2001, Canada's greenhouse gas levels were 18.5% above 1990 levels. So you're talking about dropping greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in 8 years (assuming they haven't increased since 2001).
Canada has been fighting to get credits for all of their forests as greenhouse gas sinks. That seems to be their plan on meeting Kyoto. Make everyone else agree they don't have to do anything.
As far as I can tell, Kyoto was a feel good measure.
In San Francisco, I have never seen a line. We have polling places every two blocks it seems. We have a huge number of California propositions and city propositions to vote for as well.
I vote against all propositions on principle. I'm not a fan of direct democracy. I don't have the time or resources to do a short and long-term impact analyses of these laws.
Re:Media self-censorship a function of consolidati
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Under those conditions, the views of the owners are propagated without check, because there simply is no real independent mass media in most parts of the US today. They censor themselves, so the government doesn't have to.
I'm confused. When did freedom of the press become freedom of the popular press? Just because you can't swear in the NY Times doesn't mean you can't run your own newspaper and swear all you like.
As for independent mass media, well, I'm afraid that in order to become widely consumed, you have to write something that caters to an extremely wide audience which requires self-censorship.
This is an absurd theory. The only rational reason that Google would do such a thing is if they believed they could make more money from the browser then they can from the search engine. Since that's a highly unlikely notion, it would be silly for them try this.
Google makes very little money from its search engine. Most of their revenue (on the order of 98%) comes from advertisements, so it is'nt such a stretch for them to not support browsers that filter out adss.
I've always wondered why the age groups were so biased against young people. I mean look at them:
18-20 (3 years worth of people representing 10.7 million) 21-24 (4 years representing 13.8 million) 25-44 (20 years representing 83.3 million!) 45-64 (20 years representing 53.7 million) 65+ (avg age of ~80 = ~16 years representing 31.8 milion)
Graphing it would have been better. Yes, young people vote less, but is 24 really much worse than 25 or is there a spike at 30 or 35 that brings everyne in the age bracket up?
First, take a paper ballot that can be read by a DRE machine (similar to a scantron).
Next, build a electronic voting machine that has a nice menu system, comes in whatever languages you need, supports all those nice blind accessible features and allows people to preview their vote before commiting it.
Insert paper ballot into machine.
Have electronic voting machine print the vote onto the paper ballot. This can be as simple as using a LED printer or as fancy as using special paper that reacts to intense light or heat to make a mark.
After a person takes out their paper ballot, have them actually *look* at it to make sure there isn't anything evil going on.
Next, insert paper ballot into DRE machine for electronic count.
At the end of the day, take a random sample of the ballots and tally them by hand to make sure what the DRE machine says and what your hand tally says are close statistically.
This method has a lot of benefits. First, if your electronic voting printer machine breaks, people can still vote with pens. If your DRE machine breaks, people can still tally by hand. If you want to do a recount, you have paper ballots. The voter still has access to a nice paper ballot that they can check before they drop it off. Plus you get all the benefits of an electronic voting machine when it is working properly.
Its biggest drawback is that you need two machines instead of one. However, your voting machine has just been turned into a rather dumb printer with a screen and a DRE is nothing more than an optical recognition system that is nice old reliable technology that a lot of counties already have invested in.
Am I missing some reason why the current crop of electronic voting machines aren't as simple as this?
What is really annoying is that this Act is supported by Barbara Boxer (California Democrat). For some reason California's Senators are extremely anti-tech industry and yet they keep getting elected. The movie/music industry is big, but it doesn't hold a candle to the tech/consumer electronics industries in CA.
I just don't get it. I hope we do slashdot them. Heck, you can hit the EFF Action Center and faxslashdot them.
Imagine a country-wide vote in 1800. Imagine the mountains and mountains of paper that would all have to be delivered to Washington by horseback. Imagine the number of postman involved, any one of which could easily be picked off, or bribed. Imagine how long it would take to count.
Uhm. I'm sorry I'm not sure I get this. If you hold a popular vote in each state, why is it easier to send one guy to vote than it is to send one guy with a tally of votes for the state? They both hold the same amount of responsibility, so trust couldn't have been an issue.
It seems to me that the electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with distance. After all when the constitution was written and the electoral system created, the colonies didn't represent much in the way of land mass.
There is one thing that bothers me with Java though. You never know when the garbage collection will be performed. Sure, recent virtual machines make it possible to perform garbage collection in smaller but more frequent iterations so you don't halt the system for a few seconds like early virtual machines would do. But still, if you're in a tight loop with your data and instruction cache perfectly populated, and all of a sudden the garbage collection kicks in, then your cache is toast and data will have to be refetched to it when execution resumes.
