I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff.
Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...
This strikes me as ridiculous, but there is a nice alternative - don't use FoxPro. Perhaps initially painful, but in the end quite rewarding!;-)
Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?
I'd suggest one of the many DBs available for Linux + JDBC + Java 1.4x + NetBeans/Eclipse.:-)
carbon is the only good choice for rich biochemistry.
This is based on the analysis of one single biosphere. Again, generalizations based on a sample set of one.
No, it is based on the analysis of every chemical in the universe, most likely. This is confirmed by astrospectroscopy.
The possible chemical interactions of these elements are well understood. Only carbon permits sufficiently complex molecules, with other important attributes like flexibility. Silicon, a closely related element, is the nearest in suitability, but it is much more limited.
And you have excluded planets that are really no less likely to have "life" than the ones you are keeping in your list.
I disagree.
This is an even wilder assumption (unwarranted generalization). To attempt to apply the number of years that something took place on Earth to other planets and other systems we know nothing about.
The Earth existed for around 1.5-2 billion years before it was remotely suitable for life. These are mostly straightforward physical processes such as cooling and atmosphere formation.
Many of the brighter stars you can see in the night sky have total lifespans before extinction of less than one billion years. Others are so variable as to produce very unsuitable conditions for carbon based lifeforms. Others are in multiple star systems where stable planetary orbits are impossible.
These are largely the types of systems that have been eliminated from the initial search (emphasis mine).
The best candidate stars will be from the F, G, K, and M classes of stars. See the Hertzsprung-Russel Chart
If you are looking for intelligent life out there, throwing a dart at a star chart while blindfolded makes as much sense.
Nope. See above.
What you are doing might make sense if you are looking for the Trekkie "class M" planet with the afro alien chicks with go-go boots.
It'll be very interesting how close alien "DNA" is to terrestrial DNA. It is quite a stretch to think that carbon-based, intelligent aliens would even be bipedal, much less humanoid. I'd suggest that the variety of life on Earth argues otherwise, and that the octopus is arguably the second best design for intelligent life on this planet (other than the Great Apes).
Think how different life on Earth might be if the some of the early extinction events hadn't occurred here. For instance, the Permo-Triassic Extinction. A brief quote:
"Over a span of 5-10 million years, it is estimated that between 75 and 90 percent of all preexisting species were lost, including 80-96% of all marine species and approximately 57% of all marine families."
However, shouldn't the goal be too look for life, rather than just a much more limited and unlikely type of life?
All the evidence suggests that other types of life are likely to be "more limited and unlikely". That is exactly the point.
And in one implicit assumption (that all life must be based on the same kind of chemical interactions that we are) you have duplicated the mistake made by these SETI people.
It is by no means "must" - it is simply considered most likely. The scientists are going with the best probabilities based on, surprise, the science we know.
For all we know, the universe could be full of intelligent life based, not on chemical interactions, but on quantum interactions, or perhaps complex interactions of particles based on gravity, or perhaps some subtle physical effect we don't even know about yet.
If the universe is "full" of such life, it is not transmitting in the radio spectrum - we've already looked quite a few places, including empty space. There are fairly "obvious" physics-based frequencies at which to transmit, if you wish to communicate. If you don't wish to communicate, that is another kettle of fish...
It is not that we haven't already listened in lots of directions, and to lots of things. So far, radio hasn't proven very fruitful.
It may be that there is a instantaneous-super-quantum-gravitational-string (or something) form of communication that almost all civilizations acquire at some point beyond our current technology. That would certainly account for a large-scale radio silence. Of course, there are numerous other possibilities.
It assumes that other life on other planets would be humanlike and thus need a similar environment.
There is more to it than that. Biochemists have done substantial analysis regarding what other chemical families might support life. It looks as though with the periodic table as it is, carbon is the only good choice for rich biochemistry. For carbon life to develop, liquid water appears necessary. So, you have narrowed the search volume considerably by only considering stars that would likely have a planet in the "liquid water" sweet spot, while not getting fried by hard radiation at the same time.
Further, a planet must exist long enough for evolution to occur. That eliminates a great number of stars as well - many just don't last long enough.
As another poster pointed out, that at least provides a starting point on where to look.
