Sockets are almost universally available, but they're implementation specific. Threads are much the same. There are several relational database APIs, GUI APIs, HTTP/FTP/XML-RPC libraries, XML libraries, cryptographic libraries, imaging libraries, and more. The biggest problem is that the fancier commercial implementations (which have all the stuff you mentioned built in) cost so much money.
For those who haven't heard of it, FFTW stands for Fastest Fourier Transform in the West, and it's a library for computing some discrete Fourier transforms really quickly.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along
on
SCO.com Defaced
·
· Score: 1
"He" is either masculine or neutral. There was no context to imply that the vandal was male, so "he" was used as a neutral pronoun.
How do you transfer that heat? It takes energy to pump water down and up your big hole, and if you go deep enough, it would be cheaper to just use the energy directly.
I'm pretty sure you mean "at standard pressure". It's very difficult to get water to be at 100 degrees Celcius and at standard temperature simultaneously.:-)
It's not illegal to try to overthrow the constitution and abolish democracy in the US. It's illegal to try to do it violently. There's a process: you amend the constitution, you get more power, and eventually you've amended the constitution into a completely different form. It's theoretically possible.
The hard part isn't in simply counting the votes on one machine. You could do that easily. The hard part is in making sure that the votes aren't tampered with, and in collecting the votes. All the stuff that happens behind the scenes makes people nervous.
With Linux, you can set file and directory permissions more fine-grained than "the My Documents folder is mine". With XP Home, I've unfortunately discovered, you can't. That sucks a lot of ass for me, since I have an extra hard drive that I'd like to have private sections on.
Maybe old DOS applications would be more useful for the older set.
Someone tried teaching a class on computer use to older people, with an added wrinkle---it was the Linux command line. Just plain old text-mode bash. And they did pretty well, oddly enough.
It seems that they found the idea of talking to the computer as if it were a retarded child very intuitive. The reassurances that "no matter what you type, you can't break the computer" were reassuring. Pico was simple enough for basic word processing.
This is all second-hand, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'd like to see this tried again some time.
Our toothless FCC and SEC will do nothing because they are lead by people who believe that regulation is, in and of itself, a very bad thing.
Is this the same FCC that imposed extremely unreasonable 911 and wiretapping regulations on VoIP? The same FCC that periodically announces crackdowns on smut with exorbitant fees?
Re:Won't the (free) markets sort this out?
on
SBC's VoIP End Run
·
· Score: 1
Oops---scratch that. SBC is just registering this with the FCC, and using their monopoly power to enforce it in their territory.
I did RTFA, but my excuse is that the article was hard to understand.
Re:Won't the (free) markets sort this out?
on
SBC's VoIP End Run
·
· Score: 1
It's a free market
Bullshit. SBC is using the authority of the FCC---one of those powerful organizations that have the force of law behind them.
Re:The next challenge for Rutan
on
X-prize Award paid
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Okay, you have a good point. But I still can't see underwater robots appealing to a huge number of people. They appeal to you, they sound great to me, and they'd be great for drug smuggling. I don't doubt that there are plenty of good uses for them.
But for everybody? Anybody can get a pretty decent computer algebra system for free, but most people I know have never even heard of them.
Look at western Europe, and you'll see that humans don't really need population control that much. And if we do, we can damn well get it the proper Malthus way.
This is great for people who want to do underwater stuff cheaply, but it isn't for everyone. When was the last time you needed an underwater robot?
There are lots of people who would be able to put these to good use. There are people using underwater robots to log dead trees that were submerged by the construction of dams. Using lots of cheaper underwater robots could be a better way of doing underwater exploration than a few expensive but beefier robots.
If you want to get really evil, I assure you that some twisted people are perfectly capable of dreaming up even scarier things than goatse. For starters, do not click this link if you value your sanity. Does the phrase "penis bisection" pique your interest? If so, then remember what happens to people who go rashly clicking on links explicitly described as evil. *shudder*
What the hell are you spazzing out about? There's a GUI tool, but I chose not to use it because it's simpler for me to use a command line. And the "yum" bit is an abbreviation for "Yet another Update Manager".
They can't create a Linux version because all the OSS hippies will just blast it for being evil propriety software and run around posting links to some BS app on SourceForge thats supposedly 6.2 million trillion times better than GDS.
Actually, Google is pretty damn popular. How can you not love a company that offers very good search for free and doesn't screw over customers while still being profitable?
Besides, it's also way too easy to install. Linux users are masochists that way.
RPMs and those Debian packages and the Gentoo Portage system all show that Linux users like being able to install things easily. On my Fedora machine, I really like being able to keep everything up to date with a simple "yum update" command (or there's a pretty GUI for it, but I haven't used it).