What really bothers me is how rarely (if ever) a Java or C# program will release memory back to the system. It seems that they just take more and more resources away from the system and never release it back. This combined with a lazy garbage collection and programmers that don't worry about memory makes many Java programs horribly bad neighbors to other processes running on a dekstop.
I can't imagine what would happen when we have a shared VM that never exits. I suppose you'd have a long running app that uses the VM and then start a game that uses 3/4 of the memory then quit and your shared VM now has 3/4 of your memory. Now you can't start Photoshop because the VM refuses to release memory to the system.
I see a lot of benchmarks comparing C++ and Java and how the memory allocaton/deallocation in C++ is so much higher. I imagine if they never released memory back to the system and allocated large chunks of memory at once, performance of allocations would increase significantly. Sure it still has to do a best fit, but then so does Java.
Yep, RTPatch is some 12 years old and has been able to do binary diff patches since the beginning. Heck, you could even package patches against patches in order to work against multiple versions of the installed software.
It actually still exists and there are versions available for Linux, DOS, Windows, etc. I imagine the support for binary patches in WISE and InstallShield have hurt them quite a bit.
Posting information on a website with some very riot happy readers in the hopes of intimidating or provoking the intimidation of a group of voters is illegal.
Can you think of any other reason why the names, phone numbers and addresses of these people was placed on a website that acts as a hub for RNC protests?
There is a good reason why voter intimidation is illegal. Imagine if the license plate numbers, names and addresses for all black democrats were provided on a website frequented by heavily white angry republican police officers the week before the election. It isn't a pretty picture.
Of course, indymedia would cry foul if that happened.
1b. No employer is moral- their only god is money and their only rule of morality is profit.
I see this one quite a bit. The primary motivation of a corporation is providing *value* for its shareholders, not profit.
If you train a group of people to make widgets, you are adding value to your company. If you outsource to a foreign company and teach them how to build widgets, you are increasing value of a group of people who may provide the same service to your competitors.
It is very hard to quantify value, but I find it hard to believe that short-term cost savings is worth the lost value in having the expertise in-house. There are a lot of mediocre companies out there that don't realize people are their greatest asset. There always have been and that's not really going to change.
There is of course a big difference between outsourcing and offshoring. Offshoring is old. Intel setting up shop in India is very different from joe little dot com contracting out development of their core product to India. In this cause, Intel is adding value and saving money.
One of the problems with offshoring is that the world isn't a level playing field. In the US to do business you have to abide by worker's rights, EPA restrictions, etc. Then there are the serious trade restrictions and games certain countries play with their currency (China for instance keeps their currency artificially low)..
Google's business is to sell ads. The search engine is just a transport mechanism for their advertising engine. They *used* to be in the search engine business licensing technology, but these days the vast majority of their revenue (98% according to their SEC filing) is from advertisements.
If they think that they can sell more advertisements through IM, they will look into it.
If you take a picture of the person, a serial number (printed on the passport), age, country, start date, end date, etc., sign it with a government issued private key (obviously in a hierarchy so you could deal with compromised keys) and then make the public key available to anyone who wants to verify the data, exactly how is a forger going to do anything with it?
The only thing people will be able to do is try to go through the legal methods of getting a passport using an assumed name or attempt to crack the private key used to sign the data. Since cracking the private key is rather infeasible, that leaves trying to get a passport under an assumed name.
Google is not in the search engine business. Google is in the advertising business. Google AdSense generates a considerable amount of revenue for the company.
Not really. Blu-Ray has a rather large group of companies behind it including Hitachi, JVC, LG, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Dell, HP and Zenith.
Microsoft likes HD-DVD because it uses their hacked up MPEG-4 CODEC. Microsoft "supporting" it in Longhorn doesn't mean much as both formats are supposed to start shipping years before Longhorn exists (2005). No doubt any PC drive manufacturers will have to write their own drivers.
The rest of the industry likes Blu-Ray because it has a higher storage capacity (54 GB vs. 30 GB), uses MPEG-2 so movie/television companies don't need to re-encode their HDTV streams and has Sony behind it (movie studio/music label).
It is slightly different. With digital signatures, your public key has to be signed by a trusted third party. What a digitally signed message guarantees is that you know who a message is sent by. This prevents forged emails, but it doesn't prevent spam. After all, all spam has some form of contact information. It isn't very useful for someone to email you without a URL, phone number, etc. to try and buy whatever crap they are trying to sell.
