Re:How much difference between Java and C++?
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Disable Java in the options and it starts in 1-2 seconds on the same machine.
Somewhat off topic but pertinent ENOUGH... Good God man! Thank you! The Java tab in the options dialog was incredibly easy to find but for some reason I just breezed right over it. Unclicking that little devil's box just dropped my start time from 15-20 seconds to 1. I know it likely has nothing to do with the working data that this "benchmark" tested, but it sure shows how good an idea it would be to transition the Java dependency on over to native code.
Shadow Wrought - At least you can look forward to getting Duke Nukem Forever before it expires.
IAmTheDave - Don't worry, you can pass the time playing a game on your Phantom.
Kind sirs, I thank you very much for giving me a new tool on how to explain orders/magnitudes of infinity to my geek gaming friends who aren't neccessary schooled in higher math.
"You see... that's like saying by the time it happens you will be able to play Duke Nukem Forever on your Phantom console..."
...and (few people talk about this one, but I love it) you can reorder open tabs by dragging them.
You, sir, just gave me the exact reason I needed to upgrade. I had zero interest in jumping from 1.0.7 until you pointed this one out. d/l'ing 1.5b2 now.
Of course what they don't mention is the crank requires you to be able to benchpress 350
I know you're just joking, but I'll jump in and mention I have the FR300 (got it as a thank you gift for pledging to my local public radio station) and the crank is so easy to turn, it feels flimsy. In fact, at first I unfolded the crank and started turning it agressively and discovered it doesn't provide any charge when moving too quickly. One-pinky operation at the optimal speed is a piece of cake.
I'm too lazy to go Google it right now, but I think the point is pertinent/interesting to this crowd - With our current system of leap seconds, does the Unix timestamp actually reflect the CORRECT number of seconds since Jan 1st, 1970?
Sure some of the Unices are probably different but I'm guessing that many of the implementations of the algorithm calculate the seconds with basic math using only leap years as the deviation from standard.
Ah, hell, maybe I'll go google it, too, but, I'll still ask here.:P
Itanium I, right? You didn't mention when this was
Quote from grandparent -
Why does no one respect the Itaniums? Intel made a slow chip. Then they released the sequel. I've already paid my dues on that line once. I'm not playing this round.
I believe the grandparent's point is exactly the answer to this entire question - Intel screwed up once. And big. "The Itanium was a disaster and a big waste of money for my company - Why should I blindly trust Intel again for a 2nd go around?" If they had pretended that they were designing a new processor and released Itanium 2 with a completely different name, came up with completely unrelated marketing material, and merely advertised "Itanium compatibility," Itanium 2 would've had better chances from its launch.
I am literally drooling over that beast. However, I notice that it meets just about every "military grade hardware" spec a data storage device can, and there's no (easy) way to figure out the price. Anyone know what that might be?
I, for one, would LOVE flash drives to replace HDDs but would not feel comfortable doing so until a model up to these specs (read/write time and cycles, not the military encryption and ruggedness) is the norm. If the 128gig model of the m-systems drive is, say, $3k-$5k, then it would be much cheaper to put together a RAID 1,0 setup with 4 or more 128gig hard drives. I'm aware this obviously isn't a solution for LAPTOPS, but it'd have better reliability, better read/write performance, and have $2250-$4250 to buy my set of 5000 custom ceramic poker chips I'm saving for.
Whenever someone uses the argument "if open source kills commercial software, it will also kill innovation," now I know what they're talking about. My attitudes have changed. Long live commercial software.
so if i were to post a link to the DeCSS code a couple years ago. i wouldn't get sued, because i have only posted a "road sign" to the code?
Someone further up in the thread put it perfectly. I believe the metaphor went like this -
If you asked me for some illegal drugs and I said, "Sure, here you go," I'd most definitely be going to court over that. However if you asked me for some illegal drugs and I said "Joe Bloggs on the other side of town might be able to put you in touch with someone who has the drugs," the case against me would be much less concrete.
