Reminds me of the time I had to port a FORTRAN program from an IBM 360 that used ~360KB of memory to a PDP-11 running RSX-11M (and only 32KB of memory). I ended up doing my own disk caching for a rather large bitmap and the overlays flew in and out! It ran, but it took about ten times as long. Of course time on the 11 was free, while we had to pay for time on the 360, so the cost savings were worth it. Plus, I had an onion tied to my belt...
Yeah, ADM-3A's were first out in the mid-seventies and, by the 'eighties, workstations were coming onto the market, so terminals were old(ish) technology. Since the ADM-3A was one of the better models (with it's sexy curved back), I guess venerable would be a way to describe it.
Get some chicken bones and some goat's blood and some black candles...
For computer-related issues,you want to use iron filings, black salt, and green candles. This will summon/appease Ogun to help you in the matter, or to destroy the system entirely... you never know which. It is a computer, after all.
Why, yes, I tend to think having a good stable state that represents people's interests is a good thing. For counter examples, see this. So I guess I am a Statist.
Try House as a basis - it's got a compiled, type-safe language that runs within a couple of percent of C's execution speed (Haskell) as a basis. It should be practical enough and has all the type-safety that an OS needs.
You don't need a JIT compiler or an interpreted language to have a secure kernel - you just need a well-designed, type-safe language (which C is not). You can start, for example, from Haskell, as these guys are doing. Haskell is a compiled language, with minimal boxing and, thus, gives all the speed you want without the idiocy of buffer overruns and invalid pointer references. Its performance is within a couple of percent of C.
Why can't we just have a plethora of OSs that inter-operate at a basic level and let users and companies cater to one or all of the preferred OSs?
Because coding to a multitude of platforms costs too much (in QA and support, if not development itself), a single platform in a multi-OS world would not provide enough of a market, and least common denominator over many platforms gives you an app nobody wants.
No, instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly (or you pass legislation, tax cuts, or whatever that does the same).
Which, of course, is why the same kind of state legislation is being proposed for water systems, roads, and police and fire protection... Oh, it's not? Hmmm. It sounds more like the issue is where to draw the line, rather than if a line should be drawn (Libertarian nutjobs, excluded, of course). Get on board the WAAAAHmbulance, free marketeers!
still...UPS/Fedex can't compete with the Post Office. Ask managers in those companies and they'll tell you how much they hate it and think they can do a better job than the Post Office.
I think they'd have a hard time providing both the coverage and all services of the USPS. When you actually talk to the managers, they really only want to provide service to high-density/volume areas. The hinterlands, not so much. So, as usual, private enterprise wants to cherry-pick the public service, letting the rest of us pick up the now increased costs for the problematic customers.
BTW, FedEx can't get a package to my (notably small) hometown in less than two days. The USPS can get me 24-hour priority delivery. Why is that? Somehow I think it has something to do with the fact that FedEx doesn't find it profitable to do so.
My guess is that Prof David Wiley is approaching retirement, has a final salary pension, and is spouting any old drivel in order to form a committee to boost his responsibilities, and therefore earnings, and therefore pension pot.
Actually, since he only got his doctorate a few years ago (can't you morons even Google, anymore?), I assume he's trying to move up in his career by stating something bold and brash that cannot be refuted and, since his work is in Instructional Psychology, I'm sure there's a grant proposal or two on studying the group dynamics of online learning and management structures to foster the same.
Course materials are shared between universities, science labs are virtual, and digital textbooks are free.
Maybe for math and CS, but I doubt that power systems labs for EEs and chemistry labs are going away any time soon. As for course materials - they can't even get professors to use each others notes. Free textbooks? Why would a professor lock out this potentially lucrative (either by writing it himself and selling it on Amazon or by kickback from the publisher) revenue stream?
This article is made for Slashdot - plenty of naive speculation and possibility, but absolutely clueless when it comes to reality.
The guy was a good physicist, but what do you think he'd see that others in his field would miss? He wasn't the only one working on black holes and, in reality, most of the stuff coming out of the LHC would be more in the area of quantum gravity, rather than in the macro-scale phenomena he worked on. Also, as far as I know, his output has declined in the past few years already.
I [...] would opt out of Social Security in a second if I could.
You will want to opt out of Social Security in a second until you've paid into it for forty+ years and want some of it back out, it's ten years before your retirement, and the market has cratered. Of course, if you would also sign a document stating that we could let you starve in the street (with no complaint from you), should you run out of private funds after your retirement, we'd be OK with that, too.
Oddly enough, what you write has no relationship, linguistic or otherwise, to Lisp where, even if there were bindings of the symbols true and false in some context, they still would not equate to the constants T and NIL, whose values cannot be changed.
Now setting the value of nil in Smalltalk to something else - that's good times.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course (at least here in the US).
I think pp is a joke but, for what it's worth, Intel is not anyone's proper name, but is instead derived from INTegrated ELectronics.
Reminds me of the time I had to port a FORTRAN program from an IBM 360 that used ~360KB of memory to a PDP-11 running RSX-11M (and only 32KB of memory). I ended up doing my own disk caching for a rather large bitmap and the overlays flew in and out! It ran, but it took about ten times as long. Of course time on the 11 was free, while we had to pay for time on the 360, so the cost savings were worth it. Plus, I had an onion tied to my belt...