This system instead wants to prevent forging and spam by putting a price tag on email. You set a price that someone will have to forfeit if the mail they send you is spam. This would have the effect of forcing spammers to actually target potential consumers as opposed to just spamming everyone.
Granted, it will never happen, but it gives the researchers something to do.
double *theDoubleArray = new double[theLong];...
delete[] theDoubleArray;
return 0; }
The ABI guys are still trying to figure out how to map all the double sizes. Right now, sizeof(long double) on my x86 machine gives me 12 bytes 96 bit. There is also talk of making a "long long double" of 16 bytes. Sooner or later they'll figure it out.
In C++ you could always create a class and overload all the operators to create a custom 128-bit type that acts just like a native type and is strong typed.
Then C99 gives you native complex types, but that's another story.
fputs() is an ANSI C standard function designed to write text to an output stream or file. Write() is not ANSI C compatable, requires knowledge of the length of the string (either truncating if the length parameter is too low, or writes garbage if the length parameter is too high), and is designed for binary output rather than text.
write() is POSIX/BSD/SVr4 which is certainly fine for the vast majority of platforms. Even with doing the strlen() and a const, it is cheaper than fputs() due to the locking fputs() puts on stdout (admittedly nothing compared to loading the binary into memory). Further, even if you wanted to use ANSI C, they should have just used puts().
Correct it then. The webpage containing the benchamarks has links available to contact the maintainers of the website so that you can submit a more efficient function.
Every single test for every single language is almost certainly flawed in some way. If they wanted to do it right, they should have allowed open submission and peer review of every test so that they could be written and rewritten then tested.
The point is, the person running this is certainly not an expert in every single language. I doubt very much that they can make a proper decision between four different and seemingly correct implementations of the hash implementation. Just submitting replacements doesn't make much sense because *my* implementation could raise just as many questions as the up right now.
This, of course, assumes that the HM class is not affected by the buf[] string being overwritten. If it is, then you'll have to find another way to eliminate the sprintf/strdup inefficiency.
Oddly enough, the "correct" implementation from a best practices standpoint may be slower by using std::string instead. It all depends on what your definition of "correct" is. That is why an open peer review process would be helpful as the feedback would educate people as to why certain design choices were made.
The question you have to ask yourself is, do the results on this page reflect reality in any way?
Ok, I can understand that one. The rest I'm not sure about. Surely using strdup() and sprintf() in a C++ program to hash is wrong or using fputs() to output a string. Plus, how the heck did they use 2 megs of memory for Hello World?
Static:
jordy 21022 0.0 0.0 388 60 pts/1 T 12:39 0:00/home/jordy/hello
Dynamic:
jordy 21038 0.0 0.0 1344 228 pts/1 T 12:40 0:00/home/jordy/hello
Going through some of these sample programs, I see some serious flaws. The C implementation of regex just calls pcre. The C implementation of Hello World calls fputs instead of write(). The C++ implementation of hash uses sprintf and strdup. The C and C++ implementations of the fibonatchi sequence test are recursive. The tests themselves are so short that you are measuring the time to load the binary into memory and cleanup for half the tests.
Really there should be some automated way to submit a replacement for some of these tests that gets peer reviewed. That way each language has the "best" implementation for the language.
Of course, it would have to be considered the "best practices" use of the language as you could always write C in C++ (call write() for Hello World for instance).
I'd say that Blu-Ray has a significant advantage due to recordability, size and the companies pushing it. As I understand it, Blu-Ray was never even submitted to the DVD Forum because they considered it far more than just a replacement for DVD and they didn't want to be under the DVD Forum's thumb any longer.
They are right. A dual-layer blu-ray disc can hold about 50 GB of data. With hard drives becoming stupidly large, being able to back up your data onto 4 or 8 blu-ray discs would be very handy.
Blu-Ray is currently backed by Hitachi, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubish, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK (well they back everyone:)), Thomson, Dell and HP. There are prototypes from most of these companies already.
Personally, I hope Blu-Ray wins. It seems like a superior technology with more industry support. They are eliminating the caddy (which I personally like for backups, but meh) and bumping up the recording speed. I just wish they'd move faster.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what people thought about Troy. It is possible that there was an Atlantis that inspired Plato.