In the case of the torrent search engine, you aren't pointing someone directly at the illegal goods. Far from it. Years ago if you linked directly to DeCSS, you're sued. However if you linked to a website that had links to DeCSS you'd have a hard time finding someone that could successfully prosecute you. With torrent search it's more like linking to a website(the torrent) that links to a website(the hosting BT user) that links to the file(the file on the host's compy).
I never claimed the system I described was any sort of "legal" way of doing anything - I was just pointing out the flaw in the great-grandparent's post when he claimed that uploaders and downloaders were fundamentally different. This also happens to be a flaw in the RIAA's logic.
Indeed uploading and downloading are both illegal forms of copyright infringment. But, as I should apparently clarify the point I tried to make before... I think the RIAA will expand their lawsuits instead dropping the idea. If they expand, they will have to start targeting "lesser and lesser" infringers. And if they do that, they will eventually overstep their bounds and something will give. People will stop settling as a default. These cases will actually go to court. The courts will not be able to handle the volume. Law enforcement has murders and drugs to worry about.
Laws will change, P2P systems will change, consumer's attitude will change, or probably the least likely, the RIAA will change. But the current trend cannot sustain itself.
How do you propose to make "only" the music downloaders pay the tax?
If you'll notice the last sentence in my post reads "We make only the music downloaders pay the "tax" which, in this case, would be a $5/mo fee for Yahoo! music or the fee for another music provider of your choice." I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that people who pay $5 to download music are music downloaders.
Please note this suggestion was in liu of the suggested ISP tax. It's not great, but better than taxing everyone who uses the Internet. Also note that it is obvious that "tax" is being used loosely - paying $5 to Yahoo for downloading music instead of paying to the RIAA simply because they demand it.
How would such a tax work when there is a very large proportion of ISP subscribers who don't and will never download media illegally? I have a feeling those users would be up in arms about it.
I understand that in Canada and a few other nations there is an excise tax on blank media to account for the potential piracy. It doesn't resolve the problem completely - people who have only legitimate uses for the blank media still pay the tax. But people with a computer and a CD-R drive don't have to pay the tax. And you only pay the tax in proportion to how much blank media you use. PLUS, the tax is relatively small for average-joe-burner. How do we implement such a "more fair" system for downloading media?
We make only the music downloaders pay the "tax" which, in this case, would be a $5/mo fee for Yahoo! music or the fee for another music provider of your choice.
Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a P2P network where you become an uploader (of specific chunks) the moment you start downloading? And when you finish downloading the file, most people leave it shared by default and you are now an uploader?
I understand that BitTorrent is a little different because there is an original seeder but after enough time it turns into a big P2P network just like Emule... errr.... Edonkey.
I know they target those who are the "big" uploaders, who share thousands of songs. But I'd wager that their standards for "big uploaders" are getting looser and looser and if the continue to see success with their current strategy, before long their standards will point to the "average joe P2P user." What happens then?
Linux is STILL a kernel and not a pure operating system per se.
Well, Xerox is STILL a brand name of photocopier and not a generic term for photocopiers per se. I think the new use of "Linux" is directly analogous to the shifting of trademarked names to the generic term for a product.
I agree that way back when, Linux was the name of the kernel, period, and GNU/Linux was the operating system. The two parts (the kernel and the O/S libs, compilers, utilities, etc) were so disjoint at that period in time and none of the terms had hit the mainstream yet.
But, come on people. When CNN mentions Linux, it's just "Linux." When newspapers mention it, it's just "Linux." When IT managers present it as an option to the bean counters and security Nazi's in a Fortune 500 corporation, it's just "Linux."
Words evolve in English because of de facto use. "Linux," whether you purists like it or not, now means "The Linux Operating System." Ever notice how when geeks talk about Linux many/most use the generic term "Linux" to refer to the O/S and they use the term "The Linux Kernel" to refer specifically to the kernel?