Suppose we have a person who is an employee and a student at the same time. Should we use multiple inheritence? That would be screwy, and also not natural to implement in a language like Java.
It is very natural to do in Java. Implement it using interfaces, and then use composition to supply the implementation for each particular interface. Each part satisfies the is-a test, the person is an employee, and the person is a student.
Eiffel-like multiple inheritance might be better, but Java interfaces are a very usable approach to the problem.
The war in Iraq is more than enough violence for me.
I do have an issue with the 'embedded' coverage not showing complete combat footage or dead bodies. There should be an adult news channel where the full account resides - to remind us what is being lost in those battles.
War is sad, its just sometimes necessary. The whole truth of it should be shown regardless.
I can't believe Dubya would be such a moron and invade Iraq! It's all about the oil. And, his father screwed up so he felt like he had to kick Saddam's a$$. Plus, war is bad. No matter what. Really.
Now that's what I call a troll.;-)
Honestly, I wish a few of the antiwar folk could spend some time in Saddam's torture chambers...just so they'd really comprehend what they're supporting.
BTW, I'm appalled that these "peace loving" folk are trashing the vehicles of military families. Its happening in my local community. That is beneath contempt.
Thanks for the correction on Jefferson. I'd seen this quote attributed to him many times, including in books. I did do a search before I posted it to make sure I was getting it right.
I did find one I like just as well:
"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
While I agree that some parts of the Patriot act go further than I think they should, I am REALLY sick of the paranoid irrational reactions it's getting. It's not going to cause you to get locked up overnight...well...unless you are a bomb-packing terrorist -
I suggest you research the story of the Intel engineer who is being held incognito. He made a contribution to an organization that was not on any banned list at the time. I don't have a link handy, but it isn't hard to find.
Further, why don't you respond to the various intrusions on privacy that are either happening already or on the way? How much of your privacy are you willing to entrust to the Department of Homeland Security?
so why not work calmly and rationally to change the parts of it you think go to far? If you have a good point, make it, and it will stand for itself.
That is precisely what I'm doing here on Slashdot.:-)
Just as in Iraq, if enough (influential) opinion is changed, a tipping point is reached.
So your theory is that Microsoft has been sitting on it's hands all these years without porting to any of the readily available 64-bit platforms? Including Itanic, which has been around in beta incarnations for several years?
Of course not. In fact, there are released Itanium versions of XP and Windows 2000. I heard that before that, there was an internal 64-bit Alpha version of Win2K.
So, I'll ask again - what is taking MS so long? Linux, with full application support, both 64 and 32 bit, will be ready at Opteron release... MS is shooting for a six month later release date, and knowing Microsoft's record on hitting such dates I'm not optimistic.
Having 64-bit versions of SQL Server etc. ready is an entirely separate issue....although those apps must have already been ported to Win64 for Itanic...right?
NT was available for DEC Alpha for years.
I remember reading an article in PC/Computing back in the days when the top of the line PC was a 486-DX/2 66mhz drooling over the speed of NT 3.51 on an Alpha at 300mhz.
Actually, from the very beginning NT was written to be portable. In fact, it was developed on an architecture built around the N-ten processor, hence the name "NT". They knew from the beginning that N-ten wouldn't be a major platform, but they used it anyway to keep the design team from "cheating" by implementing platform-specific code.
The hardware specific code is contained in the Hardware Abstraction Layer, which is layered under the kernel. Remember that NT has been available for several different architectures in the past. The fact that only IA-32 remains has to do with market realities, not with the design.
Yep, I knew all that...still why was it so much easier to port Linux?
It would still be pretty easy for MS to provide NT for other 32-bit platforms. Now, porting to a 64-bit platform isn't the same thing.
So your theory is that Microsoft has been sitting on it's hands all these years without porting to any of the readily available 64-bit platforms? Including Itanic, which has been around in beta incarnations for several years?
Both are 64 bit, basically the same chips, Opteron is for serveres, Athlon 64 is for desktops.
Not quite right. Opterons are for workstations and servers. Opterons have up to two memory controllers, can have larger cache, and support SMP. Athlon64 will be single-CPU only (this wasn't the original plan, BTW).