The US gets a lot of guff about Kyoto, but while Canada ratified the treaty two years ago, it hasn't actually put a plan in place to meet any of the targets. No laws to curb emissions on vehicles, no powerplant switches, nada.
Kyoto requires that greenhouse gas levels drop 6% below 1990 levels. In 2001, Canada's greenhouse gas levels were 18.5% above 1990 levels. So you're talking about dropping greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in 8 years (assuming they haven't increased since 2001).
Canada has been fighting to get credits for all of their forests as greenhouse gas sinks. That seems to be their plan on meeting Kyoto. Make everyone else agree they don't have to do anything.
As far as I can tell, Kyoto was a feel good measure.
In San Francisco, I have never seen a line. We have polling places every two blocks it seems. We have a huge number of California propositions and city propositions to vote for as well.
I vote against all propositions on principle. I'm not a fan of direct democracy. I don't have the time or resources to do a short and long-term impact analyses of these laws.
Under those conditions, the views of the owners are propagated without check, because there simply is no real independent mass media in most parts of the US today. They censor themselves, so the government doesn't have to.
I'm confused. When did freedom of the press become freedom of the popular press? Just because you can't swear in the NY Times doesn't mean you can't run your own newspaper and swear all you like.
As for independent mass media, well, I'm afraid that in order to become widely consumed, you have to write something that caters to an extremely wide audience which requires self-censorship.
This is an absurd theory. The only rational reason that Google would do such a thing is if they believed they could make more money from the browser then they can from the search engine. Since that's a highly unlikely notion, it would be silly for them try this.
Google makes very little money from its search engine. Most of their revenue (on the order of 98%) comes from advertisements, so it is'nt such a stretch for them to not support browsers that filter out adss.
Oh yeah?
Try searching for 'porn' on google:
Free Porn & Hot Sex - New
The #1 Sex pick of The King
XXX Free Porn here - 100% Free!
Nudes XXX
Super girls. Video and photo online
Only for you and free
I've always wondered why the age groups were so biased against young people. I mean look at them:
18-20 (3 years worth of people representing 10.7 million)
21-24 (4 years representing 13.8 million)
25-44 (20 years representing 83.3 million!)
45-64 (20 years representing 53.7 million)
65+ (avg age of ~80 = ~16 years representing 31.8 milion)
Graphing it would have been better. Yes, young people vote less, but is 24 really much worse than 25 or is there a spike at 30 or 35 that brings everyne in the age bracket up?
This method has a lot of benefits. First, if your electronic voting printer machine breaks, people can still vote with pens. If your DRE machine breaks, people can still tally by hand. If you want to do a recount, you have paper ballots. The voter still has access to a nice paper ballot that they can check before they drop it off. Plus you get all the benefits of an electronic voting machine when it is working properly.
Its biggest drawback is that you need two machines instead of one. However, your voting machine has just been turned into a rather dumb printer with a screen and a DRE is nothing more than an optical recognition system that is nice old reliable technology that a lot of counties already have invested in.
Am I missing some reason why the current crop of electronic voting machines aren't as simple as this?
What is really annoying is that this Act is supported by Barbara Boxer (California Democrat). For some reason California's Senators are extremely anti-tech industry and yet they keep getting elected. The movie/music industry is big, but it doesn't hold a candle to the tech/consumer electronics industries in CA.
I just don't get it. I hope we do slashdot them. Heck, you can hit the EFF Action Center and faxslashdot them.
Imagine a country-wide vote in 1800. Imagine the mountains and mountains of paper that would all have to be delivered to Washington by horseback. Imagine the number of postman involved, any one of which could easily be picked off, or bribed. Imagine how long it would take to count.
Uhm. I'm sorry I'm not sure I get this. If you hold a popular vote in each state, why is it easier to send one guy to vote than it is to send one guy with a tally of votes for the state? They both hold the same amount of responsibility, so trust couldn't have been an issue.
It seems to me that the electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with distance. After all when the constitution was written and the electoral system created, the colonies didn't represent much in the way of land mass.
There is one thing that bothers me with Java though. You never know when the garbage collection will be performed. Sure, recent virtual machines make it possible to perform garbage collection in smaller but more frequent iterations so you don't halt the system for a few seconds like early virtual machines would do. But still, if you're in a tight loop with your data and instruction cache perfectly populated, and all of a sudden the garbage collection kicks in, then your cache is toast and data will have to be refetched to it when execution resumes.