Welp, I think I got my ranting point across. I'm gonna go grab some Kleenex (tissue paper) and clean the glass on my Xerox (photocopier) and the monitor of my IBM PC (Custom built desktop x86-64 home computer). I'm glad I don't hafta mow my lawn since I had Astroturf (artificial grass) installed, but I still have a few other chores and errands to take care of. I have to Fedex (send by private courier) my Aunt's birthday present to her and Hoover (vacuum) my floor. At least afterwards I can go outside and play a little Frisbee (flying disc).
And all the while, Linux (free open-source operating system based on the Linux kernel) will be installing on my notebook. Oh yeah, I found all of those references by Googling (searching) for them.
(WAY overboard I know, but, deal with it and accept the point.:)
Maybe you haven't explored into the realm of DVD players lately, but you can find them for under $40 or even $20 after rebate. Even name brand players are available at under $40. Even a 5-disc DVD/MP3 changer can be had for under $60. I've seen simple players in stores for $30, no rebate. Or use pricewatch.com or pricegrabber.com to do even better than the simple examples I gave. And prices will only drop.
And if you've had 3 break in 3 years, yes you HAVE had bad luck. Even the cheap Taiwanese and Korean commodity crap doesn't regularly fail after that short a period. I have a few scattered around in the house with unpronouncable brand names that have served for 3 years strong.
The point is, if I can save $50-$70 on the Revolution because it doesn't play DVDs, great! Using my console as a DVD player would effectively lessen the lifetime of my console with regards to PLAYING CONSOLE GAMES. I suppose if your luck is that crappy, then YMMV. But if your luck is that crappy, I'd be weary of evening bothering with the Revolution at all.;)
Didn't Nintendo's president say in a press conference just a few months ago that the Revolution will actually have some feature that is "Revolutionary" that no one has seen before and will change console gaming forever? I remember a slashdot article about it but I cannot find a link to the specific "story" I'm thinking about. Perhaps something about the controller? Or perhaps some obscure feature that we'll hafta wait longer to see?
I was hoping to see something about that in this article but I guess I will hafta wait longer... If anyone has a link to what I think I'm talking about, I'd appreciate it.:)
This point is exactly what I was thinking the moment I read that story and they seem to be in violation.
However, I've always wondered (and maybe there's a simple answer for this but googling it would help only me and keep it out of the discussion) - What if you ran the GPL code and your proprietary code seperately (different processes?) and just had them communicate via IPC? Sockets, pipes, shared memory... whatever. It seems like a cheap way around that rule in the GPL but I fear that it is valid...?
I also haven't. I did run into an artificial barrier when my bank decided that only IE 5.5+ was worthy of accessing the online-banking site. Downloading the firefox extension to change the user agent id got me past that barrier and the site worked just fine.
I guess the only problem I have left is the slashdot pages that occassionaly render wrong. Ah the irony...
Those special layers are in every diode (including LEDs) in the universe.
So you are saying you have conclusive evidence that there is no other way, anywhere in the universe, in any form, to create a device that functions as a diode without having a p-n junction? If you have a source, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, sounds like a pretty bold and bs-filled assumption to me. </joke>
I'm no driving expert, but is it not a bad idea to downshift when you're at the redline?
Actual quote - "...blip the throttle with a perfect downshift to 3rd while straight line breaking..."
Straight line braking implies you are shaving off speed (and therefore revs) very quickly. In this case using a technique called heel-toe where you use your right foot on both the brake and gas pedal simultaneously to shave off speed and blip the throttle simultaneously. And back to the original story of this thread, if the controls they hooked up in the car were done properly, you could heel-toe into a slower turn with your foot instead of pressing some contortionist buttom combination on a handheld controller. That fact and other intricacies of driving at speed are why a "controller" like this is very valuable. And alot more fun!
Slashdot Mirror
Disable Java in the options and it starts in 1-2 seconds on the same machine.