More feckless arrogance, combined with more of your trademark vile abuse Your core assertion (from your first post) is that the problem with nuclear energy is all these evildoers who have the gall to comment on nuclear matters DESPITE THE FACT THAT SOME OF THEM ARE NOT NUCLEAR ENGINEERS!
Cool! I've always wanted to be feckless!
Your remedy: to place exclusive authority over nuclear matters in the hands of nuclear engineers. And to take who knows what adverse action against the evildoers who presume to question them. FUD, implied threats.
You know, not everything has to be accomplished by force. I would be happy if the public policy was to make whatever reasonable regulations are necessary to keep people safe and then let this policy be carried out by competent people with public oversight. I am not happy that ignorant fearmongering shapes policy on this issue, and I want to combat that with education.
This is what I have been trying to debate with you while you have been deluging me with adolescent abuse and off-point"rebuttals."
In that case, you don't have a leg to stand on; I just think that someone needs to inform the public of the facts, not that some sort of violent action needs to be taken.
Meltdown, accidents in transporting waste, use of fission byproducts by terrorists, the unforeseen problems caused storing large quantities of poisonous waste for lengths of time beyond any effective planning horizon. To pick a few.
It's not easy to make a nuclear plant melt down, and they have massive concrete containment structures in case something does happen. Waste is transported in very strong containers and is either metal or low-level anyway; it isn't going to leak. Fission byproducts are hard to get in the US, Europe, and Japan, but they are easier to get in looser countries, which isn't going to change soon---but the only thing they could be used for is a dirty bomb, which is a relatively clean form of terrorist attack compared to, say, ramming airplanes into skyscrapers or holding a school of children hostage. In 100 years nuclear waste will be less radioactive than the ore it was mined from, and we can speed up the process some by reprocessing the fuel. Got any more objections, or are you just going to declare yourself the winner?
It is your responsibility, if you really are an expert on this subject (my guess is that you're probably just a computer geek), to make a case for a responsible policy that takes account of these problems as well as other issues, such as the fact that the majority of more or less "sucky" old-generation reactors in the world are going to remain in production for a very long time no matter how perfect the newer generation reactors are. The invention of non-"sucky" and less-"sucky" designs thus by no means eliminates the threat of "sucky" designs.
You don't think that we just keep on using designs that have catastrophically failed, do you? Once something goes wrong, there's a formal process to determine what went wrong and to prevent it from happening again. Plants have been modified to make them safer. Your ignorance is showing.
Instead, you merely propose to eliminate people who dare to mention these obvious and valid concerns. Then, while continuing to spew obscenities, you adopt the pose of the wronged rationalist, in the apparent, deluded belief that you can steal your opponent's fire merely by parroting his words.
You are the one whose mind jumps naturally to violence, not me. You want some obscenities? How about this: fuck off, troll.
Slashdot Mirror
You could take a leaf out of O'Caml's book and make an interface to Perl.
Sockets are almost universally available, but they're implementation specific. Threads are much the same. There are several relational database APIs, GUI APIs, HTTP/FTP/XML-RPC libraries, XML libraries, cryptographic libraries, imaging libraries, and more. The biggest problem is that the fancier commercial implementations (which have all the stuff you mentioned built in) cost so much money.
For those who haven't heard of it, FFTW stands for Fastest Fourier Transform in the West, and it's a library for computing some discrete Fourier transforms really quickly.
"He" is either masculine or neutral. There was no context to imply that the vandal was male, so "he" was used as a neutral pronoun.
The sad part is that if you add lengthy descriptions of the people involved, you've just described "science journalism".
You can't adequately shield a nuclear reactor without beefing up your car into a tank.
How do you transfer that heat? It takes energy to pump water down and up your big hole, and if you go deep enough, it would be cheaper to just use the energy directly.
I'm pretty sure you mean "at standard pressure". It's very difficult to get water to be at 100 degrees Celcius and at standard temperature simultaneously. :-)
It's not illegal to try to overthrow the constitution and abolish democracy in the US. It's illegal to try to do it violently. There's a process: you amend the constitution, you get more power, and eventually you've amended the constitution into a completely different form. It's theoretically possible.
The hard part isn't in simply counting the votes on one machine. You could do that easily. The hard part is in making sure that the votes aren't tampered with, and in collecting the votes. All the stuff that happens behind the scenes makes people nervous.
With Linux, you can set file and directory permissions more fine-grained than "the My Documents folder is mine". With XP Home, I've unfortunately discovered, you can't. That sucks a lot of ass for me, since I have an extra hard drive that I'd like to have private sections on.
Someone tried teaching a class on computer use to older people, with an added wrinkle---it was the Linux command line. Just plain old text-mode bash. And they did pretty well, oddly enough.