What really bothers me is how rarely (if ever) a Java or C# program will release memory back to the system. It seems that they just take more and more resources away from the system and never release it back. This combined with a lazy garbage collection and programmers that don't worry about memory makes many Java programs horribly bad neighbors to other processes running on a dekstop.
I can't imagine what would happen when we have a shared VM that never exits. I suppose you'd have a long running app that uses the VM and then start a game that uses 3/4 of the memory then quit and your shared VM now has 3/4 of your memory. Now you can't start Photoshop because the VM refuses to release memory to the system.
I see a lot of benchmarks comparing C++ and Java and how the memory allocaton/deallocation in C++ is so much higher. I imagine if they never released memory back to the system and allocated large chunks of memory at once, performance of allocations would increase significantly. Sure it still has to do a best fit, but then so does Java.
Yep, RTPatch is some 12 years old and has been able to do binary diff patches since the beginning. Heck, you could even package patches against patches in order to work against multiple versions of the installed software.
It actually still exists and there are versions available for Linux, DOS, Windows, etc. I imagine the support for binary patches in WISE and InstallShield have hurt them quite a bit.
It all comes down to context and intent.
Posting information on a website with some very riot happy readers in the hopes of intimidating or provoking the intimidation of a group of voters is illegal.
Can you think of any other reason why the names, phone numbers and addresses of these people was placed on a website that acts as a hub for RNC protests?
There is a good reason why voter intimidation is illegal. Imagine if the license plate numbers, names and addresses for all black democrats were provided on a website frequented by heavily white angry republican police officers the week before the election. It isn't a pretty picture.
Of course, indymedia would cry foul if that happened.
1b. No employer is moral- their only god is money and their only rule of morality is profit.
I see this one quite a bit. The primary motivation of a corporation is providing *value* for its shareholders, not profit.
If you train a group of people to make widgets, you are adding value to your company. If you outsource to a foreign company and teach them how to build widgets, you are increasing value of a group of people who may provide the same service to your competitors.
It is very hard to quantify value, but I find it hard to believe that short-term cost savings is worth the lost value in having the expertise in-house. There are a lot of mediocre companies out there that don't realize people are their greatest asset. There always have been and that's not really going to change.
There is of course a big difference between outsourcing and offshoring. Offshoring is old. Intel setting up shop in India is very different from joe little dot com contracting out development of their core product to India. In this cause, Intel is adding value and saving money.
One of the problems with offshoring is that the world isn't a level playing field. In the US to do business you have to abide by worker's rights, EPA restrictions, etc. Then there are the serious trade restrictions and games certain countries play with their currency (China for instance keeps their currency artificially low)..
Google's business is to sell ads. The search engine is just a transport mechanism for their advertising engine. They *used* to be in the search engine business licensing technology, but these days the vast majority of their revenue (98% according to their SEC filing) is from advertisements.
If they think that they can sell more advertisements through IM, they will look into it.
I'm confused about this.
If you take a picture of the person, a serial number (printed on the passport), age, country, start date, end date, etc., sign it with a government issued private key (obviously in a hierarchy so you could deal with compromised keys) and then make the public key available to anyone who wants to verify the data, exactly how is a forger going to do anything with it?
The only thing people will be able to do is try to go through the legal methods of getting a passport using an assumed name or attempt to crack the private key used to sign the data. Since cracking the private key is rather infeasible, that leaves trying to get a passport under an assumed name.
Google is not in the search engine business. Google is in the advertising business. Google AdSense generates a considerable amount of revenue for the company.
Not really. Blu-Ray has a rather large group of companies behind it including Hitachi, JVC, LG, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Dell, HP and Zenith.
Microsoft likes HD-DVD because it uses their hacked up MPEG-4 CODEC. Microsoft "supporting" it in Longhorn doesn't mean much as both formats are supposed to start shipping years before Longhorn exists (2005). No doubt any PC drive manufacturers will have to write their own drivers.
The rest of the industry likes Blu-Ray because it has a higher storage capacity (54 GB vs. 30 GB), uses MPEG-2 so movie/television companies don't need to re-encode their HDTV streams and has Sony behind it (movie studio/music label).
It is slightly different. With digital signatures, your public key has to be signed by a trusted third party. What a digitally signed message guarantees is that you know who a message is sent by. This prevents forged emails, but it doesn't prevent spam. After all, all spam has some form of contact information. It isn't very useful for someone to email you without a URL, phone number, etc. to try and buy whatever crap they are trying to sell.