Somewhat off topic but pertinent ENOUGH... Good God man! Thank you! The Java tab in the options dialog was incredibly easy to find but for some reason I just breezed right over it. Unclicking that little devil's box just dropped my start time from 15-20 seconds to 1. I know it likely has nothing to do with the working data that this "benchmark" tested, but it sure shows how good an idea it would be to transition the Java dependency on over to native code.
Shadow Wrought - At least you can look forward to getting Duke Nukem Forever before it expires.
IAmTheDave - Don't worry, you can pass the time playing a game on your Phantom.
Kind sirs, I thank you very much for giving me a new tool on how to explain orders/magnitudes of infinity to my geek gaming friends who aren't neccessary schooled in higher math.
"You see... that's like saying by the time it happens you will be able to play Duke Nukem Forever on your Phantom console..."
I have a carton of non-fat powdered milk I keep in my fridge cause I have no cabinet space... *sigh* that stuff lasts forever.
...and (few people talk about this one, but I love it) you can reorder open tabs by dragging them.
You, sir, just gave me the exact reason I needed to upgrade. I had zero interest in jumping from 1.0.7 until you pointed this one out. d/l'ing 1.5b2 now.
Thanks again!
Of course what they don't mention is the crank requires you to be able to benchpress 350
I know you're just joking, but I'll jump in and mention I have the FR300 (got it as a thank you gift for pledging to my local public radio station) and the crank is so easy to turn, it feels flimsy. In fact, at first I unfolded the crank and started turning it agressively and discovered it doesn't provide any charge when moving too quickly. One-pinky operation at the optimal speed is a piece of cake.
I'm too lazy to go Google it right now, but I think the point is pertinent/interesting to this crowd -
:P
With our current system of leap seconds, does the Unix timestamp actually reflect the CORRECT number of seconds since Jan 1st, 1970?
Sure some of the Unices are probably different but I'm guessing that many of the implementations of the algorithm calculate the seconds with basic math using only leap years as the deviation from standard.
Ah, hell, maybe I'll go google it, too, but, I'll still ask here.
And HP Deskjets are evil... therefore...
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Heh. Exactly
Itanium I, right? You didn't mention when this was
Quote from grandparent -
Why does no one respect the Itaniums? Intel made a slow chip. Then they released the sequel. I've already paid my dues on that line once. I'm not playing this round.
I believe the grandparent's point is exactly the answer to this entire question - Intel screwed up once. And big.
"The Itanium was a disaster and a big waste of money for my company - Why should I blindly trust Intel again for a 2nd go around?"
If they had pretended that they were designing a new processor and released Itanium 2 with a completely different name, came up with completely unrelated marketing material, and merely advertised "Itanium compatibility," Itanium 2 would've had better chances from its launch.
>5,000,000 Write/Erase cycles, unlimited Read
. asp?pid=34
http://www.m-systems.com/content/Products/product
I am literally drooling over that beast. However, I notice that it meets just about every "military grade hardware" spec a data storage device can, and there's no (easy) way to figure out the price. Anyone know what that might be?
I, for one, would LOVE flash drives to replace HDDs but would not feel comfortable doing so until a model up to these specs (read/write time and cycles, not the military encryption and ruggedness) is the norm. If the 128gig model of the m-systems drive is, say, $3k-$5k, then it would be much cheaper to put together a RAID 1,0 setup with 4 or more 128gig hard drives. I'm aware this obviously isn't a solution for LAPTOPS, but it'd have better reliability, better read/write performance, and have $2250-$4250 to buy my set of 5000 custom ceramic poker chips I'm saving for.
Whenever someone uses the argument "if open source kills commercial software, it will also kill innovation," now I know what they're talking about. My attitudes have changed. Long live commercial software.
so if i were to post a link to the DeCSS code a couple years ago. i wouldn't get sued, because i have only posted a "road sign" to the code?
Someone further up in the thread put it perfectly. I believe the metaphor went like this -
If you asked me for some illegal drugs and I said, "Sure, here you go," I'd most definitely be going to court over that. However if you asked me for some illegal drugs and I said "Joe Bloggs on the other side of town might be able to put you in touch with someone who has the drugs," the case against me would be much less concrete.