I expect Opteron workstations running Linux64 and Win32 will be available sooner rather than later.
Check the bottom of this article for info on a BRCM chipset supporting AGP 8x (among other goodies).
The parent asks for a specific example, and you respond with a quote.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.;-)
The question remains, what liberties are you referring to?
Amendment 1: Free speech.
Amendment 4: Privacy
Ever hear of the Total Information Awareness program, for instance?
Or can you name none?
The main problem with it is that it continues (not starts) down the slippery slope of eliminating important Constitutional freedoms.
How will you feel when the government installs a video camera at the bottom of your driveway...just to make sure you're not involved with any terrorist activities? Or when GPS-enabled cell phones become mandatory so your location can be tracked at all times if the phone is used? Or when you must submit a DNA sample to the government so your identity can be verified at any later date? Or the government begins tracking all your purchases and finances to ensure you're not involved with terrorism? Or when the government monitors all domestic phone conversations and email for suspicious phrases? You don't have anything to hide do you?
America was NOT founded with that type of lifestyle in mind...quite the opposite! We'd better nip this kind of thing in the bud if we don't want lose our basic freedoms. Especially when losing those freedoms most likely will do little, if anything, to effectively deal with terrorism.
For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me.;-)
I'll finish off with two more quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
--Patrick Henry
We also investigated this. SWT is a _horrendous_ API which offers very little abstraction. You end up writing your code once for the Gtk+ target, and again for the native Windows target. It isn't really a cross-platform abstraction like WxWindows, and it's probably the reason why the Eclipse codebase is so large. You end up writing your application for each UI target platform. Gtk# runs and integrates with the platform instead, so you only write your code once.
As another poster pointed out already, this is completely incorrect.
BTW, I look forward to your forthcoming benchmark. Be sure to post the code.
It's pointless to interface with the threads layer directly when pthreads exists.
Another whopper. All a Java user sees is the Thread (or Runnable) abstraction...which native or emulated thread library is used doesn't matter. IIRC, gcj uses pthreads if desired (yes it does, I just checked).
Looks like you're taking the "big lie" approach to attacking gcj... I look forward to head-to-head performance comparisons with the aptly named "Mono". (Its a disease as far as I'm concerned.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of free software runs on Windows - gcc + toolchain, Mozilla, the Gimp, emacs and on and on...
This strikes me as ridiculous, but there is a nice alternative - don't use FoxPro. Perhaps initially painful, but in the end quite rewarding! ;-)
Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?
I'd suggest one of the many DBs available for Linux + JDBC + Java 1.4x + NetBeans/Eclipse. :-)
This is based on the analysis of one single biosphere. Again, generalizations based on a sample set of one.
No, it is based on the analysis of every chemical in the universe, most likely. This is confirmed by astrospectroscopy.
The possible chemical interactions of these elements are well understood. Only carbon permits sufficiently complex molecules, with other important attributes like flexibility. Silicon, a closely related element, is the nearest in suitability, but it is much more limited.
And you have excluded planets that are really no less likely to have "life" than the ones you are keeping in your list.
I disagree.
This is an even wilder assumption (unwarranted generalization). To attempt to apply the number of years that something took place on Earth to other planets and other systems we know nothing about.
The Earth existed for around 1.5-2 billion years before it was remotely suitable for life. These are mostly straightforward physical processes such as cooling and atmosphere formation.
Many of the brighter stars you can see in the night sky have total lifespans before extinction of less than one billion years. Others are so variable as to produce very unsuitable conditions for carbon based lifeforms. Others are in multiple star systems where stable planetary orbits are impossible.
These are largely the types of systems that have been eliminated from the initial search (emphasis mine).
The best candidate stars will be from the F, G, K, and M classes of stars. See the Hertzsprung-Russel Chart
If you are looking for intelligent life out there, throwing a dart at a star chart while blindfolded makes as much sense.
Nope. See above.
What you are doing might make sense if you are looking for the Trekkie "class M" planet with the afro alien chicks with go-go boots.
It'll be very interesting how close alien "DNA" is to terrestrial DNA. It is quite a stretch to think that carbon-based, intelligent aliens would even be bipedal, much less humanoid. I'd suggest that the variety of life on Earth argues otherwise, and that the octopus is arguably the second best design for intelligent life on this planet (other than the Great Apes).