This system instead wants to prevent forging and spam by putting a price tag on email. You set a price that someone will have to forfeit if the mail they send you is spam. This would have the effect of forcing spammers to actually target potential consumers as opposed to just spamming everyone.
Granted, it will never happen, but it gives the researchers something to do.
Huh. How odd. C/C++ can do this just fine. (Well, C++ with C99 support makes it easier).
...
#include <stdint.h>
int main() {
int64_t theLong = 1;
theLong = 32;
theLong += 1;
double *theDoubleArray = new double[theLong];
delete[] theDoubleArray;
return 0;
}
The ABI guys are still trying to figure out how to map all the double sizes. Right now, sizeof(long double) on my x86 machine gives me 12 bytes 96 bit. There is also talk of making a "long long double" of 16 bytes. Sooner or later they'll figure it out.
In C++ you could always create a class and overload all the operators to create a custom 128-bit type that acts just like a native type and is strong typed.
Then C99 gives you native complex types, but that's another story.
Uhm. There are 290 million Americans. If she has $1 billion, she would be able to give $3.50 (roughly) to each American, not $1000.
To give $1000, she would need to be worth $290 billion (rougly 6x what Gates is worth).
fputs() is an ANSI C standard function designed to write text to an output stream or file. Write() is not ANSI C compatable, requires knowledge of the length of the string (either truncating if the length parameter is too low, or writes garbage if the length parameter is too high), and is designed for binary output rather than text.
write() is POSIX/BSD/SVr4 which is certainly fine for the vast majority of platforms. Even with doing the strlen() and a const, it is cheaper than fputs() due to the locking fputs() puts on stdout (admittedly nothing compared to loading the binary into memory). Further, even if you wanted to use ANSI C, they should have just used puts().
Correct it then. The webpage containing the benchamarks has links available to contact the maintainers of the website so that you can submit a more efficient function.
Every single test for every single language is almost certainly flawed in some way. If they wanted to do it right, they should have allowed open submission and peer review of every test so that they could be written and rewritten then tested.
The point is, the person running this is certainly not an expert in every single language. I doubt very much that they can make a proper decision between four different and seemingly correct implementations of the hash implementation. Just submitting replacements doesn't make much sense because *my* implementation could raise just as many questions as the up right now.
This, of course, assumes that the HM class is not affected by the buf[] string being overwritten. If it is, then you'll have to find another way to eliminate the sprintf/strdup inefficiency.
Oddly enough, the "correct" implementation from a best practices standpoint may be slower by using std::string instead. It all depends on what your definition of "correct" is. That is why an open peer review process would be helpful as the feedback would educate people as to why certain design choices were made.
The question you have to ask yourself is, do the results on this page reflect reality in any way?
Ok, I can understand that one. The rest I'm not sure about. Surely using strdup() and sprintf() in a C++ program to hash is wrong or using fputs() to output a string. Plus, how the heck did they use 2 megs of memory for Hello World?
/home/jordy/hello
/home/jordy/hello
Static:
jordy 21022 0.0 0.0 388 60 pts/1 T 12:39 0:00
Dynamic:
jordy 21038 0.0 0.0 1344 228 pts/1 T 12:40 0:00
Going through some of these sample programs, I see some serious flaws. The C implementation of regex just calls pcre. The C implementation of Hello World calls fputs instead of write(). The C++ implementation of hash uses sprintf and strdup. The C and C++ implementations of the fibonatchi sequence test are recursive. The tests themselves are so short that you are measuring the time to load the binary into memory and cleanup for half the tests.
Really there should be some automated way to submit a replacement for some of these tests that gets peer reviewed. That way each language has the "best" implementation for the language.
Of course, it would have to be considered the "best practices" use of the language as you could always write C in C++ (call write() for Hello World for instance).
I'd say that Blu-Ray has a significant advantage due to recordability, size and the companies pushing it. As I understand it, Blu-Ray was never even submitted to the DVD Forum because they considered it far more than just a replacement for DVD and they didn't want to be under the DVD Forum's thumb any longer.
:)), Thomson, Dell and HP. There are prototypes from most of these companies already.
They are right. A dual-layer blu-ray disc can hold about 50 GB of data. With hard drives becoming stupidly large, being able to back up your data onto 4 or 8 blu-ray discs would be very handy.
Blu-Ray is currently backed by Hitachi, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubish, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK (well they back everyone
Personally, I hope Blu-Ray wins. It seems like a superior technology with more industry support. They are eliminating the caddy (which I personally like for backups, but meh) and bumping up the recording speed. I just wish they'd move faster.