In the case of the torrent search engine, you aren't pointing someone directly at the illegal goods. Far from it. Years ago if you linked directly to DeCSS, you're sued. However if you linked to a website that had links to DeCSS you'd have a hard time finding someone that could successfully prosecute you. With torrent search it's more like linking to a website(the torrent) that links to a website(the hosting BT user) that links to the file(the file on the host's compy).
You're right, I didn't have any difficulty. But my post's parent did. ;)
I never claimed the system I described was any sort of "legal" way of doing anything - I was just pointing out the flaw in the great-grandparent's post when he claimed that uploaders and downloaders were fundamentally different. This also happens to be a flaw in the RIAA's logic.
Indeed uploading and downloading are both illegal forms of copyright infringment. But, as I should apparently clarify the point I tried to make before... I think the RIAA will expand their lawsuits instead dropping the idea. If they expand, they will have to start targeting "lesser and lesser" infringers. And if they do that, they will eventually overstep their bounds and something will give. People will stop settling as a default. These cases will actually go to court. The courts will not be able to handle the volume. Law enforcement has murders and drugs to worry about.
Laws will change, P2P systems will change, consumer's attitude will change, or probably the least likely, the RIAA will change. But the current trend cannot sustain itself.
How do you propose to make "only" the music downloaders pay the tax?
If you'll notice the last sentence in my post reads "We make only the music downloaders pay the "tax" which, in this case, would be a $5/mo fee for Yahoo! music or the fee for another music provider of your choice." I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that people who pay $5 to download music are music downloaders.
Please note this suggestion was in liu of the suggested ISP tax. It's not great, but better than taxing everyone who uses the Internet. Also note that it is obvious that "tax" is being used loosely - paying $5 to Yahoo for downloading music instead of paying to the RIAA simply because they demand it.
How would such a tax work when there is a very large proportion of ISP subscribers who don't and will never download media illegally? I have a feeling those users would be up in arms about it.
I understand that in Canada and a few other nations there is an excise tax on blank media to account for the potential piracy. It doesn't resolve the problem completely - people who have only legitimate uses for the blank media still pay the tax. But people with a computer and a CD-R drive don't have to pay the tax. And you only pay the tax in proportion to how much blank media you use. PLUS, the tax is relatively small for average-joe-burner. How do we implement such a "more fair" system for downloading media?
We make only the music downloaders pay the "tax" which, in this case, would be a $5/mo fee for Yahoo! music or the fee for another music provider of your choice.
Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a P2P network where you become an uploader (of specific chunks) the moment you start downloading? And when you finish downloading the file, most people leave it shared by default and you are now an uploader?
I understand that BitTorrent is a little different because there is an original seeder but after enough time it turns into a big P2P network just like Emule... errr.... Edonkey.
I know they target those who are the "big" uploaders, who share thousands of songs. But I'd wager that their standards for "big uploaders" are getting looser and looser and if the continue to see success with their current strategy, before long their standards will point to the "average joe P2P user." What happens then?
Linux is STILL a kernel and not a pure operating system per se.
:)
Well, Xerox is STILL a brand name of photocopier and not a generic term for photocopiers per se. I think the new use of "Linux" is directly analogous to the shifting of trademarked names to the generic term for a product.
I agree that way back when, Linux was the name of the kernel, period, and GNU/Linux was the operating system. The two parts (the kernel and the O/S libs, compilers, utilities, etc) were so disjoint at that period in time and none of the terms had hit the mainstream yet.
But, come on people. When CNN mentions Linux, it's just "Linux." When newspapers mention it, it's just "Linux." When IT managers present it as an option to the bean counters and security Nazi's in a Fortune 500 corporation, it's just "Linux."
Words evolve in English because of de facto use. "Linux," whether you purists like it or not, now means "The Linux Operating System." Ever notice how when geeks talk about Linux many/most use the generic term "Linux" to refer to the O/S and they use the term "The Linux Kernel" to refer specifically to the kernel?