Think how different life on Earth might be if the some of the early extinction events hadn't occurred here. For instance, the Permo-Triassic Extinction. A brief quote:
"Over a span of 5-10 million years, it is estimated that between 75 and 90 percent of all preexisting species were lost, including 80-96% of all marine species and approximately 57% of all marine families."
However, shouldn't the goal be too look for life, rather than just a much more limited and unlikely type of life?
All the evidence suggests that other types of life are likely to be "more limited and unlikely". That is exactly the point.
It is by no means "must" - it is simply considered most likely. The scientists are going with the best probabilities based on, surprise, the science we know.
For all we know, the universe could be full of intelligent life based, not on chemical interactions, but on quantum interactions, or perhaps complex interactions of particles based on gravity, or perhaps some subtle physical effect we don't even know about yet.
If the universe is "full" of such life, it is not transmitting in the radio spectrum - we've already looked quite a few places, including empty space. There are fairly "obvious" physics-based frequencies at which to transmit, if you wish to communicate. If you don't wish to communicate, that is another kettle of fish...
It is not that we haven't already listened in lots of directions, and to lots of things. So far, radio hasn't proven very fruitful.
It may be that there is a instantaneous-super-quantum-gravitational-string (or something) form of communication that almost all civilizations acquire at some point beyond our current technology. That would certainly account for a large-scale radio silence. Of course, there are numerous other possibilities.
There is more to it than that. Biochemists have done substantial analysis regarding what other chemical families might support life. It looks as though with the periodic table as it is, carbon is the only good choice for rich biochemistry. For carbon life to develop, liquid water appears necessary. So, you have narrowed the search volume considerably by only considering stars that would likely have a planet in the "liquid water" sweet spot, while not getting fried by hard radiation at the same time.
Further, a planet must exist long enough for evolution to occur. That eliminates a great number of stars as well - many just don't last long enough.
As another poster pointed out, that at least provides a starting point on where to look.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana
Palladium simply brings this 'innovation' (in the grand tradition of Microsoft 'innovation') to the U.S.
Great.
It is very natural to do in Java. Implement it using interfaces, and then use composition to supply the implementation for each particular interface. Each part satisfies the is-a test, the person is an employee, and the person is a student.
Eiffel-like multiple inheritance might be better, but Java interfaces are a very usable approach to the problem.
Very astute argument. I'm impressed... ;-)
Run on home, little one.
I do have an issue with the 'embedded' coverage not showing complete combat footage or dead bodies. There should be an adult news channel where the full account resides - to remind us what is being lost in those battles.
War is sad, its just sometimes necessary. The whole truth of it should be shown regardless.
I can't believe Dubya would be such a moron and invade Iraq! It's all about the oil. And, his father screwed up so he felt like he had to kick Saddam's a$$. Plus, war is bad. No matter what. Really.
Now that's what I call a troll. ;-)
Honestly, I wish a few of the antiwar folk could spend some time in Saddam's torture chambers...just so they'd really comprehend what they're supporting.
BTW, I'm appalled that these "peace loving" folk are trashing the vehicles of military families. Its happening in my local community. That is beneath contempt.
Nah...back to Fox. ;-)
No.
Damn Tories!
Sorry!
You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
I did find one I like just as well:
"Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
While I agree that some parts of the Patriot act go further than I think they should, I am REALLY sick of the paranoid irrational reactions it's getting. It's not going to cause you to get locked up overnight...well...unless you are a bomb-packing terrorist -
I suggest you research the story of the Intel engineer who is being held incognito. He made a contribution to an organization that was not on any banned list at the time. I don't have a link handy, but it isn't hard to find.
Further, why don't you respond to the various intrusions on privacy that are either happening already or on the way? How much of your privacy are you willing to entrust to the Department of Homeland Security?
so why not work calmly and rationally to change the parts of it you think go to far? If you have a good point, make it, and it will stand for itself.
That is precisely what I'm doing here on Slashdot. :-)
Just as in Iraq, if enough (influential) opinion is changed, a tipping point is reached.