It seems that they found the idea of talking to the computer as if it were a retarded child very intuitive. The reassurances that "no matter what you type, you can't break the computer" were reassuring. Pico was simple enough for basic word processing.
This is all second-hand, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'd like to see this tried again some time.
Is this the same FCC that imposed extremely unreasonable 911 and wiretapping regulations on VoIP? The same FCC that periodically announces crackdowns on smut with exorbitant fees?
I did RTFA, but my excuse is that the article was hard to understand.
Bullshit. SBC is using the authority of the FCC---one of those powerful organizations that have the force of law behind them.
In other words, you want to see Virgin Galactic get going.
But for everybody? Anybody can get a pretty decent computer algebra system for free, but most people I know have never even heard of them.
Look at western Europe, and you'll see that humans don't really need population control that much. And if we do, we can damn well get it the proper Malthus way.
This is great for people who want to do underwater stuff cheaply, but it isn't for everyone. When was the last time you needed an underwater robot? There are lots of people who would be able to put these to good use. There are people using underwater robots to log dead trees that were submerged by the construction of dams. Using lots of cheaper underwater robots could be a better way of doing underwater exploration than a few expensive but beefier robots.
If you want to get really evil, I assure you that some twisted people are perfectly capable of dreaming up even scarier things than goatse. For starters, do not click this link if you value your sanity. Does the phrase "penis bisection" pique your interest? If so, then remember what happens to people who go rashly clicking on links explicitly described as evil. *shudder*
What the hell are you spazzing out about? There's a GUI tool, but I chose not to use it because it's simpler for me to use a command line. And the "yum" bit is an abbreviation for "Yet another Update Manager".
Actually, Google is pretty damn popular. How can you not love a company that offers very good search for free and doesn't screw over customers while still being profitable?
Besides, it's also way too easy to install. Linux users are masochists that way.
RPMs and those Debian packages and the Gentoo Portage system all show that Linux users like being able to install things easily. On my Fedora machine, I really like being able to keep everything up to date with a simple "yum update" command (or there's a pretty GUI for it, but I haven't used it).
I'm going to force myself to avoid further feeding of the troll. Ta ta.
Cool! I've always wanted to be feckless!
Your remedy: to place exclusive authority over nuclear matters in the hands of nuclear engineers. And to take who knows what adverse action against the evildoers who presume to question them. FUD, implied threats.
You know, not everything has to be accomplished by force. I would be happy if the public policy was to make whatever reasonable regulations are necessary to keep people safe and then let this policy be carried out by competent people with public oversight. I am not happy that ignorant fearmongering shapes policy on this issue, and I want to combat that with education.
This is what I have been trying to debate with you while you have been deluging me with adolescent abuse and off-point"rebuttals."
In that case, you don't have a leg to stand on; I just think that someone needs to inform the public of the facts, not that some sort of violent action needs to be taken.
Meltdown, accidents in transporting waste, use of fission byproducts by terrorists, the unforeseen problems caused storing large quantities of poisonous waste for lengths of time beyond any effective planning horizon. To pick a few.
It's not easy to make a nuclear plant melt down, and they have massive concrete containment structures in case something does happen. Waste is transported in very strong containers and is either metal or low-level anyway; it isn't going to leak. Fission byproducts are hard to get in the US, Europe, and Japan, but they are easier to get in looser countries, which isn't going to change soon---but the only thing they could be used for is a dirty bomb, which is a relatively clean form of terrorist attack compared to, say, ramming airplanes into skyscrapers or holding a school of children hostage. In 100 years nuclear waste will be less radioactive than the ore it was mined from, and we can speed up the process some by reprocessing the fuel. Got any more objections, or are you just going to declare yourself the winner?
It is your responsibility, if you really are an expert on this subject (my guess is that you're probably just a computer geek), to make a case for a responsible policy that takes account of these problems as well as other issues, such as the fact that the majority of more or less "sucky" old-generation reactors in the world are going to remain in production for a very long time no matter how perfect the newer generation reactors are. The invention of non-"sucky" and less-"sucky" designs thus by no means eliminates the threat of "sucky" designs.
You don't think that we just keep on using designs that have catastrophically failed, do you? Once something goes wrong, there's a formal process to determine what went wrong and to prevent it from happening again. Plants have been modified to make them safer. Your ignorance is showing.
Instead, you merely propose to eliminate people who dare to mention these obvious and valid concerns. Then, while continuing to spew obscenities, you adopt the pose of the wronged rationalist, in the apparent, deluded belief that you can steal your opponent's fire merely by parroting his words.
You are the one whose mind jumps naturally to violence, not me. You want some obscenities? How about this: fuck off, troll.
This therefore is my last post on the subject.
I wanted it to happen, and it did!
Aren't WASPs protestant by definition?