Yeah, ADM-3A's were first out in the mid-seventies and, by the 'eighties, workstations were coming onto the market, so terminals were old(ish) technology. Since the ADM-3A was one of the better models (with it's sexy curved back), I guess venerable would be a way to describe it.
a *text editor* should do no such thing.
Unless it's emacs, the text editor that thinks it's an OS!
Get some chicken bones and some goat's blood and some black candles...
For computer-related issues,you want to use iron filings, black salt, and green candles. This will summon/appease Ogun to help you in the matter, or to destroy the system entirely... you never know which. It is a computer, after all.
Why, yes, I tend to think having a good stable state that represents people's interests is a good thing. For counter examples, see this. So I guess I am a Statist.
Anything about programming perl.
It doesn't matter anyway - there's no point in trying to index line noise.
Try House as a basis - it's got a compiled, type-safe language that runs within a couple of percent of C's execution speed (Haskell) as a basis. It should be practical enough and has all the type-safety that an OS needs.
You don't need a JIT compiler or an interpreted language to have a secure kernel - you just need a well-designed, type-safe language (which C is not). You can start, for example, from Haskell, as these guys are doing. Haskell is a compiled language, with minimal boxing and, thus, gives all the speed you want without the idiocy of buffer overruns and invalid pointer references. Its performance is within a couple of percent of C.
This is what you need!
Look at the guy we're talking about though - he's 68. This means he's retired, maybe unmarried/widowed, and he's probably bored out of his mind.
So why isn't he out picking up chicks? Oh, wait - he's still living in his mom's basement.
What kind of Unix admin are you?
Why can't we just have a plethora of OSs that inter-operate at a basic level and let users and companies cater to one or all of the preferred OSs?
Because coding to a multitude of platforms costs too much (in QA and support, if not development itself), a single platform in a multi-OS world would not provide enough of a market, and least common denominator over many platforms gives you an app nobody wants.
No, instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly (or you pass legislation, tax cuts, or whatever that does the same).
Which, of course, is why the same kind of state legislation is being proposed for water systems, roads, and police and fire protection... Oh, it's not? Hmmm. It sounds more like the issue is where to draw the line, rather than if a line should be drawn (Libertarian nutjobs, excluded, of course). Get on board the WAAAAHmbulance, free marketeers!
Yup. The free marketeers are just having their usual ride on the WAAAAAAHmbulance.
still...UPS/Fedex can't compete with the Post Office. Ask managers in those companies and they'll tell you how much they hate it and think they can do a better job than the Post Office.
I think they'd have a hard time providing both the coverage and all services of the USPS. When you actually talk to the managers, they really only want to provide service to high-density/volume areas. The hinterlands, not so much. So, as usual, private enterprise wants to cherry-pick the public service, letting the rest of us pick up the now increased costs for the problematic customers.
BTW, FedEx can't get a package to my (notably small) hometown in less than two days. The USPS can get me 24-hour priority delivery. Why is that? Somehow I think it has something to do with the fact that FedEx doesn't find it profitable to do so.
But if you buy enough of these babies, problem solved!
My guess is that Prof David Wiley is approaching retirement, has a final salary pension, and is spouting any old drivel in order to form a committee to boost his responsibilities, and therefore earnings, and therefore pension pot.
Actually, since he only got his doctorate a few years ago (can't you morons even Google, anymore?), I assume he's trying to move up in his career by stating something bold and brash that cannot be refuted and, since his work is in Instructional Psychology, I'm sure there's a grant proposal or two on studying the group dynamics of online learning and management structures to foster the same.
Course materials are shared between universities, science labs are virtual, and digital textbooks are free.
Maybe for math and CS, but I doubt that power systems labs for EEs and chemistry labs are going away any time soon. As for course materials - they can't even get professors to use each others notes. Free textbooks? Why would a professor lock out this potentially lucrative (either by writing it himself and selling it on Amazon or by kickback from the publisher) revenue stream?
This article is made for Slashdot - plenty of naive speculation and possibility, but absolutely clueless when it comes to reality.
I fear his death would set us back decades.
WTF? I mean seriously... get a grip.
The guy was a good physicist, but what do you think he'd see that others in his field would miss? He wasn't the only one working on black holes and, in reality, most of the stuff coming out of the LHC would be more in the area of quantum gravity, rather than in the macro-scale phenomena he worked on. Also, as far as I know, his output has declined in the past few years already.
He's good, but he's not that good.
... it's certainly a step in the right direction to increase taxes on the top income earners.
Paranoid much? Off your meds? Poor baby.
I [...] would opt out of Social Security in a second if I could.
You will want to opt out of Social Security in a second until you've paid into it for forty+ years and want some of it back out, it's ten years before your retirement, and the market has cratered. Of course, if you would also sign a document stating that we could let you starve in the street (with no complaint from you), should you run out of private funds after your retirement, we'd be OK with that, too.
We may be about to find out what it's like to live under the thumb of corporate fascists and their puppets in government.
About to?
Oddly enough, what you write has no relationship, linguistic or otherwise, to Lisp where, even if there were bindings of the symbols true and false in some context, they still would not equate to the constants T and NIL, whose values cannot be changed.
Now setting the value of nil in Smalltalk to something else - that's good times.