Welp, I think I got my ranting point across. I'm gonna go grab some Kleenex (tissue paper) and clean the glass on my Xerox (photocopier) and the monitor of my IBM PC (Custom built desktop x86-64 home computer). I'm glad I don't hafta mow my lawn since I had Astroturf (artificial grass) installed, but I still have a few other chores and errands to take care of. I have to Fedex (send by private courier) my Aunt's birthday present to her and Hoover (vacuum) my floor. At least afterwards I can go outside and play a little Frisbee (flying disc).
And all the while, Linux (free open-source operating system based on the Linux kernel) will be installing on my notebook. Oh yeah, I found all of those references by Googling (searching) for them.
(WAY overboard I know, but, deal with it and accept the point.
Maybe you haven't explored into the realm of DVD players lately, but you can find them for under $40 or even $20 after rebate. Even name brand players are available at under $40. Even a 5-disc DVD/MP3 changer can be had for under $60. I've seen simple players in stores for $30, no rebate. Or use pricewatch.com or pricegrabber.com to do even better than the simple examples I gave. And prices will only drop.
;)
And if you've had 3 break in 3 years, yes you HAVE had bad luck. Even the cheap Taiwanese and Korean commodity crap doesn't regularly fail after that short a period. I have a few scattered around in the house with unpronouncable brand names that have served for 3 years strong.
The point is, if I can save $50-$70 on the Revolution because it doesn't play DVDs, great! Using my console as a DVD player would effectively lessen the lifetime of my console with regards to PLAYING CONSOLE GAMES. I suppose if your luck is that crappy, then YMMV. But if your luck is that crappy, I'd be weary of evening bothering with the Revolution at all.
Didn't Nintendo's president say in a press conference just a few months ago that the Revolution will actually have some feature that is "Revolutionary" that no one has seen before and will change console gaming forever? I remember a slashdot article about it but I cannot find a link to the specific "story" I'm thinking about.
:)
Perhaps something about the controller?
Or perhaps some obscure feature that we'll hafta wait longer to see?
I was hoping to see something about that in this article but I guess I will hafta wait longer... If anyone has a link to what I think I'm talking about, I'd appreciate it.
Link worked just fine in my firefox...?
This point is exactly what I was thinking the moment I read that story and they seem to be in violation.
However, I've always wondered (and maybe there's a simple answer for this but googling it would help only me and keep it out of the discussion) - What if you ran the GPL code and your proprietary code seperately (different processes?) and just had them communicate via IPC? Sockets, pipes, shared memory... whatever. It seems like a cheap way around that rule in the GPL but I fear that it is valid...?
I also haven't. I did run into an artificial barrier when my bank decided that only IE 5.5+ was worthy of accessing the online-banking site. Downloading the firefox extension to change the user agent id got me past that barrier and the site worked just fine.
I guess the only problem I have left is the slashdot pages that occassionaly render wrong. Ah the irony...
Those special layers are in every diode (including LEDs) in the universe.
So you are saying you have conclusive evidence that there is no other way, anywhere in the universe, in any form, to create a device that functions as a diode without having a p-n junction?
If you have a source, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, sounds like a pretty bold and bs-filled assumption to me. </joke>
I'm no driving expert, but is it not a bad idea to downshift when you're at the redline?
Actual quote - "...blip the throttle with a perfect downshift to 3rd while straight line breaking..."
Straight line braking implies you are shaving off speed (and therefore revs) very quickly. In this case using a technique called heel-toe where you use your right foot on both the brake and gas pedal simultaneously to shave off speed and blip the throttle simultaneously. And back to the original story of this thread, if the controls they hooked up in the car were done properly, you could heel-toe into a slower turn with your foot instead of pressing some contortionist buttom combination on a handheld controller. That fact and other intricacies of driving at speed are why a "controller" like this is very valuable. And alot more fun!