Of course not. In fact, there are released Itanium versions of XP and Windows 2000. I heard that before that, there was an internal 64-bit Alpha version of Win2K.
So, I'll ask again - what is taking MS so long? Linux, with full application support, both 64 and 32 bit, will be ready at Opteron release... MS is shooting for a six month later release date, and knowing Microsoft's record on hitting such dates I'm not optimistic.
Having 64-bit versions of SQL Server etc. ready is an entirely separate issue....although those apps must have already been ported to Win64 for Itanic...right?
Yes, but this was only a 32-bit implementation.
The hardware specific code is contained in the Hardware Abstraction Layer, which is layered under the kernel. Remember that NT has been available for several different architectures in the past. The fact that only IA-32 remains has to do with market realities, not with the design.
Yep, I knew all that...still why was it so much easier to port Linux?
It would still be pretty easy for MS to provide NT for other 32-bit platforms. Now, porting to a 64-bit platform isn't the same thing.
So your theory is that Microsoft has been sitting on it's hands all these years without porting to any of the readily available 64-bit platforms? Including Itanic, which has been around in beta incarnations for several years?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Not quite right. Opterons are for workstations and servers. Opterons have up to two memory controllers, can have larger cache, and support SMP. Athlon64 will be single-CPU only (this wasn't the original plan, BTW).
I expect Opteron workstations running Linux64 and Win32 will be available sooner rather than later.
Check the bottom of this article for info on a BRCM chipset supporting AGP 8x (among other goodies).
Sweet!
It's not like this is a poorly implemented Unix workalike that has processor-specific cruft buried deep under the skin.
No, apparently its much more difficult to port.
Doubtless poorly designed from the beginning. I'd point to the emphasis on "integration" rather than "modularity", just IMO.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ;-)
The question remains, what liberties are you referring to?
Amendment 1: Free speech.
Amendment 4: Privacy
Ever hear of the Total Information Awareness program, for instance?
Or can you name none?
The main problem with it is that it continues (not starts) down the slippery slope of eliminating important Constitutional freedoms.
How will you feel when the government installs a video camera at the bottom of your driveway...just to make sure you're not involved with any terrorist activities? Or when GPS-enabled cell phones become mandatory so your location can be tracked at all times if the phone is used? Or when you must submit a DNA sample to the government so your identity can be verified at any later date? Or the government begins tracking all your purchases and finances to ensure you're not involved with terrorism? Or when the government monitors all domestic phone conversations and email for suspicious phrases? You don't have anything to hide do you?
America was NOT founded with that type of lifestyle in mind...quite the opposite! We'd better nip this kind of thing in the bud if we don't want lose our basic freedoms. Especially when losing those freedoms most likely will do little, if anything, to effectively deal with terrorism.
For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me. ;-)
I'll finish off with two more quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
--Patrick Henry
AWT was a fairly poorly designed library. As I recall, it was designed at Sun in something like two weeks.
At any rate, SWT seems a much better job, also using native widgets.
I hope people don't think Slashdot moderation ensures accuracy, it certainly doesn't. :-P
Really? One numeric (i.e. HPC) benchmark using gcj which was investigated in detail here on Slashdot (almabench) was within a few percent of the best gcc time...not bad by most folk's standards. ;-)
We also investigated this. SWT is a _horrendous_ API which offers very little abstraction. You end up writing your code once for the Gtk+ target, and again for the native Windows target. It isn't really a cross-platform abstraction like WxWindows, and it's probably the reason why the Eclipse codebase is so large. You end up writing your application for each UI target platform. Gtk# runs and integrates with the platform instead, so you only write your code once.
As another poster pointed out already, this is completely incorrect.
BTW, I look forward to your forthcoming benchmark. Be sure to post the code.
It's pointless to interface with the threads layer directly when pthreads exists.
Another whopper. All a Java user sees is the Thread (or Runnable) abstraction...which native or emulated thread library is used doesn't matter. IIRC, gcj uses pthreads if desired (yes it does, I just checked).
Looks like you're taking the "big lie" approach to attacking gcj... I look forward to head-to-head performance comparisons with the aptly named "Mono". (Its a disease as far as I'm concerned.;)